[R]With respect to the figures of animals, we have in all cases endeavoured to be more correct than the French edition, by the addition of many original figures accurately studied from the life, and whenever living subjects could not be obtained, by comparing those drawings with preserved figures in different cabinets, by which means we have been enabled to remedy several defects; and in no one more so than in our figure of theElk.
[R]With respect to the figures of animals, we have in all cases endeavoured to be more correct than the French edition, by the addition of many original figures accurately studied from the life, and whenever living subjects could not be obtained, by comparing those drawings with preserved figures in different cabinets, by which means we have been enabled to remedy several defects; and in no one more so than in our figure of theElk.
“The elk (says the compiler of the Memoirs of the Academy) is remarkable for the length of his hair, the bigness of his ears, the smallness of his tail, and the form of his eye, the great angle of which is very wide, as wellas the mouth, which is much larger than that of oxen, stags, or other animals who have cloven feet. The elk which we dissected was nearly of the size of a stag. The length of his body was five feet and a half, from the end of the muzzle to the beginning of the tail, which is only two inches long; as it was of a female, the head had no horns; and the neck was only nine inches long and nearly of the same breadth. The ears were nine inches long, and four wide. The colour of the hair was not much unlike that of the ass, the grey tinge of which sometimes approaches that of the camel; but it differed in other respects, for it was shorter, and from that of the camel, which is much finer. The length of the hair was three inches, and its thickness equalled that of the largest mane of a horse; this thickness gradually diminished towards the extremity which was very pointed; towards the root it also diminished, but, all of a sudden, grew thicker again; and this end was of a different colour from the rest of the hair, being white and diaphanous, like the bristles of a hog. The hair was as long as that of a bear, but straighter, thicker, flatter, and all of the same kind. The upper lip was large and loosened from the gums, but not so large as Solinus has described it, nor as Pliny has given to the animal which he termsmachlis. These authorssay, that this beast is constrained to go backwards when he is at pasture to prevent his lip from entangling between his teeth. We observed in the dissection, that Nature had provided against this inconvenience by the size and strength of the muscles, destined to elevate the upper lip. We also found the articulations of the leg very strongly bound together by ligaments, whose firmness and thickness might have given rise to the opinion that thealcewas not able to raise himself up when once he was down. His feet were like those of the stag, having no peculiarity except that of being larger. We have observed, that the great angle of the eye was slit downwards much more than in the stag, fallow-deer, and roe-buck, but this slit was not in the direction of the opening of the eye, but made an angle with the line which goes from one corner of the eye to the other; the inferior lachrymal gland was an inch and a half long. We found a part in the brain, which, from its size, seemed to point out a connection with that of the smell, which, according to Pausanias, is more exquisite in the elk, than in any other animal; for the olfactory nerves, commonly called thenamillary nocesses, were without comparison larger than in any other animal we ever dissected. As for the bit offlesh which some authors have placed upon his back, and others under his chin, if they have not been deceived, or have not been too credulous, those things were peculiar to those elks of which they have spoken.”
We can add our own testimony to that of the gentlemen of the Academy, for in the female elk, which we saw alive, there was no bunch either under the chin or on the neck; nevertheless, Linnæus, who ought to be acquainted with elks better than we can pretend to be, as he lives in the same country, makes mention of this bunch, and has even given it as an essential character of the elk:Alces cervus cornibus a caulibus palmatis caruncula gutturali. Linnæus, Syst. Nat. Edit. X. p. 66.—There is no other method of reconciling this assertion of Linnæus, with our negation, than by supposing this bunch, orguttural caruncula, to belong to the male elk which we have not seen. But if that be the case, this author should not have made it an essential character of the species, since the female has it not; perhaps also, this bunch is only a common disorder among the elks, a kind of wen; for in the two figures of this animal, given by Gesner, the first, who has no horns, has a thick caruncula under the neck; and in thesecond, which represents a male elk with horns, there is no caruncula.
In general the elk is much larger and stronger than the stag or rein-deer. His hair is so rough, and his hide so hard, that a musket ball can scarcely penetrate it. His legs are very firm, with so much agility and strength, especially in the fore feet, that he can kill a man or a wolf, and even break a tree by one single stroke with his foot. Nevertheless, he is hunted nearly as we hunt the stag, with men and dogs. It is affirmed, that when he is pursued he often falls down all at once, without being either shot or wounded. From this circumstance some have presumed that this animal was subject to the epilepsy, and on this presumption (which is not well founded, since fear alone might produce the same effect) this absurd conclusion has been drawn, that his hoof is a remedy for the epilepsy, and even a preventative against it; and this ridiculous opinion has been so universally dispersed, that many people still wear rings, the collet of which incloses a small piece of the hoof of an elk.
