OF MULES.
[From the ſupplementary Volume.]

WE ſhall retain the name of Mule to the animal produced by the jack-aſs and mare; and to that procreated between the horſe and ſhe-aſs, we ſhall give the denomination of bardeau. The differences which ſubſiſt between theſe two mongrel animals have never hitherto been marked by any author. Theſe differences, however, afford the moſt certain criterion of diſtinguiſhing the relative influence of males and females in the product of generation. A compariſon of theſe two mules, and other mon⯑grels proceeding from a mixture of different ſpecies, will give us more preciſe ideas concern⯑ing this relative influence, than could be obtain⯑ed by ſimply comparing two individuals of the ſame ſpecies.

[2] The bardeau is much ſmaller than the mule, and ſeems to preſerve the dimenſions of its mo⯑ther, the ſhe-aſs; and the mule retains the di⯑menſions of the mare. Hence, in mixed ſpe⯑cies, the ſize of the body appears to depend more upon the mother than the father. Now, theſe two animals differ in figure. The neck of the bardeau is thinner, the back ſharper, and the crupper more pointed; while the fore-head of the mule is better ſhaped, the neck more beau⯑tiful, the ſides rounder, and the crupper more plump. Hence both of theſe animals retain more of the mother than of the father, not only in magnitude, but in figure of body. This remark, however, does not apply to the head, limbs, and tail. The head of the bardeau is longer, and not ſo thick in proportion as that of the aſs; and the head of the mule is ſhorter and thicker than that of the horſe. Hence, in the figure and dimenſions of the head, they have a greater reſemblance to the father than to the mother. The tail of the bardeau is garniſhed with hair nearly in the ſame manner as that of the horſe; and the tail of the mule is almoſt naked, like that of the aſs. In this extreme part of the body, therefore, the ſimilarity to the father pre⯑dominates. The ears of the mule are longer than thoſe of the horſe; and the ears of the bardeau are ſhorter than thoſe of the aſs. The limbs of the mule are hard and limber, like thoſe of the horſe; and the limbs of the bardeau are [3] more fleſhy. Hence theſe two animals, in the form of the head, limbs, and other extremities of the body, have a greater reſemblance to the father than to the mother.

In the years 1751 and 1752, I made two he⯑goats copulate with ſeveral ewes, and I obtain⯑ed nine mules, ſeven males and and two females. Struck with this difference between the number of males and females, I endeavoured to diſcover whether the number of male mules, produced by the aſs and mare, predominated in the ſame proportion. The information I received did not aſcertain this point; but I learned that the num⯑ber of male mules always exceeded that of the females. The Marquis de Spontin-Beaufort made a dog intermix with a ſhe-wolf, and pro⯑cured four mules, three of which were males^*. In fine, having made inquiries concerning mules which are more eaſily obtained, I learned, that the number of males greatly exceeded that of the females. In the article, Canary-birds ^†, I remarked, that of nine young produced between a gold-finch and a Canary-bird, there were only three females. Theſe are the only certain facts I could collect on this ſubject^‡, which merits [4] more attention than it has yet received; for the myſteries of generation by the concourſe of dif⯑ferent ſpecies, and the aſcertaining of the pro⯑portional effective powers of males and females in every kind of reproduction, can alone be de⯑veloped by an aſſemblage of ſimilar facts.

Of my nine mules produced by the he-goat and the ewes, the firſt was brought forth on the 15th day of April. When examined three days [5] after birth, and compared with lambs of the ſame age, it differed from them in the following particulars: The ears, upper part of the head, as well as the diſtance between the eyes, were larger. It had, beſides, a band of whitiſh gray hair from the nap of the neck to the extremity of the tail. The four legs, the ſuperior part of the neck, the breaſt, and belly, were covered with the ſame white, coarſe hair. There was a ſmall quantity of wool upon the flanks only; and even this ſhort, curled wool, was mixed with a great deal of hair. The legs of this mule were alſo a foot and a half longer than thoſe of a lamb of the ſame age. When examined, eighteen days after birth, the white hairs were partly fallen off, and replaced by brown hairs, ſimilar in colour to thoſe of the he-goat, and nearly as coarſe. The limbs continued to be more than a foot and a half longer than thoſe of the lamb; and, on account of this length of limbs, it did not walk ſo well as the lamb. This lamb was killed by an accident; and I took no far⯑ther notice of the mule till four months after⯑ward, when I compared it with a ſheep of the ſame age. In the mule, from the ſpace between the eyes to the extremity of the muzzle, the di⯑ſtance was at leaſt an inch ſhorter than in the ſheep; and the head of the mule was more than half an inch broader, at the broadeſt part. Hence the head of this mule was thicker and ſhorter than that of a ſheep of equal age. The curva⯑ture [6] of the upper jaw, taken from the corner of the mouth, was near half an inch longer in the mule than in the ſheep. The head of the mule was not covered with wool, but with long, buſhy hair. The tail was two inches ſhorter than that of the ſheep.

In the beginning of the year 1752, I obtained, from the union of a he-goat with ewes, eight o⯑ther mules, ſix of which were males, and two females. Two of them died before I could ex⯑amine them; but they ſeemed to reſemble thoſe who ſurvived. Two of them, a male and a fe⯑male, had four teats, two on each ſide, like thoſe of the goats. In general, theſe mules had long hair on the belly, and particularly about the pe⯑nis, as in the he-goat, and alſo on the feet, and particularly thoſe behind. Moſt of them had the chanfrin leſs arched than is common to lambs, the diſtance between the hoofs larger, and the tail ſhorter.

Under the article Dog, I related ſome experi⯑ments made with a view to procure an intermix⯑ture between a dog and a wolf, where all the precautions employed for that purpoſe were a⯑bortive^*. The concluſion drawn from theſe ex⯑periments was in the following words: 'I pre⯑tend not abſolutely to affirm, that the wolf, in no age or country, never intermixed with dogs. The contrary is aſſerted poſitively by the antients. Ariſtotle remarks, that, though [7] animals of different ſpecies ſeldom intermix; yet it certainly happens among dogs, foxes, and wolves.' I have ſince learned the propri⯑ety of being thus cautious in my concluſions; for M. le Marquis de Spontin-Beaufort has ſuc⯑ceeded in the junction of a dog and a wolf. I was informed of this fact by M. Surirey de Boiſ⯑ſy, in a letter which he wrote me in the follow⯑ing terms:

In my anſwer to this letter, I thanked M. de Boiſſy, and added ſome remarks, with a view to remove my doubts. M. le Marquis de Spon⯑tin having ſeen my anſwer, obligingly wrote me in the following terms:

My doubts are entirely removed, and I am happy to embrace this opportunity of expreſſing my thanks. The eſtabliſhment of a rare fact in natural hiſtory is a great acquiſition. The means of obtaining ſuch facts are always difficult, and often, as we have ſeen, very dangerous. It was for this laſt reaſon that I fequeſtered my wolf and dog from all ſociety. I had formerly rear⯑ed a young wolf, who, till the age of twelve months, did no miſchief, and followed his ma⯑ſter [12] like a dog. But, in the ſecond year, he committed ſo many exceſſes that it was neceſſa⯑ry to kill him. I learned by experience, that theſe animals, though ſoftened by education, re⯑ſume, with age, their natural ferocity. Willing to prevent theſe inconveniences, I kept my ſhe⯑wolf always confined along with the dog; and I acknowledge that this method of procuring an union between them, was ill imagined; for, in this ſtate of ſlavery and diſguſt, the diſpoſitions of the wolf, inſtead of being ſoftened, were ſoured to ſuch a degree, that ſhe was more fe⯑rocious than if ſhe had been at full liberty; and the dog, having been early detached from his equals, and from the ſociety of men, had aſſu⯑med a ſavage and cruel character, which the bad humour of the wolf ſerved only to augment; ſo that, during the two laſt years, their antipa⯑thy roſe to ſuch a degree, that they deſired no⯑thing ſo much as to devour each other. In the experiment made by the Marquis de Spontin, every circumſtance was reverſed. The dog was in his ordinary condition: He had all the mild⯑neſs and other qualities which this docile animal acquires by his intercourſe with man. The wolf was likewiſe reared in perfect freedom and fa⯑miliarity along with the dog, which, by being under no reſtraint, had loſt his repugnance to her; and ſhe, by the ſame mild management, became ſuſceptible of attachment to him. She, therefore, received him with cordiality, whenever [13] the hour of Nature ſtruck: And, though ſhe ſeemed to complain and to ſuffer, ſhe felt more pleaſure than pain; for ſhe allowed the opera⯑tion to be repeated every day, during all the time ſhe was in ſeaſon. Beſides, the proper moment for this unnatural union was ſeized. The wolf felt the impreſſion of love for the firſt time. She was only in the ſecond year of her age; and, of courſe, had not entirely reſumed her natural ferocity.

All theſe circumſtances, and perhaps ſome others which were not obſerved, contributed to the ſucceſs of this fertile embrace. From what has been remarked, it would appear, that the moſt certain method of rendering animals un⯑faithful to their ſpecies, is to place them, like man, in ſociety, and to accuſtom them gradual⯑ly to individuals which, without ſuch precau⯑tions, would not only be indifferent, but hoſtile to each other. However this matter ſtands, the Marquis de Spontin has aſcertained the fact, that the dog can produce with the wolf even in our climates. I could have wiſhed that the ſucceſs of this experiment had induced its author to try the union of a wolf with a bitch, and of foxes with dogs. But if this deſire ſhould be conſider⯑ed as exorbitant, he muſt aſcribe it to the inſa⯑tiable enthuſiaſm of a naturaliſt^*.

[14] But to return to our mules. In thoſe I ob⯑tained from the he-goat and ewe, the number of males was as ſeven to two; in thoſe from the dog and ſhe-wolf, the males were as three to one; and, in thoſe from the goldfinch and Ca⯑nary bird, the mules were as ſixteen to three. It appears, therefore, to be certain, that the number of males, which is always greater than that of females in pure ſpecies, is ſtill greater in mixed ſpecies. Hence, the male, in general, has a greater influence on the produce of gene⯑ration than the female, becauſe he tranſmits his ſex to the greateſt number, and becauſe the number of males augments in proportion to the remoteneſs of the ſpecies who intermix. The ſame thing muſt happen in the conjunction of different races: By croſſing the remoteſt of theſe, we will not only procure the moſt beautiful productions, but the greateſt number of males. [15] I have often endeavoured to inveſtigate the rea⯑ſon why any religion, or any government, ſhould prohibit the marriage of brothers and ſiſters. Did men learn, by very antient expe⯑rience, that the union of brother and ſiſter was leſs fertile than an intermixture with ſtrangers, or that the former produced fewer males, and feebler and more unhandſome children? It is certain, however, that, from a thouſand experi⯑ments, both in men and the other animals, croſſing the breed is the only mode of ennobling and preſerving the perfection of the ſpecies.

To theſe facts and experiments, let us add what the antients have ſaid upon this ſubject. Ariſtotle tells us, that the mule engenders with the mare, and that the junction produces an ani⯑mal which the Greeks called hinnus or ginnus. He likewiſe remarks, that the ſhe-mule eaſily conceives, but ſeldom brings the foetus to per⯑fection ^*. Of theſe two facts, the ſecond is more rare than the firſt; and both happen only in warm climates. M. de Bory, of the royal aca⯑demy of Sciences, and formerly governour of the American iſlands, communicated to me a re⯑cent fact of this kind, in a letter, dated May 7. 1770, of which the following is an extrat.

