placing poisoned meat in their way, and in localities in which they
abound, destroy them for their skins by hundreds, wolves would need
to be much less sagacious than they are, if what was noticed by Lord
Milton and his companion was not true as a matter of course. “These
animals,” the account says, “are so wary and suspicious that they will
not touch a bait lying exposed, or one that has been recently visited.”
John Mortimer Murphy (“Sporting Adventures in the Far West”) had seven
years’ experience of the way in which wolves were shot, trapped,
poisoned and coursed. The conclusion he came to from those observations
which he relates so well, was that the wolf in such localities, “large,
gaunt, and fierce as it looks, is one of the greatest cowards known.”
He omitted to mention--but Godman has rectified the oversight--that
wolves carry their natural cowardice to such an extent, and are so
exceedingly dubious concerning what man may do, that a few pinches
of powder scattered about dead game, or an article of clothing left
near it,--in short, any evidence of the presence of a human being will
prevent them from approaching it.
There are several ways of writing natural history, and this is one of
them. It would seem, nevertheless, that if a plan could be adopted
for looking upon the general organization of wild beasts as in a
great measure determining their characters, and for considering, if
possible, anomalous traits as most probably intimately connected with
peculiarities in their situation, we might no longer feel confounded
at finding that sentient creatures are not the same under dissimilar
circumstances. If brutes could be considered to have some knowledge of
themselves, to act like brutes and to feel like them, without reference
to any human opinions whatever, forthcoming literature of this kind
would be benefited.
In those parts of the world where the wolf comes in contact with people
not well prepared to receive him, his attitude towards mankind is
aggressive. In Eastern Europe, for example, Austria, Hungary, Bohemia,
and through the Danubian states generally, wolves occupy quite a
distinguished position for dangerousness, and the inhabitants regard
them with any other feeling than that of contempt. Captain Spencer
(“Turkey, Russia, the Black Sea, and Circassia”), while passing through
that vast forest which separates the more settled tracts of Moldavia
from the Buckowina, was besieged in a half-ruined chalet with his
companions, and the pack continued their attack all night, and lost
heavily.
The coyote,--_Canis latrans_,--that thieving creature which is often
found intermingled with the gray and other coated wolves on the great
plains of North America, has been by some writers--Colonel Dodge, for
example--discriminated from the prairie wolf as a separate species.
Those differences which exist between them, however, have little
classificatory value. Contrasts in size, dissimilarities in color,
marking, and the growth of hair, are all seen in the common wolf,
of which this is “a distinct but allied species,” with northern and
southern varieties.
“There is,” says Schoolcraft, “something doleful as well as terrific
in the howling of wolves.” When people speak of the jackal’s howl,
they commonly call it “unearthly,” but a coyote’s voice is much more
singularly diabolical, and his intonations are so hideously suggestive
of all that is weird and devilish, that it stands by itself among
natural sounds, and cannot be compared with the outcry of any other
creature. Murphy describes it as follows: “The voice seems to be a
combination of the long howl of the wolf and the yelp of the fox;
but so distinctly marked is it from either, that, once heard, it is
never forgotten. The coyote has the strange peculiarity of making the
utterance of one sound like that of many; and should two or three try
their larynxes at the same time, persons would fancy that a large
pack was giving tongue in chorus. The cry appears to be divided into
two parts. It first begins with a deep, long howl, then runs rapidly
up into a series of barks, and terminates in a high scream, issued
in prolonged jerks.” According to conventional opinions, elephants
among wild animals, and dogs among those that have been domesticated,
occupy the highest places in order of intelligence. The author does not
believe this to be the case with respect to the first named species,
and so far as pure intellect goes “Die reinen Vernunft,” no dog can
probably surpass _Canis latrans_. Professor Huxley also reports that
he can find no essential difference between their skulls. While these
animals may be equal, however, in absolute capacity, the coyote,
considered according to civilized standards of manners, is the kind of
creature that if any dog were to take after, he would be incontinently
shot or hanged.