As there are but few people in the northern parts of America, all animals, and particularly elks, are in greater numbers there than in thenorth of Europe. The savages are not ignorant of the art of hunting and taking the elks; they follow them by the track of their feet, and very often for many days together, and by address and perseverance they often gain their end. Their method of hunting them in winter is particularly singular. “They make use of rackets (says Denys), by means of which they walk on the snow without sinking. Theorignaldoes not get forward very fast, because his sinking in the snow greatly fatigues him. He eats nothing but the young shoots of the trees, therefore, where the savages find the trees eaten, they presently meet with the animals, which are never far off, and which they approach very easily. They throw darts at them, which are large clubs, having at the end a large pointed bone, which pierces like a sword. If there be many orignals in one troop the savages put them to flight, for then the orignals, placing themselves in a rank, describe a large circle, sometimes more than two leagues, and which, by frequently traversing, they harden so much with their feet that they no longer sink in. The savages wait for and kill them as they pass, with their darts.” In comparing this relation with those we have already quoted, we find, that the savage and theorignalof America, are exact copies of the Laplander and elk of Europe.
SUPPLEMENT.
M. Allemand, in his edition, has added some remarks respecting the elk and rein-deer, and, among them, says, that M. de Buffon appears to be warranted in the opinion that the elk of Europe is the orignal of North America, and that the only difference between them is in the size; but that most travellers differ from M. de Buffon’s general conclusion, that the latter is the largest. Mr. Dudley, in particular, has described anorignalto the Royal Society, which had been killed by some hunters, that was more than ten feet high; a stature requisite to carry the horns which La Hontan has affirmed to weigh from three to four hundred pounds.
The Duke of Richmond had a female orignal in his park, in the year 1766, which he received as a present from General Carleton,then governor of Canada; it was not more than a twelvemonth old, and was about five feet in height; its back and thighs were of a deep brown, and the belly much lighter; but this animal did not live more than nine or ten months. M. Allemand says, that he received the head of a female orignal from Canada, which was much larger, as it measured, from the end of the muzzle to the ears, two feet three inches, was two feet eight inches round at the ears, and one foot ten inches near the mouth, and its ears were nine inches long; this head being dried was consequently less in its dimensions than when the animal was alive.
In the same manner this gentleman considers M. de Buffon’s opinion, that the caribou of America is the same animal as the rein-deer of Lapland, and he is induced so to do by comparing the drawing of the rein-deer (taken from life by Ridinger) with that of the drawing of an American caribou, sent him by the Duke of Richmond, who had kept one of those animals a considerable time in his park.
To the remarks already given concerning the rein-deer, there is little to add, yet the opportunity must be embraced of giving the figure (fig. 150.) of a female, drawn from life while in the possession of the Prince ofCondé; he received it from the King of Sweden, who also sent him two males, one of which died on his way, and the other almost as soon as he arrived in France. This animal was about the size of a hind, though her legs were somewhat shorter, and in her body she was more bulky. She had also horns like the male, but shorter, and which were separated into antlers, some of them pointing forwards, and others bent backwards. M. de Sevé gave me a very particular description of this animal; he said, the length of the body, from the muzzle to the crupper, was five feet one inch; the height of the withers, two feet eleven inches, and nine lines more at the crupper; the hair was very close, about an inch long on the body, longer on the belly, and very short on the legs; upon the body it was a reddish brown, intermixed in some places with a yellowish white, being of a deeper colour on part of the back, on the thighs, on the top of the head, and on the eye-pits; round the eyes and nostrils were black; the point of the muzzle white; the ears, over which the hair was thick, a yellowish white mixed with brown, the inside of them had long white hairs; the neck, and the long hairs below the breast, and upon the upperpart of the back, were of a yellowish white; the legs and thighs were of a deep brown, and of a greyish white on the insides, of which colour were also the hairs which covered the hoofs; the feet were cloven; the two fore toes being broader than the hind ones; they were all very thin, and extremely black.