This certificate is judicially atteſted, and ſign⯑ed by witneſſes of unqueſtionable veracity. The ſubſtance of it is, that, on the 14th day of May 1769, M. de Nort, Knight of St Louis, and late Major of the Royal Legion of St Domingo, had a ſhe-mule brought to him, which was ſaid to be ſick; that her belly was remarkably large, and a membrance protruded through the vagina. M. de Nort, believing the animal to be inflated, ſent for a Negro farrier, who had been accuſtom⯑ed to take care of diſeaſed animals; that this Negro, who arrived in the abſence of M. de Nort, had thrown down the mule, in order to give her a draught; that, the moment after the fall, ſhe brought forth a young mule, perfectly formed, and covered with long and very black hair; that the young mule lived an hour; but that, having been both hurt by the fall, and foal died ſoon after birth, and the mother ten hours after; and, in fine, that the young mule was ſkinned, and the ſkin ſent, ſays M. de Nort, to Doctor Matty, who depoſited it in the Muſaeum of the Royal Society at London.

[17] Other eye-witneſſes, and particularly M. Caza⯑vant, ſurgeon, add, that the young mule ſeemed to have been mature, and well formed; that, from the appearance of its hair, head, and ears, it had a greater reſemblance to the aſs than com⯑mon mules; that the paps of the mother were ſwelled, and full of milk; that, when the igno⯑rant Negro perceived the feet iſſuing from the vagina, he drew ſo forcibly as to invert the uterus, and lacerate the parts, which occaſioned the death of both mother and foal.

Theſe facts, which appear to be well aſcer⯑tained, demonſtrate, that, in warm climates, the mule is not only capable of conception, but of bringing the foetus to full maturity. From my correſpondents in Spain and Italy, I learn, that ſimilar events have happened in theſe countries: But the facts are not ſo completely authenticated. It ſtill remains to be inquired, whether this St Domingo mule was impregnated by an aſs or a mule. The ſuperior reſemblance of the young mule to the former ſeems to indicate, that ſhe had been covered by an aſs. The ferocious ar⯑dour of the aſs renders him very indifferent in the choice of females, and makes him attack, with nearly the ſame avidity, the ſhe-aſs, the mare, and the mule.

We may, therefore, conſider it as an eſtabliſh⯑ed fact, that the he-mule can generate, and the ſhe-mule produce. Like other animals, they have a ſeminal liquor, and all the organs neceſ⯑ſary [18] to generation. But mongrel animals are always leſs fertile, and more tardy than thoſe of a pure ſpecies. Beſides, mules have never pro⯑duced in cold climates, ſeldom in warm regions, and ſtill more ſeldom in temperate countries^*. Hence their barrenneſs, without being abſolute, [19] may be regarded as poſitive; ſince their produc⯑tions are ſo rare, that a few examples only can [20] be collected. But men were wrong in aſſerting that mules were abſolutely barren, and that all animals proceeding from a mixture of different ſpecies were, like the mules, incapable of pro⯑ducing. The facts formerly related concerning the produce of a he-goat and a ewe, of a dog and a ſhe-wolf, and of Canary birds and gold-finches, demonſtrate, that theſe mongrels are by no means barren, and that ſome of them are equally pro⯑lific with their parents.

It is an unhappy circumſtance, that a ſmall, and often nominal error, extends over every ob⯑ject to which it has any relation, and at laſt not only becomes in an error in fact, but gives riſe to a general prejudice, that is more difficult to re⯑move than the particular opinion from which it originated. A ſingle word, a name like that of mule, which ought ſolely to repreſent the idea of the animla proceeding from the aſs and mare, has been improperly applied to the ani⯑mal produced by the horſe and the ſhe-aſs, and afterward, with ſtill greater impropriety, to all quadrupeds, and all birds, of mixed ſpecies: And, [21] as this word mule, in its original acceptation, in⯑cluded the idea of the barrenneſs common to the animal proceeding from the aſs and mare, this idea of barrenneſs has been conveyed to all be⯑ings who have the denomination of mules; I ſay to all beings; for, independent of quadru⯑peds, birds, and fiſhes, mule plants have been fancied, to which, without heſitation, this gene⯑ral ſterility has alſo been aſcribed. None of theſe beings, however, is abſolutely barren. The mule, properly ſo called, or the animal produced by the aſs mare, is not abſolutely barren; but its prolific powers, when compared with thoſe of pure ſpecies, or even with thoſe of other animals of a mixed ſpecies, are much more feeble and uncertain.

All mules, ſays Prejudice, are vitiated ani⯑mals, incapable of producing: No animal, ſays Reaſon and Experience, though proceeding from two ſpecies, is abſolutely barren. It ought to be remarked, however, that, in pure, as well as mixed ſpecies, the degrees of fertility are very different. In the firſt, ſome, like the fiſhes and inſects, multiply, annually, by millions; others, as the birds and ſmall quadrupeds, produce by twenties and dozens; in fine, others, as man, and the larger quadrupeds, produce only one in twelve months. The number produced may be ſaid to be in the inverſe proportion of the mag⯑nitude of animals. The horſe and aſs bring forth but one in a year; and, in the ſame pe⯑riod, [22] the mouſe and Guinea pig produce thirty or forty. Hence the fecundity of theſe ſmall animals is thirty or forty times greater; and, if a ſcale were formed of the different degrees of fertility, the ſmall animals above enumerated would occupy the higheſt points, while the horſe and aſs would be found nearly in the loweſt; for the elephant alone is leſs fertile.

In mixt ſpecies, there are alſo differnt de⯑grees of fecundity; for animals proceeding from two ſpecies partake of two natures, and are, in general, leſs fertile; and this want of fertility increaſes in proportion to the infecun⯑dity of the parents. Hence, if the horſe and aſs, two animals naturally not very fertile, mix, the original infecundity, inſtead of diminiſhing in the mongrel race, muſt be augemented. The mule will not only be leſs fertile than its parents, but, perhaps, the moſt unfertile of all mongrels; becauſe all the other mules which produce, ſuch as thoſe proceeding from the he-goat and ewe, from the goldfinch and Canary bird, &c. are much more fruitful than the aſs and horſe. It is to this original and particular cauſe, that the infe⯑cundity of the mule and bardeau ſhould be re⯑ferred. A ſecond cauſe, ſtill more particular, renders the laſt animal leſs prolific than the firſt. The mule proceeding from the aſs and mare re⯑tains the ardent temperament of the father, and, of courſe, poſſeſſes a high degree of prolific power; while the bardeau proceeding from the [23] horſe and aſs is, like its father, leſs potent, and leſs able to engender. Beſides, the mare being leſs ardent than the ſhe-aſs, is likewiſe more fer⯑tile, ſince ſhe conceives and retains with more certainty. Thus every circumſtance concurs in rendering the mule more prolific than the bar⯑deau; for ardour of temperament in the male, which is ſo neceſſary to ſucceſsful generation and the number produced, is hurtful in the fe⯑male, and almoſt always prevents conception and retention.

This fact holds generally both in man and the other animals. Cold women, joined to ardent men, produce a number of children. A woman, on the contrary, who feels too acutely the emo⯑tions of love, is ſeldom fertile. But, in moſt women who are merely paſſive, the effect is more certain; becauſe the fruit of generation is leſs diſturbed by the convulſions of pleaſure. Theſe are ſo marked, and ſo deſtructive to conception, in ſome females, ſuch as the ſhe⯑aſs, that ſhe requires cold water to be thrown on her crupper, and even heavy blows, in or⯑der to repreſs them. Without ſuch diſagreeable aids, the ſhe-aſs would never be impregnated, till age abated the fury of her paſſion. The ſame means are ſometimes employed to make mares conceive.

But, it may be ſaid, that female dogs and cats, who ſeem to be more ardent than the mare and ſhe-aſs, never fail to conceive; and, there⯑fore, [24] that the fact advanced concerning the in⯑fecundity of females whoſe feelings are exqui⯑ſite, is too general, and admits of many excep⯑tions. But the example of dogs and cats, in⯑ſtead of being an exception, is rather a confir⯑mation of the general rule; for, in the bitch, however violent the convulſions of the internal organs may be ſuppoſed, they have full time to be appeaſed during the long interval between conſummation and the retreat of the male, who cannot detach himſelf till the turgidity and irri⯑tation of the parts ſubſide. The female cat is in a ſimilar ſituation. Of all females, ſhe ap⯑pears to be the moſt ardent in her amours; for ſhe calls to the males with lamentable cries, which announce the moſt preſſing neceſſity. But, as in the dog, from a particular conforma⯑tion of the male cat, this violent female never miſſes conception. Her deſires, which are exceſ⯑ſive, are neceſſarily tempered with a pain almoſt equally acute. The glans of the male cat is co⯑vered with large ſharp prickles. The intro⯑miſſion of it, therefore, muſt be extremely pain⯑ful to the female, who announces her ſufferings by loud cries. The pain is ſo great, that ſhe inſtantly makes every effort to eſcape, and the male, to retain her, is obliged to ſeize her by the neck with his teeth, and to compell ſubmiſſion from the very female who had invited his em⯑braces

[25] In domeſtic animals, who are well fed and taken care of, multiplication is greater than in thoſe who continue in a wild ſtate. Of this we have an example in domeſtic dogs and cats, who produce ſeveral times every year; but, when in a natural ſtate, they produce only once in the ſame period. Domeſtic birds furniſh an example ſtill more ſtriking: Can the fecundity of any ſpecies of wild birds be compared to that of a well fed hen, when properly ſerved with a cock? And, even in the human ſpecies, what a vaſt difference betwen the ſcanty propagation of ſa⯑vages, and the immenſe population of civilized nations, under the adminiſtration of a wiſe go⯑vernment? But we here confine ourſelves to the fecundity natural to animals in full poſſeſſion of liberty, the relative fertility of whom is exhi⯑bited in the following Table, from which ſome important concluſions may be drawn.

[30] This is the order in which Nature has preſent⯑ed to us the different degrees of fecundity in quadrupeds; and from it we perceive, that this fecundity diminiſhes in proportion to the mag⯑nitude of the animal. In general, this ſame ſcale of fecundity extends to all the other tribes of animated Nature. Small birds are more prolific than the larger kinds. The ſame thing holds in fiſhes, and perhaps in inſects. But, confining our remarks to quadrupeds alone, it appears from the above table, that the hog is the only excep⯑tion to the general rule; for, from the ſize of his body, he ſhould be ranked with thoſe ani⯑mals which produce only two or three, once in twelve months, while, in fact, he is equally pro⯑lific with the ſmall quadrupeds.

This table contains all that is known with re⯑gard to the fertility of pure ſpecies. But the fecundity of mixed ſpecies, which is always leſs than that of the pure, merits particular atten⯑tion. The reaſon will be apparent, by ſuppo⯑ſing, for example, that all the males in the horſe ſpecies, and all the ſhe-aſſes, or, rather, all the jack-aſſes and all the mares, were deſtroyed: In this caſe, thoſe mixed animals alone, which we call mules and bardeaux, would be produced; and the number brought forth would be much fewer than that of horſes or aſſes; becauſe the natural conformities or relations between the horſe and ſhe-aſs, or between the jack-aſs and mare, are leſs than between the horſe and mare, or the male [31] and female aſs. It is the number of conformi⯑ties and diſſimilarities which conſtitutes or diſtin⯑guiſhes ſpecies; and, ſince the ſpecies of the aſs has at all times been ſeparated from that of the horſe, it is apparent, that, by mixing theſe two ſpecies, whether by means of females or males, we diminiſh the number of conformities which conſtitute the ſpecies. Hence the males will en⯑gender and the females produce ſeldomer, and with more difficulty; and even thoſe mixed ſpecies, if their conformities were fewer, would become entirely barren. Mules of every kind, there⯑fore, muſt be rare; becauſe it is only from be⯑ing deprived of its natural female, that any ani⯑mal will intermix with a female of a different ſpecies. Even when mongrel animals approach each other with ſome degree of warmth, their produce is neither ſo certain nor ſo frequent as in pure ſpecies, where the number of conformi⯑ties is greater. Now, the produce of mixed ſpe⯑cies will be leſs frequent, in proportion to the infecundity of the pure ſpecies from whom they proceed; and the produce of animals proceed⯑ing from mixed ſpecies will always diminiſh in proportion as they recede from the original ſtock; becauſe the conformities between them and any other animal are augmented. For example, I am perſuaded, from the reaſons above aſſigned, that an intercourſe between two bardeaux would be abortive. Beſides, theſe animals proceed from two ſpecies which are not very fertile, and are [32] alſo under the influence of the ſame cauſs which often prevent the ſhe-aſs from conceiving with her own male. I am more uncertain with re⯑gard to the ſterility of mules properly ſo called; becauſe they are not liable to the laſt cauſe of barrenneſs; for, as the mare conceives more ea⯑ſily than the ſhe-aſs, and the jack-aſs is more ar⯑dent than the horſe, their reſpective prolific pow⯑ers are greater, and their produce not ſo rare as that of the ſhe-aſs and horſe. The mules, of courſe, will be leſs barren than the bardeaux. I ſuſpect, however, that two mules never engen⯑der; and I preſume, even from the examples of fertile mules, that they owe their impregnation to the aſs, rather than to the mule; for we ought not to regard the he-mule as the natural male of the ſhe-mule, though they both have the ſame name, or rather, differ only in ſex.

