As the largest animals are the best known, and about which there is
the least uncertainty, in this enumeration they shall follow nearly
according to their size.
Elephants belong to the Old World; the largest are found in Asia, and
the smallest in Africa. They are natives of the hottest climates, and,
though they will live, they cannot multiply in temperate ones; they
do not propagate even in their own countries after they are deprived
of their liberty. Though confined to the southern parts of the old
continent their species is numerous. It is unknown in America, nor is
there any animal there that can be compared to it in size and figure.
The same remark applies to the Rhinoceros, which is less numerous than
the elephant; he is confined to the desarts of Africa, and the forests
of southern Asia; nor has America any animal that resembles him.
The Hippopotamus inhabits the banks of the large rivers of India and
Africa, and is less numerous than the Rhinoceros. It is not found in
America, nor even in the temperate climates of the Old Continent.
The Camel and Dromedary, so apparently similar, yet in reality so
dissimilar, are very common in Asia and Arabia, and in all the eastern
parts of the ancient continent. The name of camel has been given to
the Lama and Pacos of Peru, which are so different from the camel as
by some to have been called _sheep_, and by others _camels_ of Peru;
though the pacos has nothing in common with the European sheep but the
wool, and the lama resembles the camel only by the length of its neck.
The Spaniards formerly carried camels to Peru; they left them first
at the Canaries, whence they afterwards transported them to America;
but the climate of the new world does not seem favourable to them, for
though they produced, their numbers have always remained very small.
The _Giraffe_ or _Camelopard_, an animal remarkable for its height,
and the length of its neck and fore legs, is a native of Africa,
particularly Ethiopia, and has never spread beyond the tropics in the
temperate climates of the old continent.
In the preceding article we have seen that the lion exists not in
America, and that the puma of Peru is an animal of a different species;
and we shall now find that the tiger and panther belong also to the old
continent, and that the animals of South America, to whom those names
have been applied, are also different. The real tiger is a terrible
animal, and more, perhaps, to be dreaded than the lion himself. His
ferocity is beyond comparison; but an idea of his strength may be drawn
from his size; he is generally from four to five feet high, and from
nine to fourteen in length, without including his tail; his skin is not
covered with round spots, but with black stripes upon a yellow ground,
which extend across the body, and form rings from one end of the tail
to the other. These characteristics alone are sufficient to distinguish
him from all the animals of prey belonging to the new continent, as
the largest of them scarcely ever exceed the size of our mastiffs. The
leopard and panther of Africa and Asia, though much smaller than the
tiger, are larger than the rapacious animals of South America. Pliny,
whose testimony cannot be doubted (since panthers were daily exposed,
in his time, at the theatres in Rome), indicates their essential
characteristics, by saying, their hair is whitish, diversified
throughout with black spots, like eyes, and that the only difference
between the male and female were the superior whiteness of her hair.
The American animals, which have been called tigers, have a greater
resemblance to the panther, and yet their difference from that species
is very evident. The first is the _Jaguara_, or _Janowra_, a native
of Guiana, Brasil, and other parts of South America. Ray, with some
propriety, calls the animal the Pard, or Brasilian lynx. The Portuguese
call him Ounce, because they had first, by corruption, given that name
to the lynx, and afterwards to the small panther of India; and the
French, without his having the smallest affinity, have called him
tiger. He differs from the panther in size, in the position and figure
of the spots, in the colour and length of the hair, which is frizzled
when young, and never so straight as that of the panther, differing
also in disposition, being more savage, and cannot be tamed; still,
however, the jaguar of Brasil resembles the panther more than any other
animal of the new world. The second we call Cougar, by contracting the
Brasilian name _cougouacou-ara_, and which the French, with still less
propriety, have called the Red Tiger. From the real tiger it differs
in all, and from the panther in most respects, its hair being red, and
without spots; and in the form of its head, and length of his muzzle,
it differs also from them both. A third species, which has also been
called tiger, though equally remote, is the _Jaguarette_, which is
nearly of the size of the jaguar, and resembles him in natural habits,
but differs in some exterior characters. He has been called black
tiger, because his hair is black, interspersed with spots of a still
blacker hue. Besides these three species, and perhaps a fourth, which
is smaller, that have been named after the tiger, there is another
American animal, which appears to have a greater right to it, namely,
the _Cat-pard_, or mountain cat, which resembles both the cat and the
panther. Though smaller than either of the above three animals, it is
larger than the wild cat, which it resembles in figure, but its tail is
much shorter, and it differs also by having its hair diversified with
black spots, long upon the back and round upon the belly. These four
American animals have, therefore, very improperly been named tigers.