His idea of good conduct is to get what he can honestly procure when
driven to straightforward courses, but by preference to steal it, as
being less troublesome. He is astute beyond comparison in nefarious
practices, and has sense enough to howl with derision (as he sometimes
seems to do) if it could be explained to him that mankind were capable
of judging his behavior according to any other rule of life than his
own. _Homo sapiens_, in a highly evolved state, is imbued with the
truly noble idea that he is the centre of creation, and that all living
things are admirable in proportion as they approach himself. He calls
the coyote a “miserable cur,” “a barking thief,” and says sarcastically
that the brute has kleptomania. Savage man, on the contrary, esteems
him greatly. The two are much alike in many respects. We have already
seen that this little wolf has been adopted as the tutelar of gentes
among Pueblo Indians, and southern tribes of the Tinneh stock, and
its prominence is scarcely less with those of the northwest coast of
America. They honor the coyote; their myths and folk-lore record its
good qualities and wisdom. To them it is the incarnation of a deity or
a demon (these are nearly the same), and it is never killed, for fear
that ill luck might be sent by the spirit of which this animal is the
representative.
Under these happy auspices coyotes hang around native encampments
and villages, interbreed with Indian dogs, grow fat on salmon cast
upon river banks in the spawning season, hunt all that smaller game
which their more powerful relations resort to for supplies only when
hard pressed, and omit to take advantage of no opportunity to gain
possession of provisions which are not theirs. The opinion they
have of the human race is that it exists for their advantage, and
mankind, further than it contributes to their support, is an object of
indifference to them.
More to the south, and in the vicinity of white settlers, the coyote
is oppressed and persecuted; subjected to like usage with that which
the common wolf receives. This state of things is of course accompanied
by changes in character that are not less marked than in the wolf’s
case. It becomes nocturnal in habit, flies from the face of man, and
is one of the most wary, timid, and suspicious of animals. At the same
time its cunning grows greater as the necessity for self-preservation
becomes more pressing, and in the same measure in which it is pursued
does its capacity for evasion enlarge. Speed, endurance, wind, and
invention, all develop themselves. Unlike wolves, whose homes and
breeding-places are commonly in caves or clefts of rock, beneath trees
or within any natural recess, coyotes dig burrows in the open, and are
seldom or never inmates of forests.
As the species approaches its southern limit, the average size
decreases and its color changes. In Mexico, where they are seldom
molested, these brutes prowl a good deal during the day; they pack
likewise more commonly than further north, and if smaller, are also
bolder and less upon their guard.
In Algeria or Oran an Arab knew when the lion was coming by the
jackal’s cry; Brazilian Indians tell one that they can trace a jaguar’s
way at night through the barking of foxes, and it is said by shikáris
in India that a prowling tiger’s path may be known by a peculiar
howl which his frequent attendant--the kind of jackal called _Kole
baloo_--utters on such occasions. The coyote also gives warning of
the approach of foes that are oftentimes more dangerous than either
lions or tigers. But it is by its silence that danger is announced.
In a position where hostile Indians were to be expected at any time,
when the coyote ceased its cries, it was an ominous thing, and
frontiersmen looked out for the appearance of a war party. Everybody
who has been much on the border is probably acquainted with this very
general belief, and it may perhaps be founded in fact; but this much is
certain, that these creatures do not always become quiet when Indians
are about, for the author has more then once heard them howl--coyotes,
not savages who were imitating them--when it was known for certain
that Indians were near, and when the fact of their presence was soon
proved.
Coursing coyotes is a favorite sport with many persons in the West, and
while the weather is cool and dry they often make good runs; otherwise,
the game soon succumbs to heat, or to a serious impediment in the way
of escape--its own tail. This is carried low, and despite his long
hind legs and powerful quarters, the brush gathers so much mud in deep
ground as seriously to embarrass flight.
In those localities where this race exhibits indications of much
timidity, it will be found that every destructive device of man’s
ingenuity is practised against it; even to taking advantage of a
harmless weakness for assafœtida in the matter of preparing poisoned
baits. All this makes certain associations of ideas inevitable, and
special impressions upon his mind things of course. At the same time,
no mortal knows precisely what these are.