To explain this matter, let us ſuppoſe an or⯑der of kindred in ſpecies, like that which takes place in families. The horſe and mare will be brother and ſiſter in ſpecies, and parents in the firſt degree. It is the ſame with the male and female aſs. But, if the male aſs is given to the mare, they are only counſins in ſpecies, or kin⯑dred in the ſecond degree. The mule produced by them, participating one half of both ſpecies, will be removed to the third degree of kindred. Hence the male and female mule, though pro⯑ceeding from the ſame father and mother, in⯑ſtead of being brother and ſiſter in ſpecies, are [33] only kindred in the fourth degree; and, of courſe, will produce more difficultly between themſelves, than the jack-aſs and mare, who are kindred ſpecies in the ſecond degree. For the ſame reaſon, the male and female mules will not produce ſo eaſily between themſelves, as with the mare or aſs; becauſe the kindred of the latter in ſpecies is only in the third degree, while that of the former is in the fourth degree. The infe⯑cundity, which appears in the ſecond degree, ſhould be more conſpicuous in the third, and perhaps abſolute in the fourth.

In general, kindred of ſpecies is one of thoſe myſteries of Nature, which man can never un⯑ravel, without a long continued and difficult ſe⯑ries of experiments. How can we otherwiſe learn, than by the union of different ſpecies of animals many thouſand times repeated, the de⯑gree of their kindred? Is the aſs more allied to the horſe than the zebra? Does the wolf ap⯑proach nearer to the dog than the fox or jackal? At what diſtance from man ſhall we place the large apes, who reſemble him ſo perfectly in con⯑formation of body? Are all the ſpecies of ani⯑mals the ſame now that they were orginally? Has not their number augmented, inſtead of be⯑ing diminiſhed? Have not the feeble ſpecies been deſtroyed by the ſtronger, or by the tyran⯑ny of man, the number of whom has become a thouſand times greater than that of any other large animal? What relations can be eſtabliſhed be⯑tween [34] kindred ſpecies, and another kindred ſtill better known, that of different races in the ſame ſpecies? Does not a race, like the mixed ſpecies, proceed from an anomalous individual, which forms the original ſtock? In the dog ſpe⯑cies, there is, perhaps, a race ſo rare, that it is more difficult to procreate than the mixed ſpecies proceeding from the aſs and mare. How many queſtions does this ſubject admit of; and how few of them are we in a condition to reſolve? How many facts muſt be diſcovered before we can even form probable conjectures? However, inſtead of being diſcouraged, the philoſopher ought to applaud Nature, even when ſhe is moſt myſterious, and to rejoice that, in proportion as he removes one part of her veil, ſhe exhibits an immenſity of other objects, all worthy of his reſearches. For, what we already know ought to point out what may ſtill be known. There is no boundary to the human intellect. It ex⯑tends in proportion as the univerſe is diſplayed. Hence man can and ought to attempt every thing: He wants nothing but time to enable him to ob⯑tain univerſal knowledge. By multiplying his obſervations, he might foreſee all the phaeno⯑mena and all the events of Nature with equal certainty, as if he deduced them from their im⯑mediate cauſs: And what enthuſiaſm can be more pardonable, or rather more noble, than to believe that man is capable, by his labours, to [35] diſcover all the powers and myſteries of Na⯑ture!

Theſe labours conſiſt chiefly in making obſer⯑vations and experiments, from which we diſco⯑ver new truths. For example, the union of animals of different ſpecies, by which alone we can learn their kindred, has never been ſuffi⯑ciently tried. The facts we have been able to collect concerning this union, whether volun⯑tary or forced, are ſo few, that we are not in a condition to aſcertain the exiſtence of jumars. This name was firſt given to mules ſaid to have proceeded from the bull and mare; but it has likewiſe been applied to denote mongrels alledged to have been procreated by the jack-aſs and cow. Dr Shaw tells us, that, in the provinces of Tu⯑nis and Algiers, 'there is a little ſerviceable beaſt of burden, called Kumrah, begot betwixt an aſs and a cow. That which I ſaw at Al⯑giers (where it was not looked upon as a rari⯑ty) was ſingle hoofed like the aſs, but diſtin⯑guiſhed from it in having a ſleeker ſkin, with the tail and the head (though without horns) in faſhion of the dam's^*.

Thus we have already two kinds of jumars, the one proceeding from the bull and mare, and the other from the jack-aſs and cow. A third is mentioned by Merolle, and is pretended to proceed from the bull and ſhe-aſs. ‘'There was a beaſt of burden which proceeds from [36] the bull and ſhe-aſs, and is obtained by cover⯑ing the aſs with a cow's ſkin, in order to de⯑ceive the bull^*.'’

But I am equally doubtful concerning the ex⯑iſtence of all the three kinds of jumar; though I pretend not to deny the poſſibility of the fact. I have even enumerated ſome facts which prove an actual copulation between animals of very different ſpecies: But their embraces were ineffec⯑tual. Nothing ſeems to be more remote from the amiable character of the dog than the brutal manners and inſtinct of the hog; and the form of their bodies is as different as their natural diſ⯑poſitions. I have ſeen, however, two examples of a violent attachment between a dog and a ſow. Even during this very ſummer 1774, a large ſpaniel diſcovered a violent paſſion for a ſow which was in ſeaſon: They were ſhut up together for ſeveral days; and all the domeſtics were witneſſes of the mutual ardour of theſe two animals. The dog exerted many violent efforts to copulate with the ſow; but the diſſimilarity of their organs prevented their union^†. The ſame thing happened ſome years before^‡. Hence animals, though of very different ſpecies, may contract a ſtrong affection to each other; for it is certain, that, in the above examples, nothing prevented the union of the dog and ſow but the [37] conformation of their organs. It is not equally certain, however, that, if conſummation had ta⯑ken place, production would have followed. It often happens, that animals of different ſpecies ſpontaneouſly unite. Theſe voluntary unions ought to be prolific, ſince they imply that the natural repugnance, which is the chief obſtacle, is ſurmounted, and alſo a conformity between the organs. No fertility, however, has reſulted from ſuch commixtures. Of this an example recently paſſed before my own eyes. In 1767, and ſome ſucceeding years, the miller at my eſtate of Buffon kept a mare and a bull in the ſame ſtable, who contracted ſuch a paſſion for each other, that, as often as the mare came in ſeaſon, the bull covered her three or four times every day. Theſe embraces were repeated during ſe⯑veral years, and gave the maſter of the animals great hopes of ſeeing their offspring. Nothing, however, reſulted from them. All the inhabi⯑tants of the place were witneſſes to this fact, which proves, that, in our climate at leaſt, the bull cannot procreate with the mare, and renders this firſt kind of jumar extremely ſuſpicious. I have not equal evidence to oppoſe to the ſecond kind, which Dr Shaw ſays proceeds from the jack-aſs and cow. I acknowledge, that, though the diſ⯑ſimilarities in ſtructure appear to be nearly e⯑qual in both caſes, the poſitive teſtimony of a traveller ſo well informed as Dr Shaw, ſeems to give a greater degree of probability to the exiſt⯑ence [38] of this ſecond kind of jumar than we have for the firſt. With regard to the third jumar, proceeding from the bull and ſhe-aſs, I am per⯑ſuaded, notwithſtanding the authority of Merolle, that it has no more exiſtence than the one ſup⯑poſed to be produced by the bull and mare. The nature of the bull is ſtill farther removed from that of the ſhe-aſs, than from that of the mare: And the unfertility of the mare and bull, which is aſcertained by the above examples, ſhould apply with greater force to the union of the bull and aſs.

The NOMENCLATURE of APES.

TO teach children, and to addreſs men, are two very different taſks. Children receive, without examination, and even with avidity, the arbitrary and the real, the true and the falſe, whenever they are preſented to them under the form of precepts. Men, on the contrary, re⯑ject with contempt all precepts which are not founded on ſolid principles. We ſhall, there⯑fore, adopt none of thoſe methodical diſtribu⯑tions by which, under the appellation of Ape, a multitude of animals, belonging to very different ſpecies, have been huddled together in one in⯑diſcriminate maſs.

What I call an ape is an animal without a tail, whoſe face is flat, whoſe teeth, hands, fingers, and nails reſemble thoſe of man, and who, like him, walk erect on two feet. This definition, derived from the nature of the animal itſelf, and from its relations to man, excludes all animals who have tails; all thoſe who have prominent faces or long muzzles; all thoſe who have crook⯑ed or ſharp claws; and all thoſe who walk more willingly on four than on two legs. According to this preciſe idea, let us examine how many ſpecies of animals ought to be ranked under the denomination of ape. The antients knew only [40] one. The pithecos of the Greeks, and the ſimia of the Latins, is a true ape, and was the ſubject upon which Ariſtotle, Pliny, and Galen inſti⯑tuted all the phyſical relations they diſcovered between that animal and man. But this ape, or pigmy of the antients, which ſo ſtrongly re⯑ſembles man in external ſtructure, and ſtill more ſtrongly in its internal organization, differs from him, however, by a quality, which, though rela⯑tive in itſelf, is not the leſs eſſential. This qua⯑lity is magnitude. The ſtature of man, in ge⯑neral, exceeds five feet; that of the pithecus, or pigmy, never riſes above one fourth of this height. Hence, if this ape had been ſtill more ſimilar to man, the antients would have been ju⯑ſtified for regarding it only as an homunculus, an imperfect dwarf, a pigmy, capable of combating with cranes; while man knew how to tame the elephant and conquer the lion.

But, ſince the diſcovery of the ſouthern re⯑gions of Africa and India, we have found another ape poſſeſſing this quality of magnitude; an ape as tall and as ſtrong as man, and equally ardent for women as for its own females; an ape who knows how to bear arms, to attack his enemies with ſtones, and to defend himſelf with clubs. Beſides, he reſembles man ſtill more than the pigmy; for, independent of his having no tail, of his flat face, of the reſemblance of his arms, hands, toes, and nails to ours, and of his walk⯑ing conſtantly on end, he has a kind of viſage [41] with features which approach to thoſe of the human countenance, a beard on his chin, and no more hair on his body than men have, when in a ſtate of nature. Hence the inhabitants of his country, the civilized Indians, have not he⯑ſitated to aſſociate him with the human ſpecies, under the denomination of Orang-outang, or wild man; while the Negroes, almoſt equally wild, and as ugly as theſe apes, who imagine not that civilization exalts our nature, have gi⯑ven it the appellation of Pongo, which is the name of a beaſt, and has no relation to man. This orang-outang or pongo is only a brute, but a brute of a kind ſo ſingular, that man cannot behold it without contemplating himſelf, and without being thoroughly convinced that his bo⯑dy is not the moſt eſſential part of his nature.