The cougar and cat-pard I have seen alive, and am convinced they are
of different species, and still more so from the tiger or panther; and
as for the puma and jaguar, it is evident, from the testimony of those
who have seen them, that the former is not a lion, nor the latter a
tiger, and therefore, without scruple, we may pronounce, that neither
the lion, tiger, nor even the panther, exist in America, any more than
the elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, camel, or the camelopard. All
these species require a hot climate for propagation, and as none of
them exist in the northern regions, it is impossible they should have
had any communication with America. This general fact is too important
not to be supported by every proof; we shall, therefore, continue our
comparative enumeration of the animals of the old continent with those
of the new.
It is generally known, that upon horses being first transported into
America they struck the natives with surprise and terror; and that
this animal has thriven and multiplied so fast, as to have become
almost as numerous there now as it is in Europe. It is the same also
with the ass, which has thriven equally in these warm climates, and
from which mules have been produced, that are more serviceable than
the lamas for carrying heavy loads over the mountainous parts of Chili
and Peru. The Zebra is also an animal of the old continent, and which,
perhaps, has never been even seen in the new; it seems to require a
particular climate, and is found only in that part of Africa which lies
between the Equator and the Cape of Good Hope.
Oxen were unknown in the islands and on the continent of South America.
Soon after the discovery of these countries, the Spaniards transported
bulls and cows to them from Europe. In 1550 oxen were employed, for
the first time, in tilling the ground in the valley of Cusco. On the
continent these animals multiplied prodigiously, as well as in the
islands of St. Domingo, Cuba, Barlovento, &c. and in many places
they even became wild. The species of horned cattle found at Mexico,
Louisiana, &c. which is called the _wild ox_ or Bison, is not produced
from the European oxen. The bison existed in America before our race
was carried thither; and from the latter he is so different as to
authorize the opinion of his being a different species. He has a rise
between his shoulders, his hair is softer than wool, is longer before
than behind, is curled upon the neck and along the spine of the back;
he is of a brown colour, and faintly marked with some whitish spots; he
has also short legs, which, like the head and neck, are covered with
long hair; and the male has a long tail with a tuft of hair at the end,
like that of the lion. These differences seem to be sufficient grounds
for considering the ox and bison of different species, yet I will not
pretend to determine they are so, because the only characteristic which
identifies animals to be of the same species, is their propagating
and producing similar individuals, and which fact has never been
determined between the bison and the oxen of Europe. M. de la Nux, a
member of the royal council of the isle of Bourbon, has favoured me
with a letter, in which he says, the hunched-back ox of that island
propagates with the common horned cattle; and of great advantage would
it be, if persons who live in remote countries would follow the example
of this gentleman, in making experimental observations upon animals.
Nothing could be more easy than for the inhabitants of Louisiana, to
try if the American bison would copulate with the European cow. It
is probable they would produce together, and in that case it would
be ascertained that the European ox, the hunched-backed species of
the isle of Bourbon, the East India bull and American bison, form
only one species. M. de la Nux proved by experiments, that the hunch
is not an essential characteristic, since it disappeared after a few
generations; and I have myself discovered that the protuberance upon a
camel's back, which, though as in the bison, is very common, is not a
constant characteristic, and is probably owing to the healthful state
of the body, as I once saw a sickly camel which had not the smallest
appearance of a lump. As to the other difference, namely, the hair
being more long and soft, that may be entirely owing to the influence
of the climate, as is the case with goats, hares, and rabbits. With
some appearance of probability, it may be supposed, (especially if the
American bison produces with the European cow) that our oxen may have
found a passage over the northern districts to those of North America,
and having afterwards advanced into the temperate regions of this New
World, they received the impressions of the climate, and in time became
bisons. But till the essential fact of their producing together be
fully confirmed, I think it right to conclude that our oxen belong to
the old continent, and existed not in America before they were carried
thither.