No conclusion must be drawn as to the size of the rein-deer’s horns from the figure we have given, as some of them have horns so enormous as to reach back to their cruppers, at the same time branching out above a foot in the front. There can be little doubt but the large fossil horns found in Ireland have belonged to a species of the rein-deer, and of which Mr. Collinson informed me that he had seen some which had an interval of ten feet between their extremities; it must be to this species and not to the elk which the fossil bones of the animal, called mouse-deer, must be attributed. But it must be admitted, that there do not at present exist any rein-deer of sufficient size and strength to carry horns of that magnitude as are found in a fossil state in Ireland, in many parts of Europe, and even in North America. I have lately been informed there are two kinds of the rein-deer, the one considerably largerthan the other, of which I was not acquainted when I gave my former description; the one I referred to, and compared to the caribou of America, and the Greenland fallow-deer, was of the small sort.
It has been asserted by some travellers, that the rein-deer is the fallow-deer of the north; while Pontoppidan says the rein-deer is not able to exist but in the northern regions, and even there they are obliged to dwell on the tops of the highest mountains; this author also asserts that their horns are moveable, that they can turn them about at pleasure, and that over the eyelids they have an opening in the skin, through which they see, when the glare of the snow prevents them from opening their eyes.
Upon almost the slightest motion these animals make a crackling noise; when running, touched, or even surprised, this noise is heard. I have been informed it is the same with the elk but I cannot ascertain it as the fact.
THE WILD, CHAMOIS, AND OTHER GOATS.
Although it appears that the Greeks were acquainted with the wild and chamois goats yet they have not described them by any particular denomination, nor even by characters sufficiently exact by which to distinguish them; they have only mentioned them under the general name ofWild Goats. They probably presumed, that these animals were of the same species as the domestic goats, never having given them proper names, as they have done to every other species of quadrupeds. On the contrary, our modern naturalists have regarded the wild and chamois goats as two real and distinct species, and both different from that of the common goat. There are facts and reasons for and against both opinions, of which we shall give a detail, and wait until it be ascertained whether they intermix together and produce fertile individuals, experience having taught us, that this is the sole criterion on which can the question be decided.
Engraved for Barr’s Buffon
FIG. 151.Chamois Goat.
FIG. 152.Buck of Juda.
The male wild goat differs from the chamois, by the length, thickness, and form of his horns; he is also more bulky, vigorous, and stronger. The female wild goat has smaller horns than the male, and nearly resembling those of the chamois. In other respects, these two animals have the same customs, the same manners, and inhabit the same climate; only the wild goat being more agile, and stronger, climbs to the summits of the highest mountains, while the chamois never goes higher than the second stage; but neither of them are to be found in the plains; both clear their way in the snow, and both bound from one rock to another. Both are covered with a firm solid skin, and cloathed in winter with a double fur, with very rough hair outwardly, and a more fine and thicker underneath. Both of them have a black stripe on the back, and tails nearly of the same size. The number of exterior resemblances in fact is so great, and the conformity of the exterior parts is so complete, that we might be led to believe these two animals were only simple varieties of the same species. The wild, as well as the chamois goats when taken young, and brought up with domestic goats, are easily tamed, imbibe the same manners, herd together, return to the same fold, and probably, copulate and produce together. But this last fact, the most important of all, and which alone would decide the question,is not ascertained.[S]We have never learnt for a certainty whether the wild and the chamois copulate with our goats; we only suppose it, and in this respect agree with the ancients. But our presumption appears founded upon those analogies which experience has seldom contradicted.
[S]Sonnini has an important fact upon this subject. He says that M. Berthoud van Berchem saw mongrels which proceeded from the copulation of a wild goat brought up at Aigle in the Lower Vallais, in the house of the governor of Vatteville, with many domestic goats. All the inhabitants of the town of Aigle were witnesses of this fact.
[S]Sonnini has an important fact upon this subject. He says that M. Berthoud van Berchem saw mongrels which proceeded from the copulation of a wild goat brought up at Aigle in the Lower Vallais, in the house of the governor of Vatteville, with many domestic goats. All the inhabitants of the town of Aigle were witnesses of this fact.