Thus, we have diſcovered two animals, the pigmy and the orang-outang, to which the name of ape ought to be applied. There is a third, to which, though more deformed both in relation to man and to the ape, this appellation cannot be refuſed. This animal, which till now was unknown, and was brought from the Eaſt Indies, under the name of gibbon, walks on end, like the other two, and has a flat face. He likewiſe wants a tail. But his arms, inſtead of being pro⯑portioned to the height of his body, like thoſe of man, the orang-outang, or the pigmy, are ſo enormouſly long, that, when ſtanding on his two feet, he touches the ground with his hands, [42] without bending either his body or limbs. This ape is the third and laſt to which the name ought to be applied: In this genus, he conſtitutes a ſin⯑gular or monſtrous ſpecies, like the race of thick-legged men, ſaid to inhabit the iſland of Saint-Thomas^*.

After the apes, another tribe of animals pre⯑ſent themſelves, to which we ſhall give the ge⯑neric name of baboon. To diſtinguiſh them more accurately from the other kinds, let it be remarked, that the baboon has a ſhort tail, a long face, a broad high muzzle, canine teeth, proportionally larger than thoſe of man, and calloſities on its buttocks. By this definition, we exclude from the baboon tribe all the apes, who have no tail; all the monkeys, whoſe tails are as long or longer than their bodies; and all thoſe who have thin, ſharp pointed muzzles. The antients had no proper names for theſe ani⯑mals. Ariſtotle alone ſeems to have pointed out one of the baboons under the name ſimia porca⯑ria ^†, though he has given but a very imperfect idea of the animal. The Italians firſt called it babuino; the Germans, bavion; the French, ba⯑bouin; [43] the Britiſh, baboon; and all the modern writers of Latin, papio. We ſhall call it baboon, to diſtinguiſh it from the other ſpecies which have ſince been diſcovered in the ſouthern re⯑gions of Africa and India. We are acquainted with three ſpecies of theſe animals: 1. The ba⯑boon properly ſo called, which is found in Lybia, Arabia, &c. and is probably the ſimia porcaria of Ariſtotle. 2. The mandrill, or ribbed-noſe, is ſtill larger than the baboon, has a violet colour⯑ed face, the noſe and cheeks ribbed with deep oblique furrows, and is found in Guinea and in the warmeſt provinces of Africa. 3. The ou⯑anderou, which is ſmaller than the baboon and mandrill; its body is thinner, its head and face are ſurrounded with a kind of long buſhy mane, and is found in Ceylon, Malabar, and other ſouthern regions of India. Thus we have pro⯑perly defined three ſpecies of apes, and three ſpecies of baboons, which are all very different from one another.

But, as Nature knows none of our definitions, as ſhe has not claſſed her productions by bundles or genera, and as her progreſs is always gradual and marked by minute ſhades, ſome intermediate animal ſhould be found between the ape and baboon. This intermediate ſpecies actually ex⯑iſts, and is the animal which we call magot, or the Barbary ape. It occupies a middle ſtation between our two definitions. It forms the ſhade between the apes and baboons. It differs from [44] the firſt by having a long muzzle and large ca⯑nine teeth; and, from the ſecond, becauſe it ac⯑tually wants the tail, though it has an appendix of ſkin, which has the appearance of a very ſmall tail. Of courſe, it is neither an ape nor a baboon, but, at the ſame time, partakes of the nature of both. This animal, which is very common in Higher Egypt, as well as in Barbary, was known to the antients. The Greeks and Romans called it cynocephalus, becauſe its muz⯑zle reſembled that of a dog. Let us now arrange theſe animals in their proper order: The orang-outang is the firſt ape; the pigmy the ſecond; and the gibbon, though different in figure, the third; the cynocephalus or magot the fourth ape, or the firſt baboon; the papio is the firſt baboon; the mandrill the ſecond; and the ouanderou, or little baboon, the third. This order is neither arbitrary nor fictitious, but agreeable to the ſcale of Nature.

After the apes and baboons, come the guenons, or monkeys; that is, animals reſembling the apes and baboons, but which have tails as long, or longer than their bodies. The word guenon has, for ſome ages, had two acceptations different from that we have here given it: It is general⯑ly employed to ſignify ſmall apes, and ſometimes to denote the female of the ape. But, more an⯑tiently, we called ſinges, or magots, the apes with⯑out a tail, and guenons, or mones, thoſe which had long tails. This fact appears from the [45] works of ſome travellers^* in the ſixteenth and ſeventeenth centuries. The word guenon is pro⯑bably derived from kébos, or képos, which the Greeks employed to denote the long-tailed apes. Theſe kébes, or guenons, are ſmaller and weaker than the apes and baboons. They are eaſily di⯑ſtinguiſhable from one another by this difference, and particularly by their long tail. With equal eaſe, they may be diſtinguiſhed from the makis or maucaucos; becauſe they have not a ſharp muzzle, and inſtead of ſix cutting teeth, like the makis, they have only four, like the apes and baboons. We know eight ſpecies of gue⯑nons; and, to prevent confuſion, we ſhall be⯑ſtow on each a proper name: 1. The macaque, or hare-lipped monkey; 2. The patas, or red monkey; 3. The malbrouk; 4. The mangabey, or monkey with the upper eye-lids of a pure white colour; 5. The mone, or varied monkey; 6 The callitrix, or green monkey: 7. The mouſtac, or whiſkered monkey; 8. The talapoin; 9. The douc, or monkey of Cochinchina. The antient Greeks knew only two of theſe guenons, [46] or long-tailed monkeys, namely, the mone and the callitrix, who are natives of Arabia and the northern parts of Africa. They had no idea of the other kinds; becauſe theſe are only found in the ſouthern provinces of Africa and the Eaſt Indies, countries entirely unknown in the days of Ariſtotle. This great philoſopher, and the Greeks in general, were too wiſe to confound beings by common, and, therefore, equivocal names. They called the ape without a tail pi⯑thecos, and the monkey with a long tail, kébos. As they knew theſe animals to be diſtinct ſpe⯑cies, they gave to each a proper name, derived from their moſt ſtriking characters. All the apes and baboons which they knew, namely, the pigmy, the cynocephalus, or magot, and the ſimia porcaria, or papio, have their hair nearly of a uniform colour. But the monkey, which we have called mone, and the Greeks kébos, has hair of different colours, and is generally known by the name of the varied ape. This ſpecies of monkey was moſt common, and beſt known in the days of Ariſtotle; and, from its moſt diſtin⯑guiſhed character, he called it kébos, which, in Greek, ſignifies varieties in colour. Thus all the animals belonging to the claſs of apes, baboons, and monkeys, mentioned by Ariſtotle, are redu⯑ced to four, the pithecos, the cynocephalos, the ſimia porcaria, and the kébos; which we believe to be the pigmy, the magot, or Barbary ape, the baboon, and the mone, or varied monkey, not [47] only becauſe they agree with the characters gi⯑ven of them by Ariſtotle, but likewiſe becauſe the other ſpecies muſt have been unknown to the antients, ſince they are natives of countries into which the Greek travellers had never penetrated.

Two or three centuries after Ariſtotle, we find, in the Greek writers, two new names, cal⯑lithrix and cercopithecos, both relative to the gue⯑nons, or long-tailed monkeys. In proportion as diſcoveries were made of the ſouthern regions of Africa and Aſia, we found new animals, and other ſpecies of monkeys: And, as moſt of theſe monkeys had not, like the kébos, various colours, the Greeks invented the generic name cercopi⯑thecos, or tailed ape, to denote all the ſpecies of monkeys or apes with long tails; and, having re⯑marked, among theſe new ſpecies, a monkey with hair of a lively greeniſh colour, they called it callithrix, which ſignifies beautiful hair. This callithrix is found in the ſouth part of Maurita⯑nia, and in the neighbourhood of Cape de Verd, and is commonly known by the name of the green ape.

With regard to the other ſeven ſpecies of monkeys, mentioned above under the appella⯑tions of makaque, patas, malbrouk, mangabey, mouſtac, talapoin, and douc, they were unknown to the Greeks and Latins. The makaque is a native of Congo; the patas, of Senegal; the man⯑gabey, of Madagaſcar; the malbrouk, of Bengal; the mouſtac, of Guinea; the talapoin, of Siam; [84] and the douc, of Cochinchina. All theſe terri⯑tories were equally unknown to the antients.

As the progreſs of Nature is uniform and gra⯑dual, we find between the baboons and monkeys an intermediate ſpecies, like that of the magot between the apes and baboons. The animal which fills this interval has a great reſemblance to the monkeys, particularly to the makaque; its muzzle, at the ſame time, is very broad, and its tail ſhort, like that of the baboons. Being ignorant of its name, we have called it maimon, or pig-tailed baboon, to diſtinguiſh it from the others. It is a native of Sumatra. Of all the monkeys or baboons, it alone has a naked tail; and, for this reaſon, ſeveral authors have given it the denomination of the pig-tailed, or rat-tailed ape.

We have now enumerated all the animals of the Old World, to whom the common name of ape has been applied, though they belong not only to different ſpecies, but to different genera. To augment the confuſion, the ſame names of ape, cynocephalus, kébos, and cercopithecos, which had been invented by the Greeks fifteen centu⯑ries ago, have been beſtowed on animals pecu⯑liar to the New World, though ſo recently diſ⯑covered. They never dreamed that none of the African or Eaſt Indian animals had any exiſtence in the ſouthern regions of the New Continent. In America, we have diſcovered animals with hands and fingers. This ſimilarity was alone [49] ſufficient to procure to them the name of apes, without conſidering that, for the transfe⯑rence of a name, identity of genus, and even of ſpecies, is neceſſary. Now, theſe American animals, of which we ſhall make two claſ⯑ſes, under the appellations of ſapajous, or mon⯑keys with prehenſile tails; and ſagoins, or mon⯑keys with long tails, which are not prehenſile, or want the faculty of laying hold of any ob⯑ject, are very different from the apes of Aſia and Africa; and, in the ſame manner, as no apes, ba⯑boons, or monkeys are to be found in the New World, there are neither ſapajous nor ſagoins in the Old. Though we have already given a ge⯑neral view of theſe facts, in our diſſertation con⯑cerning the animals of both Continents, we can now prove them in a more particular manner, and demonſtrate, that, of ſeventeen ſpecies, to which all the animals of the Old World called apes, may be reduced, and, of twelve or thir⯑teen in the New World, to whom this name has been transferred, none of them are the ſame, or to be found equally in both Worlds; for, of the ſeventeen ſpecies in the Old Continent, three or four apes muſt firſt be retrenched, who certainly exiſt not in America, and to whom the ſapajous and ſagoins have no reſemblance. In the ſecond place, three or four baboons muſt likewiſe be retrenched: They are larger than the ſapajous and ſagoins, and alſo very different in figure. There remain only nine monkeys with whom [50] any compariſon can be inſtituted. Now, all theſe monkeys, as well as the apes and baboons, have general and particular characters, which ſeparate them entirely from the ſapajous and ſa⯑goins. The firſt of theſe characters is to have naked buttocks, and natural calloſities peculiar to theſe parts: The ſecond is to have abajoues, or pouches under the cheeks, in which they can keep their victuals. The third is to have a nar⯑row partition between the noſtrils, and the a⯑pertures of the noſtrils themſelves placed in the under part of the noſe, like thoſe of man. The ſapajous and ſagoins have none of theſe charac⯑ters. The partition between their noſtrils is al⯑ways very thick; the apertures of their noſtrils are ſituated in the ſides of the noſe, and not in the under part of it. They have hair on their buttocks, and no calloſities. They have no pouches under the cheeks. Hence they differ from the monkeys not only in ſpecies, but in genus, ſince they poſſeſs none of the general characters which are common to the whole tribe of monkeys. This difference of genus neceſſa⯑rily implies greater differences in ſpecies, and ſhows that theſe animals are very remote from each other.

It is with much impropriety, therefore, that the names ape and monkey have been applied to the ſapajous and ſagoins. We muſt preſerve their names, and, inſtead of aſſociating them with the apes, we ſhould begin by comparing [51] them with one another. Theſe two tribes dif⯑fer from each other by a remarkable character: All the ſapajous uſe their tail as a finger to hang upon branches, or to lay hold of any object they cannot reach with their hand. The ſagoins, on the contrary, have not the power of employing their tail in this manner. Their face, ears, and hair are alſo different: We may, therefore, ſepa⯑rate them into two diſtinct genera. In giving the hiſtory of the ſpecies, I ſhall avoid all thoſe denominations which can only apply to the apes, baboons, and monkeys, and preſerve the names they receive in their native country.