Where no such experiences of human malice and duplicity color the
coyote’s character, its conduct is quite different. Under those
circumstances it does not fly from imaginary perils. Even when fired at
it shows no unseemly haste to leave; but if the shot be repeated, then
the hint is always taken, and it vanishes. Most persons who have become
personally acquainted with them must have had occasion to observe that
where they have been subjected to the worst that man can do, their
dexterity in the way of robbery is not more striking than the audacity
by which it is accompanied. It seems difficult to reconcile the idea
of any instinctive fear of man with the conduct of an animal that
will steal through a line of sentinels into a military encampment,
and carry off food from beside watch-fires. They do this; they do
everything that requires enterprise, judgment, and skill, and this to
an extent that, in the mind of an unprejudiced savage, has gained them
a place among his gods.
Once the writer saw as much of the temper of coyotes in their natural
state towards man as it is possible for anybody to see at one time.
It befell that he was badly hurt in front of General Treveño’s
cavalry brigade, then holding the line of the Rio Caña Dulce. When
consciousness returned, horse and arms were gone, and the bushes
around swarmed with these wolves. There may not, however, have been
so many as there appeared to be, for the animals moved in and out of
cover constantly, and the same one was probably seen several times.
The thirst that always follows hemorrhage, and the heat of the sun,
were distressing, neither was it pleasant to be an object of so much
attention to a troop like this, while almost completely disabled. An
overhanging bank lay near, and was reached with great difficulty. Here
one could lean up against the side and contemplate them from a shady
place. They behaved very curiously, and if the attendant circumstances
had been at all conducive to mirth, their spiteful antics, the
pretences of attack they made, and the absurd way in which some of
them assumed an air of boldness, and apparently sought to inspire
their companions with resolution, would no doubt have been amusing. It
was abundantly shown that these creatures looked upon the inert and
blood-soaked individual before them as a prey, and were consequently
in a high state of excitement. Their eyes sparkled and the long hair
around their necks bristled; they made short runs at and around the
position, they pushed each other, and howled in every cadence of their
infernal voices; also some individuals showed the rest how the thing
ought to be done. A rush would have been at once fatal, but it was not
made. Nevertheless, they grew bolder, and when relief arrived, had for
the most part gathered around in the open. What would have happened
when night came, or whether anything, the writer does not pretend to
say.
THE GRIZZLY BEAR
Bears are included by zoölogists in that order whose typical forms
are, besides themselves, the dog, cat, and seal, and they belong to
the higher of those sub-orders into which this group of carnivora has
been divided. _Ursidæ_ hold a middle place among bear-like beasts, and
although their generic history is not so complete as that of others,
Dr. Lund’s discoveries in Brazilian bone-caves brought to light a
fossil form that Wallace regards as representative of an existing
American species. Their palæontological record carries them far back
among the fauna of earlier geological periods, and connects the
sub-ordinal section which contains existing arctoids with insect-eating
and pouched vertebrates on one side, and on the other, with the
precursors of monkeys, apes, and men.
In their most general structural traits bears possess the
characteristic features of all carnivores--their abbreviated
digestive tract, developed muscular systems and sense organs, and
highly specialized teeth. At the same time this genus is considerably
modified, and on that account bears were placed among _Fissipedia_,
which are practically omnivorous. Finally, _Ursidæ_ are plantigrades
with muscles fused in plates, and so exhibit the ungainliness, the
awkward and comparatively slow and restricted movements peculiar to the
genus.
[Illustration: THE GRIZZLY BEAR.
[_From a photograph by Ottomar Anschütz. Copyright._]]
Geographically they are nearly cosmopolitan. Their species, although
not numerous, inhabit arctic and tropical regions, and live in the
lowlands of Europe, Asia, and America, as well as among the mountains
of both continents.