Let us, nevertheless, take a view of the reasons against it. The wild and chamois goats both subsist in a state of nature, and both are constantly distinct. The chamois sometimes comes of his own accord and joins the flock of our domestic kind, but the wild goat never associates with them, at least before he is tamed. The male wild goat and the common he-goat have very long beards and the chamois has none. The male and female chamois have very small horns: those of the male wild goat are so thick and so long, that they would scarcely be imagined to belong to an animal of his size. The chamois also appears to differ from the wild goat and the commonhe-goat, by the direction of his horns, which are inclined a little forwards in their lower parts, and bent backwards at the point in the form of a hook; but, as we have already remarked, in speaking of oxen and sheep, the horns of domestic animals vary prodigiously, as do also those of wild animals, according to the differences of climate. Our female goats have not their horns absolutely resembling those of the male. The horns of the male wild goat are not very different from those of our he-goat; and as the female wild goat approaches the domestic kind, and even the chamois, in size and smallness of the horns, may we not conclude, that the wild, the chamois, and the domestic goat, are, in fact, but one species, in which the nature of the females is invariably alike, while the males are subject to variations? In this point of view, which, perhaps, is not so distinct from Nature as might be imagined, the wild goat would be the male in the original race of goats, and the chamois the female. This is not imaginary, since we can prove by experience, that there are in Nature, animals where the females will equally serve the males of different species, and produce young from both. The sheep produces with the he-goat as well as with the ram, andalways brings forth lambs of its own species; the ram, on the contrary, does not copulate with the she-goat. We may, therefore, look upon the sheep as a female common to two different males, and consequently, constitutes a species independent of the male. It may be the same in that of the wild goat; the female alone represents the primitive species, because her nature is constant; the males, on the contrary, vary, and there is a great appearance that the domestic she-goat, which may be considered as the same female as the chamois and the wild kind, would produce with these three different males, which alone make the variety in the species, and consequently do not alter the identity, although they appear to change the unity of it.
These, like most other possible accounts, must be found in Nature; it even appears, that the females in general contribute more to the support of the species than the males; for though both concur in the first formation of the fœtus, the female, who afterwards alone furnishes all that is necessary to its growth and nutrition, modifies and assimilates it more to her own nature, which cannot fail of effacing the impression of the parts derived from the male. Thus, if we would judge deliberatelyand rationally of a species, the females should be the objects examined. The male gives half of the living substance, the female gives as much, and furnishes besides all the necessary matter for its formation. A handsome woman has almost always fine children; a handsome man with an ugly woman, commonly has children who are still more ugly.
Thus, in the same species, there may sometimes be two races, the one masculine, and the other feminine, both of which subsisting and perpetuating their distinctive characters, seem to constitute two different species; and this is the point where it appears almost impossible to fix the term between what naturalists callspeciesandvariety. Suppose, for example, we should constantly couple he-goats with some sheep, and rams with others; it is evident, that after a certain number of generations, there would be established in the species of the sheep, a breed which would tend greatly towards the goat, and would afterwards perpetuate itself; for, though the first produce with the he-goat would be very little removed from the species of the mother, and would be a lamb and not a kid, nevertheless this lamb would have hair, and some other characteristics of its father. If we afterwards couple the he-goat with thesefemale bastards, the production of this second generation will approach nearer to the species of the father, still nearer in the third, and so on. By this method the adventitious characters would soon prevail over the natural ones, and this fictitious breed might support itself, and form a variety in the species, whose origin it would be very difficult to recognize; therefore what can be done by the influence of the one species on another, may still be more effectually produced by the same species. If strong females have continually only weak males, in course of time, a feminine race will be established; and if very strong males are put to females of inferior strength and vigour, a masculine race will be the result, and will appear so different from the first, as hardly to be allowed to have one common origin, and which consequently will be regarded as really distinct and separate species.
To these general reflections, we shall add some particular observations. Linnæus speaks of two animals which he had seen in Holland, that were of the goat kind; the horns of the first were short, almost resting upon the skull, and its hair was long; the second had erect horns, the points turned back, and the hair short. These animals, which appeared to be morein species than the chamois and the common goat, nevertheless produced together, which sufficiently demonstrates that these differences in the shape of the horns, and length of the hair, are not specific and essential characters; for as these animals produced together, they must be regarded as the same species. From this example we may draw a very probable induction, that the chamois and our goat, whose principal differences consist in the shape of the horns and the length of the hair, are probably one and the same species.
In the royal cabinet there is a skeleton of an animal which was given to the menagerie under the name ofcapricorne; it perfectly resembles the domestic goat in the make of the body and the proportion of the bones, and in the form of the lower jaw, that of the wild-goat; but he differs from both in the horns; those of the wild-goat have prominent tubercles, and two longitudinal ridges; those of the common he-goat have but one ridge, and no turbercles, the horns of the capricorne have but one ridge and no tubercles, but only rugosities which are larger than those of the goat; these differences indicate, therefore, an intermediate race between the wild and the domestic goat. The horns of the capricorne are also short and crooked at the point, like those of the chamois, and, at the same time, they are compressed,and have rings; thus they partake at once of the common goat, the wild goat, and the chamois goat.