We are acquainted with ſix or ſeven ſpecies of ſapajous, and ſix of ſagoins, moſt of which have ſome varieties. We have carefully ſearch⯑ed all the writings of travellers in order to diſ⯑cover the proper name of each ſpecies; becauſe the names they receive in the places they inhabit, generally point out ſome peculiar characteriſtic, which alone is ſufficient to diſtinguiſh them from one another.

With regard to the varieties, which, in this claſs of animals, are perhaps more numerous than the ſpecies, we ſhall endeavour to refer each of them to their proper kinds. We have had forty of theſe animals alive, each of which differed more or leſs from one another; and to us it appears that the whole may be reduced to thirty ſpecies, namely, three apes, and an inter⯑mediate ſpecies between them and the baboons; [52] three baboons, and an intermediate ſpecies be⯑tween them and the monkeys; nine monkeys; ſeven ſapajous; and ſix ſagoins. All the others, or at leaſt moſt of them, ought to be regarded as varieties only. But, as we are uncertain whether ſome of theſe varieties may not be diſtinct ſpe⯑cies, we ſhall endeavour to give all of them proper names.

On this occaſion, let us conſider terreſtrial animals, ſome of which have a great reſem⯑blance to man, in a new point of view. The whole have improperly received the general name of quadrupeds. If the exceptions were few, we would not have found fault with the application of this name. It was formerly remarked, that our definitions and denomina⯑tions, however general, never comprehend the whole; that beings always exiſt which elude the moſt cautious definitions which ever were in⯑vented; that intermediate beings are always diſ⯑covered; that ſeveral of them, though appa⯑rently holding a middle ſtation, eſcape from the liſt; and that the general names, under which we mean to include them, are incomplete; be⯑cauſe Nature ſhould only be conſidered by uni⯑ties, and not by aggregates; becauſe man has invented general denominations with the ſole view of aiding his memory, and ſupplying the defects of his underſtanding; and becauſe he afterwards fooliſhly conſidered theſe general names as realities; and, in fine, becauſe he has [53] endeavoured to comprehend under them beings, and even whole claſſes of beings, which required different appellations. I can give an example, without departing from the claſs of quadrupeds, which, of all animals, we are beſt acquaint⯑ed with, and, of courſe, were in a condition to have beſtowed on them the moſt preciſe de⯑nominations.

The name quadruped ſuppoſes that the ani⯑mal has four feet. If it wants two feet, like the manati; if it has arms and hands, like the ape; or if it has wings, like the bat, it is not a quadruped. Hence this general term, when applied to theſe animals, is abuſed. To obtain preciſion in words, the ideas they preſent muſt be ſtrictly true. If we had a term for two hands ſimilar to that which denotes two feet, we might then ſay that man was the only biped and bima⯑nus, becauſe he alone has two hands and two feet; that the manati is a bimonus; that the bat is only a biped; and that the ape is a quadrima⯑nus, or four-handed animal. Let us now apply theſe new denominations to all the particular beings to which they belong, and we ſhall find, that, from about two hundred animals who go under the common name of quadrupeds, thirty-five ſpecies of apes, baboons, monkeys, ſapajous, ſagoins, and makis, muſt be retrenched, becauſe they are quadrimani, or four-handed; and that to theſe thirty-five ſpecies, the loris, or tailleſs maucauco, the Virginian, murine, and Mexican [54] opoſſum, the Egyptian and woolly jerboa's, &c. ſhould be added, becauſe they are four⯑handed like the apes and monkeys. Thus the liſt of four-handed animals being at leaſt forty ſpecies, the real number of quadrupeds is one fifth diminiſhed. We muſt likewiſe retrench twelve or fifteen ſpecies of bipeds, namely, the bats, whoſe fore-feet are rather wings than feet, and likewiſe three or four jerboa's, becauſe they can walk on their hind feet only, the fore-feet being too ſhort. If we ſubtract alſo the manati, which has no hind feet, the arctic and Indian walrus, and the ſeals, to whom the hind feet are uſeleſs; and, if we ſtill retrench thoſe animals which uſe their fore-feet like hands, as the bears, the marmots, the coati's the a⯑gouti's, the ſquirrels, the rats, and many others, the denomination of quadruped will appear to be applied improperly to more than one half of theſe animals. The whole and cloven-hoof⯑ed are indeed the only real quadrupeds. When we deſcend to the digitated claſs, we find four-handed, or ambiguous quadrupeds, who uſe their fore-feet as hands, and ought to be ſepa⯑rated or diſtinguiſhed from the others. Of whole-hoofed animals, there are three ſpecies, the horſe, the aſs, and the zebra. If to theſe we add the elephant, the rhinoceros, the hippo⯑potamus, and the camel, whoſe feet, though terminated by nails, are ſolid, and ſerve the a⯑nimals for walking only, we ſhall have ſeven [55] ſpecies to which the name of quadruped is per⯑fectly applicable. The number of cloven-hoof⯑ed animals greatly exceeds that of the whole⯑hoofed. The oxen, the ſheep, the goats, the antilopes, the bubalus, the lama, the pacos, the the giraffe, the elk, the rain-deer, the ſtag, the fallow-deer, the roebuck, &c. are all cloven⯑footed, and conſtitute about forty ſpecies. Thus we have already fifty animals, ten whole and forty cloven-hoofed, to whom the name qua⯑druped is properly applied. In the digitated animals, the lion, tiger, panther, leopard, lynx, cat, wolf, dog, fox, hyaena, badger, polecat, weaſels, ferret, porcupines, hedgehogs, arma⯑dillos, ant-eaters, and hogs, which laſt conſti⯑tute the ſhade between the digitated and cloven⯑footed tribes, form a number conſiſting of more than forty ſpecies, to which the term of qua⯑druped applies with perfect preciſion; becauſe, though their fore-feet be divided into four or five toes, they are never uſed as hands. But all the other digitated ſpecies, who uſe their fore-feet in carrying food to their mouths, are not, in ſtrict propriety of language, quadrupeds. Theſe ſpecies, which likewiſe amount to forty, make an intermediate claſs between quadru⯑peds and four-handed animals, being neither the one nor the other. Hence, to more than a fourth of our animals, the name of quadruped does not apply: and, to more than a half of them, the application of it is incomplete.

[56] The four-handed animals fill the interval be⯑tween man and the animals; and the two-hand⯑ed ſpecies conſtitute a mean term in the diſtance between man and the cetaceous tribes. The bipeds with wings form the ſhade between qua⯑drupeds and birds; and the digitated ſpecies, who uſe their fore-feet as hands, fill the whole ſpace between the quadrupeds and the four⯑handed kinds. But I will purſue this ſub⯑ject no farther: However uſeful it may be for acquiring a diſtinct knowledge of animals, it is ſtill more ſo by affording a freſh proof, that all our definitions or general terms want pre⯑ciſion, when applied to the objects or beings which they repreſent.

But why are theſe definitions and general terms, which appear to be the moſt brilliant exer⯑tions of the human intellect, ſo defective in their application? Does the error neceſſarily ariſe from the narrow limits of our underſtanding? Or, rather, does it not proceed ſolely from our in⯑capacity of combining and perceiving at one time a great number of objects? Let us com⯑pare the works of Nature with thoſe of man. Let us examine how both operate, and inquire whether the mind, however acute, can follow the ſame route, without looſing itſelf in the immenſity of ſpace, in the obſcurity of time, or in the infinity of related beings. When man directs his mind to any object, if his per⯑ceptions be accurate, he takes the ſtraight line, [57] runs over the ſmalleſt ſpace, and employs the leaſt poſſible time in accompliſhing his end. What an expence of thought, how many com⯑binations are neceſſary to avoid thoſe deceitful and fallacious roads which at firſt preſent them⯑ſelves in ſuch numbers, that the choice of the right path requires the niceſt diſcrnment? This path, however, is not beyond the reach of the human intellect, which can proceed without deviating from the ſtraight line. The mind is enabled to arrive at a point by means of a line; and, if another point muſt be gained, it can only be attained by another line. The train of our ideas is a delicate thread, which extends in length, without any other dimenſions. Nature, on the contrary, never moves a ſtep which extends not on all ſides, and runs at once through the three dimenſions of length, breadth, and thickneſs. While man reaches but one point, Nature accompliſhes a ſolid, by penetrating the whole parts which com⯑poſe a maſs. In beſtowing form on brute matter, our ſtatuaries, by the union of art and time, are enabled to make a ſurface which exactly repreſents the outſide of an object. Every point of this ſur⯑face requires a thouſand combinations. Their genius is directly exerted upon as many lines as there are ſtrokes in the figure. The ſmalleſt deviation would be a deformity. This marble, ſo perfect that it ſeems to breathe, is, of courſe, only a multitude of points at which the artiſt arrives by a long ſucceſſion of labour; becauſe human genius, being unable to ſeize more than [58] one dimenſion at the ſame time, and our ſenſes reaching no farther than ſurfaces, we cannot pe⯑netrate matter: But Nature, in a moment, puts every particle in motion. She produces forms by exertions almoſt inſtantaneous. She at once developes them in all their dimenſions. As ſoon as her movements reach the ſurface, the penetra⯑ting forces with which ſhe is animated operate internally. The ſmalleſt atom, when ſhe chooſes to employ it, is inſtantly compelled to obey. Hence ſhe acts, at the ſame time, on all ſides, before, behind, above, below, on the right and left; and, conſequently, ſhe embraces not only the ſurface, but every particle of the maſs. How different likewiſe is the product? What compari⯑ſon is there between a ſtatue and an organized bo⯑dy? How unequal, at the ſame time, are the pow⯑ers, how diſproportioned the inſtruments? Man can employ only the power he poſſeſſes. Limited to a ſmall quantity of motion, which he can only communicate by the mode of impulſion, his exer⯑tions are confined to ſurfaces; becauſe, in general, the impulſive force is only tranſmitted by ſuper⯑ficial contact. He neither ſees nor touches more than the ſurfaces of bodies; and, when he wiſhes to attain a more intimate knowledge, though he opens and divides, ſtill he ſees and touches no⯑thing more than their ſurfaces. To penetrate the interior parts of bodies, he would require a por⯑tion of that force which acts upon the maſs, or, of gravity, which is Nature's chief inſtrument. If man could employ this penetrating force as [59] he does that of impulſion, or if he had a ſenſe relative to it, he would be enabled to perceive the eſſence of matter, and to arrange ſmall por⯑tions of it, in the ſame manner as Nature ope⯑rates at large. It is owing to the want of inſtru⯑ments, therefore, that human art cannot ap⯑proach that of Nature. His figures, his pictures, his deſigns, are only ſurfaces, or imitations of ſurfaces; becauſe the images he receives by his ſenſes are all ſuperficial, and he has no mode of giving them a body.