The grizzly bear is confined to the New World, and there is distributed
from about 68° north to the southern border of the United States,
chiefly in the main chain of the Rocky Mountains and on their eastern
and western slopes, but also among the ranges between these and the
Pacific. It has been called by many names. Lewis and Clark, who may
be said to have discovered this animal, speak of it indifferently as
the white and brown bear. Cuvier said he was not satisfied that any
specific distinction existed between the latter and our grizzly, which
has also been identified with Sir John Richardson’s “barren-ground”
species of the Atlantic area. Audubon supposes _Ursus horribilis_ to
have formerly inhabited this province, but the only basis for such an
opinion is found in his interpretation of some Algonkin traditions. The
present title--horrible, frightful, or terrible bear--is a translation
into Latin of George Ord’s name _grisly_, given in 1815. As it is
commonly written, however, its significance is lost, the reference
being to color instead of character. Dr. Elliott Coues and others
have remarked upon this discrepancy, but it is now too late to make a
change. The naturalist Say (“Long’s Expedition to the Rocky Mountains”)
first described this species, although its physical features are well
given by Captains Lewis and Clark, and it was mentioned before their
time. Since then the animal’s dimensions have been often and also
differently determined. Lockwood (“Riverside Natural History”) very
properly gives no ultimate decision. Lord Dunraven (“The Great Divide”)
speaks of having shot “a middling-sized beast weighing about eight
hundred pounds.” Richard Harlan (“Fauna Americana”) says that the
animal’s “total length is 8 feet 7 inches and 6 lines; its greatest
circumference 5 feet 10 inches; the circumference of its neck 3 feet
11 inches, and the length of its claws 4 inches 5 lines.” Captain
Lewis measured tracks “eleven inches long and seven and a half wide,
_exclusive_ of the claws,” which are reported by different observers to
be of all lengths between four and seven inches; and the truth is that
no one has been in a position to pronounce definitely on a single point
respecting this animal’s weight and size. It is the largest and most
powerful beast of prey in the world. So much may be said confidently,
but beyond that data for positive statements are not extant.
With regard to the grizzly bear’s habits, they are variable, like the
color of his coat, which may at one time and place justify the name
he bears, and at another be almost black. _Ursus horribilis_ preys
upon all the large game of North America; he is, as H. W. Elliott
(“Our Arctic Province”) observes, “a most expert fisherman,” and
appears to be equally partial to wild fruits and carrion. These brutes
consume large quantities of mast, they dig up the _pomme blanche_
and other tubers and roots, and it is said that their relatives of
the black species are sometimes devoured. Nothing edible comes amiss
to a grizzly, from the larvæ of insects to spoiled salmon, or from
buffalo-berries to the animal itself. But it must be admitted that
accurate information is wanting upon many particulars connected with
his way of life. Hibernation, for example, which is a trait varying
greatly in its completeness among species of different genera,
appears to be absent in this case. These animals go about both by day
and night, in cold weather as much as in warm. There are perfectly
reliable accounts of their having been encountered at all seasons, and
in situations which were peculiarly favorable for going into winter
quarters if the animal had desired to do so.
Again, the grizzly’s exploits as a hunter are involved in much
obscurity. It does not require great skill for him to catch buffalo,
or supply himself with beef on a cattle range. The _Bovidæ_ in general
are not particularly intelligent, and no doubt an ambuscade which might
be successful with them is managed without much difficulty. With deer,
however, it is not the same. Caribou and elk, the black and white
tailed _Cervidæ_, are not to be had by any man without a previous
acquisition of considerable knowledge, without the power to put this
in practice according to varying circumstances, and without great
practical dexterity in several directions. Bears are not exempt from
the requirements pointed out. All that is true of instinct restricts
itself in every instance of efficiency to the fact that transmitted
faculty makes acquisition rapid and promotes the passage of deliberate
into automatic action. Apart from the advantages he possesses in this
way, a grizzly bear needs to learn in the same way as a man. There are
occasions constantly occurring in which mind must be exercised in a
manner such as experience has not prepared him to meet, and where the
animal acts well or ill, successfully or unsuccessfully, according to
his individual capacity.