To sheep America has no pretensions; they were transported from Europe,
and have thriven both in the warm and temperate climates; but, however
prolific, they are commonly more meagre, and their flesh less juicy and
tender than those in Europe. Brasil seems to be the most favourable to
them, as it is there alone that they are found loaded with fat. Guinea
sheep, as well as European, have been transported to Jamaica, and they
have prospered equally well. These two species belong solely to the old
continent. It is also the same with goats, and those we now meet with
in America in such great numbers, all originated from goats introduced
from Europe. The latter has not, however, multiplied so fast at Brasil
as the sheep. When the Spaniards first carried goats to Peru they were
so rare as to be sold for 110 ducats a piece; but afterwards they
multiplied so prodigiously as to be held of little value but for their
skins; they produce there from three to five kids at a time, while in
Europe they seldom have more than one or two. In all the islands they
are equally numerous as on the continent. The Spaniards transported
them even into the islands of the South Sea; and in the island of Juan
Fernandez their increase became prodigious. But proving a supply of
provisions to the free-booters who afterwards infested those parts, the
Spaniards resolved to extirpate them, and for that purpose put dogs
upon the island, who, multiplying in their turn, not only destroyed all
the goats in the accessible parts, but became so fierce as to attack
even men.
The hogs which were transported from Europe to America succeeded
better, and multiplied faster, than the sheep or goat. The first
swine, according to Garcilasso, sold still dearer than the first
goats. Piso says the flesh of the ox and sheep is not so good at
Brasil as in Europe, but that of the hog, which multiplies very fast,
is better; and Laet, in his History of the New World, affirms that
it is preferable at St. Domingo, to what it is in Europe. In general
it may be remarked, that of all domestic animals which have been
carried from Europe to America, the hog has thriven the best and most
universally. In Canada and in Brasil, which includes the warmest and
coldest climates of the new world, hogs multiply, and their flesh is
equally good; while the goat, on the contrary, multiplies in warm and
temperate climates only, and cannot maintain its species in Canada
without continual supplies. The ass multiplies in Brasil, Peru, &c. but
not in Canada, where neither mules nor asses are to be seen, although
numbers of the latter have been transported thither in couples. Horses
have multiplied nearly as much in the hot as in the cold countries
throughout America; but have diminished in size, a circumstance which
is common to all animals transported from Europe to America; and what
is still more singular, all the native animals of America are much
smaller in general than those of the old continent. Nature in their
formation seems to have adopted a smaller scale, and to have formed man
alone in the same mould. But to proceed in our enumeration:--The hog,
then, is not a native of America, but was carried thither; and he has
not only increased in a domestic state but has even become wild, and
multiplied in the woods without the assistance of man. A species of hog
has also been transported from Guinea to Brasil, which has likewise
multiplied; it is much smaller, and seems to form a distinct species
from the European hog; for although the climate of Brasil is favourable
to every kind of propagation, these animals have never been known to
intermingle.