What is true with regard to the arts, applies likewiſe to the ſciences. The latter, however, are not ſo much limited; becauſe the mind is their chief inſtrument, and becauſe, in the for⯑mer, it is ſubordinate to the ſenſes. But, in the ſciences, the mind commands the ſenſes as often as it is employed in thinking and not in opera⯑ting, in comparing and not in imitating. Now, the mind, though bound up by the ſenſes, though often deceived by their fallacious reports, is nei⯑ther diminiſhed in its purity nor activity. Man, who naturally loves knowledge, commenced by rectifying and demonſtrating the errors of the ſenſes. He has treated them as mechanical inſtru⯑ments, the effects of which muſt be ſubmitted to the teſt of experiment. Proceeding thus with the balance in one hand, and the compaſs in the other, he has meaſured both time and ſpace. He has cogniſed the whole outſide of Nature; and, be⯑ing unable to penetrate her internal parts by his [60] ſenſes, his deductions concerning them have been drawn from compariſon and analogy. He diſ⯑covered that there exiſts in matter a general force, different from that of impulſion, a force which falls not under the cogniſance of our ſenſes, and which, though we are incapable of uſing it, Nature employs as her univerſal agent. He has demonſtrated, that this force belongs equally to all matter, in proportion to its maſs or real quan⯑tity; and that its action extends to immenſe diſtances, decreaſing as the ſpaces augment. Then, turning his views upon living beings, he perceived that heat was another force neceſſary to their production; that light was a matter en⯑dowed with infinite elaſticity and activity; that the formation and expanſion of organized bo⯑dies were effects of a combination of all theſe forces; that the extenſion and growth of ani⯑mals and vegetables follow the laws of the at⯑tractive force, and are effected by an augmenta⯑tion in the three dimenſions at the ſame time; and that a mould, when once formed, muſt, by theſe laws of affinity, produce a ſucceſſion of o⯑ther moulds perfectly ſimilar to the original. By combining theſe attributes, common to the animal and vegetable, he recogniſed, that there exiſted in both an inexhauſtible, circulating ſtore of organic ſubſtance; a ſubſtance equally real as brute matter; a ſubſtance which continues al⯑ways in a live as the other does in a dead ſtate; a ſubſtance univerſally diffuſed, which paſſes from [61] vegetables to animals by means of nutrition, re⯑turns from animals to vegetables by the proceſs of putrefaction, and maintains a perpetual circu⯑lation for the animation of beings. He percei⯑ved, that theſe active organic particles exiſted in all organized bodies; that they were combined, in ſmaller or greater quantities, with dead mat⯑ter; that they were more abundant in animals, in whom every thing is alive, and more rare in vegetables, in which death predominates, and life ſeems to be extinct, organization being ſurcharged with brute matter; and that plants are, of courſe, deprived of progreſſive motion, of heat, and of life, exhibiting no other quality of animation but expanſion and reproduction. Reflecting on the manner in which theſe laſt are accompliſhed, he diſcovered that every living being is a mould that has the power of aſſimilating the ſubſtances with which it is nouriſhed; that growth is an effect of this aſſimilation; that the development of a living body is not a ſimple augmentation of volume, but an extenſion in all dimenſions, a penetration of new matter through all parts of the maſs; that theſe parts, by increaſing propor⯑tionally to the whole, and the whole proportion⯑ally to the parts, the form is preſerved and con⯑tinues always the ſame, till growth is completed; that, when the body has acquired its full expan⯑ſion, the ſame matter, formerly employed in augmenting its volume, is returned, as ſuperflu⯑ous, from all the parts to which it had been aſ⯑ſimilated, [62] and, by uniting in a common point, forms a new being perfectly ſimilar to the firſt, and, to attain the ſame dimenſions, requires only to be developed by the ſame mode of nutrition. He perceived that man, quadrupeds, cetaceous ani⯑mals, birds, reptiles, inſects, trees, and herbs, were nouriſhed, expanded, and reproduced by the ſame law; and that the mode of their nutrition and generation, though depending on the ſame gene⯑ral cauſe, appeared to be very different, becauſe it could not operate but in a manner relative to the form of each particular ſpecies of being. Proceeding gradually in this inveſtigation, he be⯑gan, after a ſuceſſion of ages, to compare ob⯑jects. To diſtinguiſh them from each other, he gave them particular names; and, to unite them under one point of view, he invented general terms. Taking his own body as the phyſical model of all animated beings, he meaſured, exa⯑mined, and compared all their parts, and he diſ⯑covered that the form of every animal that breathes is nearly the ſame; that, by diſſecting an ape we may learn the anatomy of a man; that, taking another animal, we always find the ſame fund of organization, the ſame ſenſes, the ſame viſcera, the ſames bones, the ſame fleſh, the ſame motion of the fluids, the ſame play and ac⯑tion of the ſolids. In all of them he found a heart, veins, and arteries, and the ſame organs, circulation, reſpiration, digeſtion, nutrition, and ſecretion; in all of them, he found a ſolid ſtruc⯑ture [63] compoſed of the ſame pieces, and nearly ſituated in the ſame manner. This plan pro⯑ceeds uniformly from man to the ape, from the ape to quadrupeds, from quadrupeds to cetaceous animals, to birds, to fiſhes, and to reptiles: This plan, I ſay, when well apprehended by the hu⯑man intellect, exhibits a faithful picture of ani⯑mated Nature, and affords the moſt general as well as the moſt ſimple view under which ſhe can be conſidered: And, when we want to ex⯑tend it, and to paſs from the animal to the ve⯑getable, we perceive this plan, which had at firſt varied only by ſhades, gradually degenerating from reptiles to inſects, from inſects to worms, from worms to zoophytes, from zoophytes to plants; and, though changed in all its external parts, ſtill preſerving the ſame character, the principal features of which are nutrition, growth, and reproduction. Theſe features are common to all organized ſubſtances. They are eternal and divine; and, inſtead of being effaced by time, it only renews and renders them more con⯑ſpicuous.

If, from this grand picture of reſemblances ex⯑hibited in animated Nature, as conſtituting but one family, we paſs to that of the differences, where each ſpecies claims a ſeparate apartment, and a diſtinct portrait, we ſhall find, that, with the exception of a few large kinds, ſuch as the elephant, the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus, the tiger, and the lion, which ought to have parti⯑cular [64] frames, all the others ſeem to unite with their neighbours, and to form groups of degra⯑ded ſimilarities, or genera, repreſented by our nomeclators in a net-work of figures, ſome of which are ſupported by the feet, others by the teeth, by the hair, and others by relations ſtill more minute: And, even the apes, whoſe form ſeems to be moſt perfect, or approaches neareſt to that of man, preſent themſelves in a group, and require the utmoſt attention to be diſtin⯑guiſhed from each other; becauſe the privilege of ſeparate ſpecies depends leſs on figure than magnitude; and man himſelf, though a diſtinct ſpecies, and infinitely removed from that of all other animals, being only of a middle ſize, has a greater number of neighbouring ſpecies than the very large kinds. In the hiſtory of the orang-outang, we ſhall find, that, if figure alone be regarded, we might conſider this animal as the firſt of apes, or the moſt imperfect of men; becauſe, except the intellect, the orang-outang wants nothing that we poſſeſs, and, in his body, differs leſs from man that from the other ani⯑mals which receive the denomination of apes.

Hence mind, reflection, and language depend not on figure, or on the organization of the bo⯑dy. Theſe are endowments peculiar to man. The orang-outang, though he neither thinks nor ſpeaks, has a body, members, ſenſes, a brain, and a tongue perfectly ſimilar to thoſe of man: He counterfiets every human movement; but [65] her performs no action that is characteriſtic of man. This imperfection is perhaps owing to want of education, or to an error in our judg⯑ment. You compare, it may be ſaid, an ape in the woods with a man in poliſhed ſociety. But, in order to form a proper judgment of them, a ſavage man and an ape ſhould be viewed toge⯑ther; for we have no juſt idea of man in a pure ſtate of nature. The head covered with briſtly hair, or with curled wool; the face veiled with a long beard; two creſcents of hairs ſtill groſ⯑ſer, by their length and prominency contract the front, and not only obſcure the eyes, but ſink and round them like thoſe of the brutes; the lips thick and protruded; the noſe flat; the aſpect wild and ſtupid; the ears, the body, and the members covered with hair; the breaſts of the female long and flabby, and the ſkin of her belly hanging down as far as her knees; the children wallowing in filth, and crawling on their hands and feet; the father and mother ſitting ſquat on their hams, both hideous, and beſmeared with corrupted greaſe. This ſketch, drawn from a ſavage Hottentot, is a flattering portrait; for the diſtance between man in a pure ſtate of na⯑ture and a Hottentot, is greater than between a Hottentot and us. But, if we want to compare the ape to man, we muſt add the relations of or⯑ganization, the conformities of temperament, the vehement appetite of the males for the females, the ſame ſtructure of genitals in both ſexes, the [66] periodic courſes of the female, the voluntary or forced intermixture of the Negreſſes with the apes, the produce of which has entred into both ſpecies; and then conſider, on the ſuppoſition that they are not the ſame, how difficult it is to perceive the interval by which they are ſepa⯑rated.

If our judgment were limited to figure alone, I acknowledge that the ape might be regarded as a variety of the human ſpecies. The Creator has not formed man's body on a model abſo⯑lutely different from that of the mere animal. He has comprehended the figure of man, as well as that of all other animals, under one general plan. But, at the ſame time that he has given him a material form ſimilar to that of the ape, he has penetrated this animal body with a di⯑vine ſpirit. If he had conferred the ſame privi⯑lege, not on the ape, but on the meaneſt, and what appears to us to be the worſt conſtructed animal, this ſpecies would ſoon have become the rival of man; it would have excelled all the o⯑ther animals by thinking and ſpeaking. What⯑ever reſemblance, therefore, takes place between the Hottentot and the ape, the interval which ſeparates them is immenſe; becauſe the former is endowed with the faculties of thought and of ſpeech.

Who will ever be able to aſcertain how the organization of an idiot differs from that of ano⯑ther man? Yet the defect is certainly in the ma⯑terial [67] organs, ſince the idiot is likewiſe endowed with a ſoul. Now, as between one man and another, where the whole ſtructure is perfectly ſimilar, a difference ſo ſmall that it cannot be perceived is ſufficient to prevent thought, we ſhould not be ſurpriſed that it never appears in the ape, who is deprived of the neceſſary prin⯑ciple.