John D. Godman (“American Natural History”) calls it “savage and
solitary.” All the more powerful beasts of prey might be similarly
characterized. The influence of organization, inherited tendencies,
and their daily life, indispose creatures of this kind towards
association. Moreover, they are most generally rivals in their usual
habitats, both as hunters and as suitors during the pairing season.
We have no accounts, like those given of lions and tigers, to show
how males behave toward each other under the antagonisms implied in
contact, but everything points towards conflict. Still, as there are
conditions which bring the former together in certain localities, so
grizzlies sometimes congregate. Möllhausen (“Diary of a Journey from
the Mississippi to the Pacific”) reports that at Mount Sitgreaves,
and in its surrounding eminences, their dens were so numerous that
Leroux (a famous guide and hunter of those days) had never seen the
same “numbers living together in so small a space.” They had all gone
when Möllhausen’s party was there, owing to the freezing of waters in
that vicinity. Those places where they had tried to break the ice were
often found, and many trails well marked in snow showed that the bears
had “made their journey to the south in troops of eight or more,” each
detachment going in single file.
Nevertheless, “Old Ephraim,” as mountain men call him, having inspired
all who ever penetrated into his haunts with a wholesome respect,
has naturally been exposed to misconstructions. His character is
frequently represented as more fierce and morose than it really
is. Writers say of him that he will not tolerate the presence of a
black bear, or the variety of this species, according to Baird, the
“cinnamon,” in his neighborhood. They tell how their boundaries are
sharply defined, and remark that occasionally small numbers of these
less formidable members of the family live as enclaves within the
grizzlies’ territories, but are rigorously confined to their own limits.
This is one of those wholesale statements with which descriptive
zoölogy is full. No doubt there are plenty of grizzly bears that would
kill any poaching relative of theirs unlucky enough to encounter them.
As a general fact in natural history, however, the theory of the
separateness of distribution among American _Ursidæ_ will not stand.
Many direct observations show it to be otherwise, and Schwatka (“Along
Alaska’s Great River”) is fully supported in saying that he doubts the
truth of this statement from his own experience. On Cone Hill River he
saw “four or five black and brown bears in an open or untimbered space
of about an acre or two.”
There are spots in India appropriately called “tigerish.” Any one who
knows the beast’s ways would naturally look for it in these sites.
But it is very doubtful if the physical features of localities have
much to do with selection by this species, apart from the fact that
when he feels himself to be in danger, a grizzly gets into the most
inaccessible position possible. He loves cover under all circumstances,
although it is not uncommon in secluded situations to find these
animals far out in open country; but timber and brush seem to be more
or less accidental accessories so far as his preference is concerned.
The animal needs a constant supply of water, and if this can be had,
broken and intricate ravine systems suit it as well as thickets or
forest land. Its partiality for swamps depends upon their productions,
and the fact that game is apt to be found in them. Independently of
special considerations of any kind, the propensity to conceal itself is
a natural and necessary outgrowth of the habits and character of all
predatory creatures. They do so universally, and a grizzly, like the
rest, much prefers a wind-row, precipitous arroyo, or brake, to any
plain whatever which is not overgrown in some way.
Grizzly bears do not climb trees. They are said to shake them in order
to procure fruit, and also for the purpose of dislodging men who have
taken refuge among their branches; in general, however, the animal sits
up and claws down the boughs within reach.
Probably that conventional expression, the “bear hug,” has no
significance anywhere. Some bears hug tree stems in ascending trunks
adapted to their embrace, but Asiatic species of all kinds simply sink
their claws into the bark of boles they would be utterly unable to gain
any hold upon otherwise, and climb like cats. This arctoid is too heavy
for that; he is over-sized, in fact, like the greater _Felidæ_, for any
arboreal gymnastics. The writer can find no reliable evidence to show
that this or any other bear attempts to inflict injury by straining the
body of an enemy within its arms. A grizzly will grasp and hold a man
or beast while biting, or striking with the claws of its hind feet,
and blows from its forearm are delivered as frequently and not less
effectually than is customary with the lion, but beyond teeth, talons,
and concussion, no authentic mention is made of modes by which its
victims are put to death.