Mr. Brown, in his History of Jamaica, relates, that in that island there is actually to be found, 1. The common domestic goat of Europe; 2. The chamois; and 3. The wild goat. He affirms, that neither of these three animals are natives of America, but have been transported from Europe; that they have, like the sheep, degenerated and become smaller in this new country; that the wool of the sheep is changed into a rough hair like that of the goat; that the wild goat appears to be a bastard race, &c. From this we are induced to suppose that the small goat, with erect horns and crooked at the points, which Linnæus saw in Holland, and was said to come from America, is the chamois of Jamaica, that is, the chamois of Europe degenerated, and become less by the climate of America; and that the wild goat of Jamaica, which Mr. Brown calls the bastard wild goat, is our capricorne, which appears to be only a wild goat degenerated, and whose horns might have varied by the influence of the climate.
M. Daubenton, after having scrupulously examined the affinities of the chamois with those of the he-goat and the ram, says, that in general, it resembles more the first than the last; the principal differences besides the hornsare the form and size of the forehead, which is less elevated and shorter in the chamois than in the goat, and the form of the nose, which is more contracted; so that in these two, the chamois bears a greater resemblance to the ram than to the goat. But supposing, for which there is much reason, that the chamois is a constant variety of the species of the he-goat, as the bull-dog and greyhound are fixed varieties in the species of the dog, we shall see that these differences in the size of the forehead and the position of the nose, are not nearly so great in the chamois, relatively to the goat, as in the bull-dog relative to the greyhound, which, nevertheless produce together, and are certainly of the same species. In other respects, as the chamois resembles the goat by a greater number of characters than the ram, if it constitute a particular species, it must necessarily be an intermediate one betwixt the goat and the ram. We have observed, that the he-goat and the sheep produce together, therefore the chamois, which is an intermediate species between the two, and at the same time is much nearer the goat than the ram, by the number of resemblances, ought to copulate with the she-goat and consequently must not be considered but as a variety constant in this species.
As the chamois which was transported to and became less in America, produces with the small goat of Africa, there can be little doubt but he would also produce with the she-goats of the common kind. The chamois, therefore, is only a constant variety in the species of the goat, as the bull-dog is in that of the dog; and, on the other hand, we can scarcely question that the wild goat is the primitive goat in the state of nature and, is with respect to domestic goats, what the muflon is to the sheep. The wild goat exactly resembles the domestic he goat, in figure, conformation, and in natural and physical habits; it only varies by two slight differences the one exterior, the other interior; the horns of the wild goat are larger than those of the common he-goat the former having two longitudinal ridges, and the latter but one; they have also large transverse rings which mark the number of years of their growth, while those of the common he-goats are only marked with transverse strokes. The figure of their bodies is in other respects perfectly alike. The interior part is also similar, excepting the spleen, which is oval in the wild goat, and approaches nearer to that of the roe-buck, or stag than that of the he-goat, or ram. This last difference may proceed from the violentexercise of this animal. The wild goat runs as fast as the stag, and leaps lighter than the roe-buck; the spleen, therefore, ought to be made like that of the swiftest running animals. This difference, then, is owing less to Nature than to custom, and it is to be presumed, that if our domestic he-goats were to become wild, and were forced to run and to leap like the wild goats, the spleen would soon assume the form most convenient to this exercise. With respect to his horns, the differences, though very apparent, do not prevent their more resembling those of the he-goat than of any other animal. Thus the wild and common he-goat approaching nearer to each other than to any other animal, even in this part, which is the most different of all, we must conclude, as they are alike in every other particular, that, notwithstanding this slight and single disagreement, they both are animals of the same species.
I consider, therefore, the wild, the chamois, and the domestic goat, as one species, in which the males have undergone greater varieties than the females; and I find, at the same time, secondary varieties in the domestic kind, which are less equivocal, as they belong equally to the males and females. We have seen that the goats of Angora, though very different from ours, in the hair and horns, are, nevertheless,of the same species. The same may be said of the Juda goat, which Linnæus with much reason has considered as a variety of the domestic species. This goat, which is common in Guinea, Angola, and other parts of Africa, differs from ours only in being smaller, fatter, and more squat; his flesh is also better, and preferred in that country to mutton, as we prefer the flesh of the sheep to that of the goat. It is the same with the Levant, or Mambrina goat,[T]with long hanging ears; which is only a variety of the goat of Angora, who has also hanging ears, but not so long. The ancients were acquainted with these goats, but they did not separate them from the common species. The variety of the Mambrina goat is more diffused than that of the goat of Angora; for we find these very long-eared goats in Egypt, and the East Indies, as well as in Syria; they give plenty of good milk, and which the eastern nations prefer to that of the cow, or female buffalo.