The ſoul, in general, has a proper action to⯑tally independent of matter. But, as its divine Author has been pleaſed to unite it to the body, the exerciſe of its particular acts depends on the ſtate of the material organs. This dependence is apparent, not only from the caſe of idiots, but from people affected with delirium, from ſleep, from new born infants, who cannot think, and from very old men, whom the power of think⯑ing has forſaken. It is even probable, that the chief effect of education conſiſts not ſo much in inſtructing the mind, or maturing its operations, as in modifying the material organs, and bring⯑ing them into the moſt favourable ſtate for the exerciſe of the ſentient principle. Now, there are two kinds of education, which ought to be carefully diſtinguiſhed, becauſe their effects are extremely different; the education of the indi⯑vidual, which is common to man and the other animals; and the education of the ſpecies, which appertains to man alone. A young animal, both from natural encitements and from example, learns, in a few weeks, to do every thing its pa⯑rents [68] can perform. To an infant, ſeveral years are neceſſary before it acquires this degree of perfection; becauſe, when brought forth, it is incomparably leſs advanced, weaker, and more imperfectly formed, than the ſmaller animals. In early infancy, the mind is nothing, when com⯑pared to the powers it will afterwards acquire. In receiving individual education, therefore, the infant is much ſlower than the brute; but, for this very reaſon, it becomes ſuſceptible of that of the ſpecies. The multiplicity of ſuccours, the continual cares, which this ſtate of imbecillity for a long time requires, cheriſh and augment the attachment of the parents. In training the body, they cultivate the mind. The time employed in ſtrengthening the former gives an advantage to the latter. The bodily powers of moſt ani⯑mals are more advanced in two months than thoſe of the infant in two years. Hence the time employed in beſtowing on the infant its in⯑dividual education is as twelve to one, without eſtimating the fruits of what follows after this period, without conſidering that animals ſepa⯑rate from their parents as ſoon as they can pro⯑vide for themſelves, and that, not long after this ſeparation, they know each other no more. All education ceaſes the moment that the aid of the parents become unneceſſary. This time of edu⯑cation being ſo ſhort, its effects muſt be very li⯑mited: It is even aſtoniſhing that the animals acquire, in two months, all that is neceſſary for [69] them during the reſt of life: If we ſuppoſe that a child, in an equal period, were ſtrong enough to quit his parents, and never return to them, would there be any perceptible difference be⯑tween this infant and a brute? However inge⯑nious the parents, they would not have time ſuf⯑ficient to modify and prepare his organs, or to eſtabliſh the ſmalleſt communication of thought between their minds and his. They could not excite his memory by impreſſions frequently e⯑nough reiterated. They could not even mollify or unfold the organs of ſpeech. Before a child can pronounce a ſingle word, his ears muſt be ſtruck many thouſand times with the ſame ſound; and, before he can make a proper application of it, the ſame combination of the word and the object to which it relates, muſt be many thou⯑ſand times preſented to him. Education, there⯑fore, which alone can develope the powers of the mind, muſt be uninterruptedly continued for a long time. If ſtopt, not at two months, as in the animals, but even at the age of one year, the mind of the infant, having received no inſtruc⯑tion, would remain inactive like that of the idiot, the defect of whoſe organs prevents the recep⯑tion of knowledge. This reaſoning would ac⯑quire redoubled ſtrength, if the infant were born in a pure ſtate of nature, if it were confined to the ſole tutorage of a Hottentot mother, and were enabled by its bodily powers to ſeparate from her at the age of two months, would it not [70] ſink below the condition of the idiot, and, with regard to its material part, be entirely levelled with the brutes? But in this condition of nature, the firſt education requires an equal time as in the civilized ſtate; for in both, the infant is e⯑qually feeble, and equally ſlow in its growth; and, conſequently, demands the care of its pa⯑rents during an equal period. In a word, if abandoned before the age of three years, it would infallibly periſh. Now, this neceſſary, and ſo long continued intercourſe between the mother and child, is ſufficient to communicate to it all that ſhe poſſeſſes: And though we ſhould falſely ſup⯑poſe, that a mother, in a ſtate of nature, poſſeſ⯑ſes nothing, not even the faculty of ſpeech, would not this long intercourſe with her infant produce a language? Hence a ſtate of pure nature, in which man is ſuppoſed neither to think nor ſpeak, is imaginary, and never had an exiſtence. This neceſſity of a long intercourſe between pa⯑rents and children produces ſociety in the midſt of a deſert. The family underſtand each other both by ſigns and ſounds; and this firſt ray of intelligence, when cheriſhed, cultivated, and com⯑municated, unfolds, in proceſs of time, all the germs of cogitation. As this habitual intercourſe could not ſubſiſt ſo long, without producing mu⯑tual ſigns and ſounds, theſe ſigns and ſounds, always repeated and gradually engraven on the memory of the child, would become permanent expreſſions. The catalogue of words, though [71] ſhort, forms a language which will ſoon extend as the family augments, and will always follow, in its improvement, the progreſs of ſociety. As ſoon as ſociety begins to be formed, the educa⯑tion of the infant is no longer individual, ſince the parents communicate to it not only what they derive from Nature, but likewiſe what they have received from their progenitors, and from the ſociety to which they belong. It is no long⯑er a communication between detached indivi⯑duals, which, as in the animals, would be limited to the tranſmiſſion of ſimple faculties, but an in⯑ſtitution of which the whole ſpecies participate, and whoſe produce conſtitutes the baſis and bond of ſociety.

Even among brute animals, though deprived of the ſentient principle, thoſe whoſe education is longeſt appear to have moſt intelligence. The elephant, which takes the longeſt time in acqui⯑ring its full growth, and requires the ſuccour of its mother during the whole firſt year of its ex⯑iſtence, is alſo the moſt intelligent of all animals. The Guiney-pig, which is full grown, and ca⯑pable of generating at the age of three weeks, is for this reaſon alone, perhaps, one of the moſt ſtupid ſpecies. With regard to the ape, whoſe nature we are endeavouring to aſcertain, how⯑ever ſimilar to man, he is ſo ſtrongly marked with the features of brutality, that it is diſtin⯑guiſhable from the moment of his birth. He is then proportionally ſtronger and better formed [72] than the infant: He grows faſter: The ſupport of his mother is only neceſſary for a few months: His education is purely individual, and conſe⯑quently as limited as that of the other animals.

Hence the ape, notwithſtanding his reſem⯑blance to man, is a brute, and, inſtead of ap⯑proaching our ſpecies, holds not the firſt rank among the animals; becauſe he is by no means the moſt intelligent. The relation of corporeal reſemblance alone has given riſe to the prejudice in favour of the great faculties of the ape. He reſembles man, it has been ſaid, both externally and internally; and, therefore, he muſt not only imitate us, but do every thing which we perform. We have ſeen, that all the actions which ought to be denominated human, are relative to ſociety; that they depend, at firſt, on the mind, and af⯑terwards on education, the phyſical principle of which is the long intercourſe that neceſſarily ſubſiſts between the parents and children; that, in the ape, this intercourſe is very ſhort; that, like the other animals, he receives only an indi⯑vidual education; and that he is not ſuſceptible of that of the ſpecies. Of courſe, he can per⯑form no human actions, ſince no action of the ape has the ſame principle, or the ſame deſign. With regard to imitation, which appears to be the moſt ſtriking character of the ape-kind, and which the vulgar have attributed to him as a pe⯑culiar talent, before we decide, it is neceſſary to inquire whether this imitation be ſpontaneous or forced. Does the ape imitate us from inclina⯑tion, [73] or becauſe, without any exertion of the will, he feels the capacity of doing it? I appeal to all thoſe who have examined this animal with⯑out prejudice, and I am convinced that they will agree with me, that there is nothing voluntary in this imitation. The ape, having arms and hands, uſes them as we do, but without thinking of us. The ſimilarity of his members and or⯑gans neceſſarily produces movements, and ſome⯑times ſucceſſions of movements, which reſemble ours. Being endowed with the human ſtruc⯑ture, the ape muſt move like man. But the ſame motions imply not that he acts from imi⯑tation. Two bodies which receive the ſame im⯑pulſe, two ſimilar pendulums or machines, will move in the ſame manner. But theſe bodies or machines can never be ſaid to intimate each other in their motions. The ape and the human body are two machines ſimilarly conſtructed, and ne⯑ceſſarily move nearly in the ſame manner. But parity is not imitation. The one depends on matter and the other on mind. Imitation pre⯑ſuppoſes the deſign of imitating. The ape is in⯑capable of forming this deſign, which requires a train of thinking; and, conſequently, man, if he inclines, can imitate the ape; but the ape can⯑not even incline to imitate man.

This parity is only the phyſical part of imi⯑tation, and by no means ſo complete as the ſi⯑militude, from which, however, it proceeds as an immediate effect. The ape has a greater reſem⯑blance [74] to us in his body and members, than in the uſe he makes of them. By obſerving him attentively, we eaſily perceive, that all his move⯑ments are briſk, intermittent, and precipitous; and that, in order to compare them with thoſe of man, we muſt adopt another ſcale, or rather a different model. All the actions of the ape are derived from his education, which is purely a⯑nimal. To us they appear ridiculous, inconſe⯑quent, and extravagant; becauſe, by referring them to our own, we aſſume a falſe ſcale, and a deceitful mode of meaſuring. As his nature is vivacious, his temperament warm, his diſpoſi⯑tions petulant, and none of his affections have been ſoftened or reſtrained by education, all his habitudes are exceſſive, and reſemble more the movements of a maniac than the actions of a man, or even of a peaceable animal. It is for this reaſon that we find him indocile, and that he receives with difficulty the impreſſions we wiſh to make on him. He is inſenſible to careſ⯑ſes, and is rendered obedient by chaſtiſement alone. He may be kept in captivity, but not in a domeſtic ſtate. Always melancholy, ſtub⯑born, repugnant, or making grimaces, he may be ſaid to be rather conquered than tamed. The ſpecies, of courſe, have never been rendered do⯑meſtic in any part of the world, and, conſe⯑quently, is farther removed from man than moſt other animals: For docility implies ſome analo⯑gy between the giver and the receiver of in⯑ſtruction. [75] It is a relative quality, which cannot be exerted but when there is a certain number of common faculties on both ſides, that differ only between themſelves, becauſe they are ac⯑tive in the maſter, and paſſive in the ſcholar. Now, the paſſive qualities of the ape have leſs relation to the active qualities of man than thoſe of the dog or elephant, who require no more than good treatment to communicate to them the delicate and gentle ſenſations of faithful at⯑tachment, voluntary obedience, grateful ſervice, and unreſerved devotion.

In relative qualities, therefore, the ape is far⯑ther removed from the human race than moſt other animals. His temperament is alſo very different. Man can inhabit every climate. He lives and multiplies in the northern as well as the ſouthern regions of the earth. But the ape exiſts with difficulty in temperate countries, and can multiply only in thoſe which are warm. This difference of temperament implies others in organization, which, though concealed, are not the leſs real: It muſt likewiſe have a great influence on his natural diſpoſitions. The ex⯑ceſs of heat, which is neceſſary to the conſtitu⯑tion and vigour of this animal, renders all his qualities and affections inordinate. No other cauſe is requiſite to account for his petulance, his ſalaciouſneſs, and his other paſſions, which appear to be equally violent and diſorderly.

[76] Thus the ape, which philoſophers, as well as the vulgar, have regarded as a being difficult to define, and whoſe nature was at leaſt equivocal, and intermediate between that of man and the animals, is, in fact, nothing but a real brute, en⯑dowed with the external mark of humanity, but deprived of thought, and of every faculty which properly conſtitutes the human ſpecies; a brute inferior to many others in his relative powers, and ſtill more eſſentially different from the hu⯑man race by his nature, his temperament, and the time neceſſary to his education, geſtation, growth, and duration of life; that is, by all the real habitudes which conſtitute what is called Nature in a particular being.

The ORANG OUTANGS, or the PONGO^* and JOCKO^**.

WE ſhall give the hiſtory of theſe two ani⯑mals under one article; becauſe it is not improbable they belong to the ſame ſpecies. [78] Of all the apes, they have the greateſt reſem⯑blance to man; and, conſequently, deſerve par⯑ticular attention. We have ſeen the ſmall orang⯑outang, or jocko, alive, and have preſerved its ſkin. But, of the pongo, or great orang-outang, we can only give the relations of travellers. If theſe were faithful, if they were not often ob⯑ſcure, falſe, and exaggerated, we could not he⯑ſitate in pronouncing it to be a different ſpecies from the jocko, a ſpecies more perfect, and ap⯑proaching nearer to that of man. Bontius, who was chief phyſician of Batavia, and has left us ſome excellent remarks on the natural hiſtory of that part of the Indies, ſays expreſsly^*, that he ſaw, with admiration, ſome individuals of this [79] ſpecies walking on their two feet, and, among others, a female (of which he gives a figure) who ſeemed to have a ſenſe of modeſty, who covered herſelf with her hand when men ap⯑peared of whom ſhe had no acquaintance, who wept, groaned, and ſeemed to want nothing of humanity but the faculty of ſpeech. Lin⯑naeus ^*, upon the authority of Kjoep, and ſome other voyagers, tells us, that the orang-outang is not deprived of this faculty; that he thinks, ſpeaks, and expreſſes himſelf by a kind of hiſſing words. This author calls him homo nocturnus, and, at the ſame time, gives ſuch a deſcription of him, that it is impoſſible to aſcertain whether he is a brute or a man. It may, however, be remarked, that, according to Linnaeus, this being, whatever he is, exceeds not the half of the hu⯑man ſtature; and, as Bontius takes no notice of the magnitude of his orang-outang, we may preſume that they are the ſame. But this orang⯑outang of Linnaeus and Bontius would not be the true kind, which is larger than the talleſt man. Neither is he the jocko, which I have [80] ſeen alive; for, though he was of the ſame ſize with that deſcribed by Linnaeus, he differed in every other character. I ſaw him frequently, and I can affirm, that he neither ſpoke, nor ex⯑preſſed himſelf by hiſſing, and that he did no⯑thing which a well trained dog could not per⯑form. Beſides, he differs in almoſt every article from Linnaeus's deſcription of the orang-outang, and correſponds better with the ſatyrus of the ſame author. For theſe reaſons, I ſuſpect the truth of the deſcription of this homo nocturnus. I even doubt of his exiſtence. It has probably been a white Negro, a Chacrelas^*, whom the voyagers quoted by Linnaeus have ſuperficially examined and falſely deſcribed: For the Chacre⯑las, like the homo nocturnus of this author, have white, woolly, frizled hair, red eyes, a feeble voice, &c. But they are men, and neither hiſs, nor are they pigmies of thirty inches high: They think and act like other men, and are alſo of the ſame ſize.