Dogs, whose races are so varied, and so numerously diffused, were
not found in America, unless in a few rude resemblances, which it is
difficult to compare with the species at large. At St. Domingo, says
Garcilasso, there were little animals called _gosques_, not unlike
little dogs; but there were no dogs like those of Europe. He adds, that
the latter, on being transported to Cuba and St. Domingo, had become
wild, and diminished the number of cattle which had become wild also;
that they committed their devastations in troops of ten or twelve, and
were more destructive than wolves. According to Joseph Acosta, there
were no real dogs in the West Indies, but only an animal resembling
small dogs, called by the Peruvians _alcos_, which attach themselves
to their masters, and seem to have nearly the same dispositions as the
dog. If we may believe Father Charlevoix, who quotes no authority,
"The _goschis_ of St. Domingo were little mute dogs, which served
as an amusement to the ladies, and were also employed in the chace
of other animals. Their flesh was good for eating, and they were of
great benefit to the Spaniards during the first famines, which these
people experienced, so that they would have been exhausted, had there
not been numbers of them afterwards brought from the continent. Of
this animal there were several sorts; of some the hair was straight,
others had their bodies covered with a wool exceedingly soft; but the
greatest number had only a thin covering of tender down. In colours
they exceeded the varieties in the European dogs, forming an assemblage
of all colours, the most lively not excepted."
If this species of the goschis ever existed, especially as described
by Father Charlevoix, why have other authors never mentioned it? why
does it no longer exist? or if in existence, by what means has it lost
all its beautiful peculiarities? It is most likely that the goschis of
Charlevoix, and of which he never found the name but in Father Pers, is
the gosques of Garcilasso; and it is also probable that these gosques
of St. Domingo, and the alcos of Peru, are the same animal; for certain
it is, that of all American animals this has the most affinity to the
European dog. Several authors have considered it as a real dog; and
Laet expressly says, that when the West Indies were discovered they in
St. Domingo employed a small dog in hunting, but which was absolutely
dumb. We observed, in the history of the dog, that he loses the faculty
of barking in hot countries, but instead thereof they had a kind
of howl, and are not like these American animals, perfectly mute.
European dogs have thriven equally well in the hot and cold climates
of America, and of all animals they are held in the highest estimation
by the savages; but they have undergone essential changes, for in hot
countries they have lost their voice, in cold ones they have decreased
in size, and in general their ears have become straight. Thus they
have degenerated, or rather returned to their primitive species, the
shepherd's dog, whose ears are erect, and who barks the least. From
whence we may conclude, that the dog belongs to the old continent where
their nature has been developed in the temperate regions only, and
where they appear to have been varied and brought to perfection by the
care of man, for in all uncivilized countries, and in very hot or cold
climates they are ugly, small, and almost mute.
The Hyæna, which is nearly the size of the wolf, was known to the
ancients, and I have myself seen a living one. It is remarkable for
having an opening between the anus and tail, like the badger, and from
which issues a humour that has a strong smell; also for a long bristly
mane which runs along its neck; and for a voracity which prompts it to
scrape up graves and devour the most putrid bodies.
This horrid animal is only to be found in Arabia, and other southern
provinces of Asia; it does not exist in Europe and has never been found
in the New World.
The jackall, which of all animals not excepting the wolf makes the
nearest approach to the dog though differing in every essential
characteristic, is very common in Armenia and Turkey, and is very
numerous in several other provinces of Asia and Africa; but it is
absolutely unknown in the new world. It is about the size of the fox,
and of a very brilliant yellow; this animal has not extended to Europe,
nor even the northern parts of Asia.
The Genet, being a native of Spain, would doubtless have been noticed
had he been found in America, but that not being the case, we may
consider him as peculiar to the old continent; he inhabits the southern
parts of Europe, and those of Asia under the same latitude.
Though it has been said the Civet was found in New Spain, I am of
opinion it was not the African, or Indian Civet, which yields the musk
that is mixed and prepared with that of the animal called the Hiam of
China; this civet I conceive to belong to the southern part of the old
continent, has never extended to the north, and consequently would not
have found a passage to the New World.