[T]The name of Mambrina goat arises from this animal being common on the mountain of Mambre or Mamre, situated in the southern part of Palestine, near the environs of Herbron. It is the only sort which is diffused over Lower Egypt. It is said that its ears are so long that they drag them on the ground, and that the Orientalists cut one of them that the animal may feed: but this is an exaggeration and an error; the ears do not trail upon the ground, neither are they cut.
[T]The name of Mambrina goat arises from this animal being common on the mountain of Mambre or Mamre, situated in the southern part of Palestine, near the environs of Herbron. It is the only sort which is diffused over Lower Egypt. It is said that its ears are so long that they drag them on the ground, and that the Orientalists cut one of them that the animal may feed: but this is an exaggeration and an error; the ears do not trail upon the ground, neither are they cut.
With respect to the small goat that Linnaeussaw alive, and which produced with the American chamois, it must have, as we observed, been originally transported from Africa; for it so greatly resembles the African he-goat, that we cannot doubt of its being of the same species, or that it, at least, owes its first origin to it. This goat is small in Africa, and would become still less in America; and we know, by the testimony of travellers, that it has for a long time been as customary to transport from Africa, as from Europe into America, sheep, hogs, and goats, whose races still subsist without any other alteration than a diminution in the size.
After having examined the different varieties of goats, and considered them relatively to each other, it appears to me, that of the nine or ten species of which the nomenclators speak, there is, in reality, but one; for instance, 1. The wild he-goat is the principal stock of the species. 2. The capricorne is the wild goat degenerated by the influence of climate. 3. The domestic he-goat derives his origin from the wild he-goat. 4. The chamois is only a variety in the species of the she-goat, with whom he would be able to produce as well as the wild goat. 5. The small goat with erect horns, crooked at the points, which Linnæus speaks of, is the chamois of Europebecome smaller in America. 6. The other small goat with horns lying flat, and which produced with the small chamois of America, is the same as the he-goat of Africa, and the production of these two animals prove, that our chamois and domestic he-goat would also produce together, and are, consequently, of the same species. 7. The dwarf goat, which is probably the female of the African buck, and, like the male, only a variety of the common kind. 8. It is the same with the bucks and she-goats of Juda, they are only varieties of our domestic goats. 9. The goat of Angora is also of the same species, since it produces with our goats. 10. The Membrina goat, with large pendulous ears, is a variety in the race of the goats of Angora. These ten animals, therefore, are only ten different races of one species, produced by the difference of climate.Capræ in multos similitudines, transfigurantur, says Pliny; and in effect, we see by this enumeration, that the goats, although essentially like each other, yet vary much in their external form; and if we should comprehend, with Pliny, under the generic name of Goats, not only all those we have mentioned but also the roe-buck, the gazelle, the antelope, &c. this would be the most extended species in Nature, and contains more kinds and varietiesthan that of the dog. But Pliny was not sufficiently informed of the real differences of species when he joined the roe-buck, antelope, &c. to the species of the goat. These animals, though bearing much resemblance to the goat in many respects, yet are different species; and we shall see, from the following articles, how much the antelopes vary, both in species and races; and after enumerating all the goats and all the antelopes we shall find many animals still remain, which participate of both. In the whole history of quadrupeds I find nothing more difficult to explain, nor more confused or uncertain, than the accounts given by travellers of goats, antelopes, and other species which have an affinity to them. I have exerted all my endeavours, and employed all my attention, to throw some light upon it, and shall not regret my labour, if what I now write may contribute to prevent errors, fix ideas, and bring forth the truth, by extending the views of those who would study Nature.—But to our subject.
All goals are liable to vertigos; this disease is also common to the wild and chamois goats, as well as the inclination to climb up rocks, and the custom of continually licking stones, especially those which are impregnated withnitre or salt. In the Alps are rocks which have been hollowed by the tongues of the chamois; these are commonly composed of soft and calcinable stones, in which there is always a certain quantity of nitre. These natural agreements, these conformable customs, appear to be sufficient indexes of the identity of species. The Greeks, as we have said, did not separate these into three different species; and our hunters, who, probably, never consulted the Greeks, have always looked upon them as the same species. Gaston Phœbus, when speaking of the wild goat, particularises him under the name of the wild buck; and the chamois, which he callsysarusandsarris, is also, according to him, but another wild goat. I own that all these authorities do not make a complete proof, but by uniting them with the facts and reasons we have produced, they form such strong presumptions upon the unity of the species of these three animals, that we can harbour no doubt on the subject.
The wild and chamois goats, one of which I look upon as the male, and the other as the female stock of the goat kind, are only found, like the muflon, who is the stock of the sheep, in deserts, and in the most craggy and highest mountains. The Alps, the Pyrennees, themountains of Greece, and those in the islands of the Archipelago, are almost the only places where the wild and the chamois goats are to be found. But although both dislike heat and inhabit the regions of snow and ice, yet they have also an aversion to excessive cold. In summer, they chuse the north side of the mountains; in winter they move to the southern and even descend from the summits. Neither can support themselves on their legs upon the ice when it is smooth, but if there be the least inequalities on its surface, they bound along with security.
The chace of these animals is very laborious, and dogs are almost useless in it. It is likewise very dangerous, for the animal finding himself hard pushed will turn and strike the hunter with his head, and sometimes throw him over a precipice. The chamois is as swift, though not so strong, as the wild goats; they are more numerous, and commonly go in herds; they are not, however, so numerous as they were formerly, at least in our Alpine and Pyrenean mountains.
M. Peroud, surveyor of the chrystal mines in the Alps, brought over a living chamois, and gave the following excellent information on the natural habits and manners of this animal.“The chamois is a wild animal, yet very docile; he inhabits only rocks and mountains. He is about the size of a domestic goat, and resembles him in many respects. He is most agreeably, lively, and active beyond expression. His hair is short like that of the doe; in spring it is of an ash-colour; in summer rather yellow; in autumn a deep yellow mixed with black, and in winter of a blackish brown. The chamois are found in great numbers in the mountains of Dauphiny, Piedmont, Savoy, Switzerland, and Germany: they live sociably together, and are found in flocks of from eight to fifteen or twenty, and sometimes they are seen to the number of from sixty to a hundred dispersed in small flocks upon the crags of a mountain. The large males keep separate from the rest, except in their rutting-time, when they approach the females. During this time they have a very strong smell; they bleat often and run from one mountain to another. The time of their coupling is from the beginning of October to the end of November, and they bring forth in March and April. The young female receives the male at a year and a half old. The young follow the dam for about five months, and sometimes longer, if the hunters, or the wolves,do not separate them. It is asserted that they lire between twenty and thirty years. Their flesh is very good, and some of the fattest afford ten or twelve pounds of suet, which is better and harder than that of the goat. The blood of this animal is extremely hot, and is said to approach very nearly to that of the wild goat in its qualities and virtues, and may prove of the same service, for the effects are the same when taken in a double quantity: it is reckoned very good against pleurisies, a great purifier of the blood, and a restorative of perspiration. The hunters very often mix the blood of the wild and chamois goats together, and sometimes they sell the blood of the wild goat for that of the chamois. It is very difficult to distinguish the one from the other, which proves there can be but very little difference in them. The cry of the chamois is not distinct but faint, and resembling that of a hoarse domestic goat: it is by this cry they collect together, and by which the mother calls her young. But when they are frightened, or perceive an enemy, or any object which they cannot distinguish, they warn the rest of the flock by a kind of whistling noise. The chamois has a very penetrating sight, and his hearing and smell are not less discriminating. When he sees a man near he stops for amoment, and then flies off with the utmost speed. When the wind is in its favour he can smell a human creature for more than half a mile distance; therefore when he hears or scents any thing which he cannot see, he begins to whistle or blow with such force that the rocks and the forests re-echo the sound; if others are within hearing they are all alarmed; this whistling continues as long as the breath will permit: in the beginning it is very shrill, and deeper towards the close. The animal then rests a moment, after the alarm, to inspect farther into the danger, and having confirmed his suspicion, he commences his whistling, and continues it, by intervals, till it has spread the alarm to a great distance. During this time he is most violently