Cats as well as dogs were entire strangers to the New Continent, and
though I formerly mentioned that a huntsman had taken to Columbus a
cat which he had killed in the woods of America, I am now convinced
that the species did not then exist there. I was then less aware of
the abuses which had been made in names, and I acknowledge I am not
yet sufficiently acquainted with animals to distinguish them with
precision in the fictitious and misapplied denominations given them
by travellers. Nor is this to be wondered at, since the nomenclators,
whose researches were directed to this object, have rendered it more
dark and intricate by their arbitrary names and arrangements. To the
natural propensity of comparing things which we see for the first
time, with those already known, and the almost insuperable difficulty
of pronouncing the American names being added, we are to impute this
misapplication of names which have since been productive of so many
errors. It is much more easy, for example, to call a new animal, a
_wild boar_, than to pronounce its name at Mexico, _quab-coya-melt_; to
call another _American fox_, than to retain its Brasilian appellation,
_tamandua-guacu_; to give the name of _Peruvian sheep_, or _camel_, to
those animals which in the language of Peru are called _pelon ichiath
oquitli_. It is the same with almost all the other animals of the New
World, whose names were so strange and barbarous to the Europeans, that
they endeavoured to apply others to them, from the resemblance they had
to those of the old continent, but they were often from affinities too
remote to justify the application. Five or six species of small animals
were named hares, or rabbits, merely because their flesh was palatable
food. They called _cow_ and _elk_ an animal without horns, although
it had no affinity to either, except a small resemblance in the form
of the body. But it is unnecessary at present to dwell upon the false
denominations which have been applied to the animals of America,
because I shall endeavour to point out and correct them when we come to
treat of each of those animals in particular.
We find, then, that all our domestic animals, and the largest animals
of Asia and Africa were unknown in the New World; and the same remark
extends to several of the less considerable species, of which we shall
now proceed to make a cursory mention.
The gazelles, of which there are various kinds, and of which some
belong to Arabia, others to the East Indies, and some to Africa,
all require a hot climate to subsist and multiply, they therefore
never extended to the northern climates, so as to obtain a passage
to America; it appears, indeed, that the African gazelle, and which
Hernandes, in his History of Mexico calls _algazel ex Aphrica_ must
have been transported thither. The animal of New Spain, which the same
author calls _temamaçame_, Seba _cervus_, Klein _tragulus_, and Brisson
the gazelle of New Spain, appears to be a different species to any on
the old continent.
It is natural to conclude, that the Chamois Goat, which delights in
the snow of the Alps, would not be afraid of the icy regions of the
north, and thence might have passed to America, but no such animal
is found there. This animal requires not only a particular climate,
but a particular situation. He is attached to the tops of the Alpine,
Pyrenean, and other lofty mountains, and far from being scattered over
distant countries, he never descends even to the plains at the bottom
of his hills; but in this he is not singular, as the marmot, wild goat,
bear, and lynx, are also mountain animals, and very rarely found in the
plains.
The buffalo is a native of hot countries, and has been rendered
domestic in Italy; he resembles less than the ox, the American bison,
and is unknown in the new continent. The wild goat is found on the
tops of the highest mountains of Europe and Asia, but was never seen
on the Cordeliers. The Musk-animal, which is nearly the size of a
fallow-deer, inhabits only a few particular countries of China and
Eastern Tartary. The little Guinea Deer, as it is called, seems also
confined to the provinces of Africa and the East Indies. The Rabbit,
which comes originally from Spain, and has been diffused over all the
temperate climates of Europe, did not exist in America; for the animals
of that continent which are so called, are of a different species, and
all the real ones were transported thither from Europe. The Ferret,
brought from Africa to Europe, was unknown in America; as were also our
rats and mice, which having been carried there in European ships, have
since multiplied prodigiously.
The following then are nearly all the animals of the old continent,
namely, the elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, camel, dromedary,
giraffe, lion, tiger, panther, horse, ass, zebra, ox, buffalo, sheep,
goat, hog, dog, hyæna, jackall, genet, civet, cat, gazelle, chamois
goat, wild goat, Guinea deer, rabbit, ferret, rat, mouse, loir, lerot,
marmot, ichneumon, badger, sable, ermine, jerboa, the maki, and several
species of monkeys, none of which were found in America on the first
arrival of the Europeans, and which consequently are peculiar to the
Old World, as we shall endeavour to prove in the particular history of
each animal.