agitated; he strikes the ground with his feet; he bounds from rock to rock; he turns and looks round; leaps from one precipice to another; and when he obtains a sight of his enemy he flies from it with all speed. The whistling of the male is more acute than that of the female: it is performed through the nostrils, and is no more than a very strong blowing, and resembles the noise which a man would make by fixing his tongue to the palate, keeping the teeth nearly shut, the lips open, and a little lengthened, and blowing with all his force. Thechamois feeds on the best herbage, and chuses the most delicate part of plants, as the flowers and most tender buds. He is not less fond of several aromatic herbs, which grow upon the side of the Alps. He drinks very little while he feeds upon the succulent herbage. He ruminates like the common goat. The food he makes use of strongly marks the warmth of his constitution, as do his large eyes, which are admired for their roundness and sparkling, and the vivacity of his disposition. His head is crowned with two small horns, of about half a foot long; they are of a beautiful black, and rise from the forehead almost betwixt the eyes, and, instead of bending backwards like other animals, they jet forward above the eyes, and bend backward at the extremities in a small circle, and end in a very sharp point. His ears are placed in a very elegant manner near the horns, and there are stripes of black on each side of the face, the rest being of a whitish yellow, which never changes. The horns of this animal are often made use of for the heads of canes; those of the female are less, and not so much bent; and some farriers make use of them for bleeding cattle. The hides of these animals are very strong, nervous, and supple, and when dressed, excellent breeches, vests, andgloves, are made of them; this sort of cloathing is very durable, and of very great service to labouring men. The chamois is a native of cold countries, and generally prefers craggy rocks and high places; they indeed frequent the woods, but it is only those in the highest regions, where the forests consist of firs, larch, and beech trees. These animals have so much dread of heat, that in summer they are only to be found in the caverns of rocks amidst fragments of congealed ice, or in forests where the high and spreading trees form a shade for them, or under rough and hanging precipices that face the north, where the rays of the sun seldom disturbs them. They go to pasture both morning and evening, but seldom during the day. They traverse over rocks with great facility, where the dogs cannot follow them. There is nothing more wonderful than to see them climbing and descending precipices, inaccessible to all other quadrupeds. They mount and descend always in an oblique direction, and throw themselves down a rock of twenty or thirty feet, and alight with great security. In descending they strike the rock with their feet, three or four times, to stop the velocity of their motion; and when they have got upon the base below, they at once seem fixed and secure. In fact, to see themthus leaping among the precipices, they seem rather to have wings than legs, so great is the strength of their nerves. Some writers have pretended that they use their horns for climbing and descending the precipices. I have seen and killed many of these animals, but I never saw them use their horns for that purpose, nor have I ever found any hunter who could confirm this assertion. The chamois ascends and descends precipices with great ease, by the agility and strength of his legs, which are very long; the hind ones being somewhat the longest and always crooked, assist them in throwing themselves forwards, and are of great service by breaking the force of the fall. It is asserted, that when they feed, one of them is deputed to stand sentinel for the security of the rest. I have seen many flocks of these animals, but never observed that to be the case. It is certain that when there are a great number of them there will always be some looking about while the rest are grazing; but there is nothing in this particularly distinguishable from a flock of sheep; for the first who perceives any danger warns all the rest, and in an instant the terror with which he is struck spreads through the whole flock. During the rigours of winter, and in the deep snows, the chamois retreats tothe lower forests, and feeds upon the pine-leaves, buds of trees, bushes, or such dry or green shrubs and grass as they can discover by scratching off the snow with their feet. The more craggy and uneven the forest, the more this animal is pleased with its abode. The hunting of the chamois is very difficult, and laborious. The most usual way is by hiding behind some of the clefts of the rocks, and shooting them as they pass; for this method the sportsman is obliged to take great precaution in concealing himself; observing, at the same time, to keep the wind in his face. Others hunt this animal as they do the stag, by placing some of the hunters at all the narrow passages, while others beat round to alarm the game. Men are more proper for this sort of hunting than dogs, who when employed, often disperse the chamois too soon, when they immediately fly to a considerable distance; the men also find it a dangerous sport, for when the animal observes his retreat shut up, he directly makes at the hunter with his head, and frequently knocks him down.”
With regard to the specific virtues attributed to the blood of the wild goat, in the cure of certain diseases, especially in the pleurisy, a virtue thought to belong particularly to thisanimal, and which would indicate it to be of a particular nature, it is now known that the blood of the chamois, and also of the domestic he-goat, has the same properties when fed on the same aromatic herbs; so that even by this property these three animals appear to be united in the same species.