Throwing aſide, therefore, this ill deſcribed being, and ſuppoſing a little exaggeration in the recital of Bontius concerning the modeſty of his female orang-outang, there only remains a brute creature, an ape, of which we ſhall find more pointed information in writers of better credit. Edward Tyſon^†, a celebrated Engliſh anato⯑miſt, who has given an excellent deſcription [81] both of the external and internal parts of the orang-outang, tell us, that there are two ſpecies, and that the one he deſcribed is not ſo large as the other, which is called barris ^* or baris by travellers, and drill by the Engliſh. This barris or drill is the large orang-outang of the Eaſt Indies, or the Pongo of Guiney. Gaſ⯑ſendi having advanced, upon the authority of a voyager called St Amand, that, in the iſland of Java, there was creature which conſtituted the ſhade between man and the ape, the fact was ſtrenuously denied. To prove it, Peireſc produ⯑ced a letter from M. Noël, (Natalis), a phyſi⯑cian who reſided in Africa, from which it ap⯑peared ^†, that large apes were found in Guiney under the denomination of barris, who walk on two legs, have much more gravity and intelli⯑gence than the other ſpecies, and are extremely deſirous of women. Darcos, and afterwards Nieremberg^‡ and Dapper^§, give nearly the ſame account of the barris. Battel calls it pon⯑go, [82] and deſcribes it in the following manner: 'The greateſt of theſe two monſters is called Pongo, in their language; and the leſſer is cal⯑led Engeco. This Pongo is in all proportion like a man; but that he is more like a giant in ſtature than a man; for he is very tall, and hath a man's face, hollow eyed, with long hair upon his brows. His face and ears are with⯑out hair, and his hands alſo. His body is full of hair, but not very thick, and it is of a dunniſh colour. He differeth not from a man, but in his legs, for they have no calf. He goeth al⯑ways upon his legs, and carrieth his hands claſped on the nap of his neck, when he goeth upon the ground. They ſleep in the trees, and build ſhelters for the rain. They feed upon fruit that they find in the woods, and upon nuts, for they eat no kind of fleſh. They cannot ſpeak, and have no underſtanding more than a beaſt. The people of the country, when they travel in the woods, make fires where they ſleep in the night; and in the morning, when they are gone, the Pongoes will come and ſit about the ſire, till it goeth out; for they have no underſtanding to lay the wood together. They go many together, and kill many Negroes that travail in the woods. Ma⯑ny times they fall upon the elephants, which come to feed where they be, and ſo beat them with their clubbed fiſts, and pieces of wood, [83] that they will run roaring away from them. Thoſe Pongoes are never taken alive, becauſe they are ſo ſtrong, that ten men cannot hold one of them; but yet they take many of their young ones with poiſoned arrows. The young Pongo hangeth on his mother's belly, with his hands faſt claſped about her; ſo that, when the country people kill any of the females, they take the young one, which hangeth faſt upon his mother.^*.' It is from this explicit paſſage that I have derived the names pongo and jocko. Battel farther remarks, that, when one of theſe animals dies, the others cover his body with branches and leaves of trees. Pur⯑chas adds in a note, that, in the converſations he had with Battel, he learned that a pongo car⯑ried off a young Negro from him, who lived a whole year in the ſociety of theſe animals; that, on his return, the Negro ſaid, that they had ne⯑ver injured him; that they were generally as tall as a man, but much thicker; and that they were nearly double the volume of an ordinary man. Jobſon aſſures us, that, in places frequent⯑ed by theſe animals, he ſaw a kind of habitations compoſed of interlaced branches of trees, which would at leaſt protect them from the ſcorching rays of the ſun^†. 'The apes of Guiney,' ſays Boſman^‡, 'which are called ſmitten by the Fle⯑miſh, [84] are of a yellow colour, and grow to a great ſize. I ſaw with my eyes one which was five feet high. Theſe apes have an ugly appearance, as well as thoſe of another ſpecies perfectly ſimilar in every reſpect, except that four of them would hardly be as large as one of the former kind. . . . They are capable of being taught almoſt every thing we chooſe.' Gauthier Schoutten remarks^†, 'that the apes called orang-outangs by the Indians are nearly of the ſame figure and ſize with men, only their back and reins are covered with hair, though there is no hair on the fore part of their bodies; that the females have two large breaſts; that their viſage is coarſe, their noſe flat, and even ſunk, and their ears like thoſe of men; that they are robuſt and active; that they defend themſelves againſt armed men; that they are paſſionately fond of women, who cannot paſs through the woods, without being ſuddenly attacked and raviſhed by theſe apes.' Dampier, Froger, and other travellers, aſſure us, that the orang-outangs carry off girls of eight or ten years of age to the tops of trees, and that it is extremely difficult to reſcue them. To theſe teſtimonies we may add that of M. de la Broſſe, who aſſures us, in his voyage to Angola in the year 1738, that the orang-outangs, which he calls quimpezés, 'endeavour to ſurpriſe the Ne⯑greſſes, [85] whom they detain for the purpoſe of enjoying them, and entertain them plentiful⯑ly. I knew a Negreſs at Loango who remain⯑ed three years with theſe animals. They grow from ſix to ſeven feet high. They erect huts, and uſe bludgeons in their own defence. They have flat faces, broad flat noſes, flat ears, ſkins clearer than thoſe of Molattoes, long thinly ſcattered hairs in ſeveral parts of their bodies, bellies extremely tenſe, and flat heels raiſed behind about half an inch. They walk upon two or four feet, at pleaſure. We purchaſed two young ones, a male of fourteen months of age, and a female of twelve,' &c.

We have thus enumerated the moſt certain facts we could collect concerning the great orang⯑outang or pongo; and, as magnitude is the chief character by which it differs from the jocko, I perſiſt in thinking that they are of the ſame ſpe⯑cies: For, two circumſtances are at leaſt poſſible: 1. The jocko may be a permanent variety, a race much ſmaller than that of the pongo. In fact, they both inhabit the ſame climate; they live in the ſame manner; and, of courſe, ought to re⯑ſemble each other in every article, ſince they both receive equally the influences of the ſame ſoil and ſky. In the human ſpecies, have we not an example of a ſimilar variety? The Laplander and Fin, though they live under the ſame climate, differ nearly as much in ſtature, [86] and much more in other qualities, than the jocko differs from the great orang-outang. 2. The jocko, or ſmall orang-outang, which we have ſeen alive, as well as thoſe of Tulpius, Tyſon, and others which have been brought to Europe, were all, perhaps, young animals, who had ac⯑quired only a part of their growth. The one I ſaw was about two feet and a half high; and the Sieur Nonfoux, to whom it belonged, aſſu⯑red me that it exceeded not two years of age. On the ſuppoſition, therefore, that its growth were proportional to that of man, it might, if it had lived, arrived at the height of more than five feet. The orang-outang of Tyſon was ſtill younger; for it was only about two feet high, and its teeth were not perfectly formed. Thoſe of Tulpius and Edwards were nearly of the ſame ſtature with the one I ſaw. Hence it is probable, that theſe young animals, if poſſeſſed of liberty in their own climate, would have acquired with age the ſame height and di⯑menſions which travellers have aſcribed to the great orang-outang. Of courſe, till better infor⯑mation be received, we muſt regard theſe two animals as conſtituting but one ſpecies.

The orang-outang which I ſaw, walked al⯑ways on two feet, even when carrying things of conſiderable weight. His air was melancho⯑ly, his gate grave, his movements meaſured, his diſpoſitions gentle, and very different from thoſe of other apes. He had neither the impatience [87] of the Barbary ape, the maliciouſneſs of the ba⯑boon, nor the extravagance of the monkeys. It may be alledged, that he had the benefit of in⯑ſtruction; but the other apes, which I ſhall com⯑pare with him, were educated in the ſame man⯑ner. Signs and words were alone ſufficient to make our orang-outang act: But the baboon required a cudgel, and the other apes a whip; for none of them would obey without blows. I have ſeen this animal preſent his hand to conduct the people who came to viſit him, and walk as gravely along with them as if he had formed a part of the company. I have ſeen him ſit down at table, unfold his towel, wipe his lips, uſe a ſpoon or a fork to carry the victuals to his mouth, pour his liquor into a glaſs, and make it touch that of the perſon who drank along with him. When in⯑vited to take tea, he brought a cup and ſaucer, placed them on the table, put in ſugar, poured out the tea, and allowed it to cool before he drank it. All theſe actions he performed, with⯑out any other inſtigation than the ſigns or ver⯑bal orders of his maſter, and often of his own accord. He did no injury to any perſon: He even approached company with circumſpection, and preſented himſelf as if he wanted to be ca⯑reſſed. He was very fond of dainties, which every body gave him: And, as his breaſt was diſeaſed, and he was afflicted with a teazing cough, this quantity of ſweetmeats undoubtedly contributed to ſhorten his life. He lived one [88] ſummer in Paris, and died in London the follow⯑ing winter. He eat almoſt every thing; but preferred ripe and dried fruits to all other kinds of food. He drank a little wine; but ſponta⯑neouſly left it for milk, tea, or other mild li⯑quors. Tulpius^*, who gives a good deſcription and a figure of one of theſe animals, that had been preſented to Frederick Henry, Prince of Orange, makes nearly the ſame obſervations with regard to it, as I have already related. But, if we wiſh to diſtinguiſh the inſtincts peculiar [89] to this animal from the improvement it receives by education, we muſt compare the facts of which we have been eye-witneſſes, with the rela⯑tions of travellers who have ſeen it in a ſtate of nature, in the full poſſeſſion of liberty, and in captivity. M. de la Broſſe, who purchaſed from a Negro two orang-outangs, whoſe age exceed⯑ed not twelve months, does not ſay that they had been inſtructed by the Negro. It appears, on the contrary, that they ſpontaneouſly per⯑formed moſt of the actions above recited. ‘'Theſe animals,' he remarks, 'have the in⯑ſtinct of ſitting at table like men. They eat every kind of food, without diſtinction. They uſe a knife, a fork, or a ſpoon, to cut or lay hold of what is put on their plate. They drink wine and other liquors. We carried them a⯑board. At table, when they wanted any thing, they made themſelves be underſtood to the cabbin-boy: And, when the boy refuſed to give them what they demanded, they ſometimes be⯑came enraged, ſeized him by the arm, bit, and threw him down. . . . . . The male was ſeized with ſickneſs in the road. He made himſelf be attended as a human being. He was even bled twice in the right arm: And, whenever he found himſelf afterwards in the ſame con⯑dition, he held out his arm to be bled, as if he knew that he had formerly received benefit from that operation.'’

[90] Henry Groſs informs us, vol. 1. pag. 233.

Francis Pyrard^* relates, ‘'That, in the pro⯑vince of Sierra Leona, there is a ſpecies of a⯑nimals called baris, who are ſtrong and well limbed, and ſo induſtrious, that, when proper⯑ly trained and fed, they work like ſervants; that they generally walk on the two hind feet; that they pound any ſubſtances in a mortar; that they go to bring water from the river in ſmall pitchers, which they carry full on their heads. But, when they arrive at the door, if the pitchers are not ſoon taken off, they allow them to fall; and, when they perceive the pit⯑cher overturned and broken, they weep and lament.’ Father Jarric, quoted by Nierem⯑berg ^†, ſays the ſame thing, nearly in the ſame terms. With regard to the education of theſe animals, the teſtimony of Schoutten^‡ accords with that of Pyrard.

Theſe are nearly all the facts, concerning this animal, which have been related by voyagers who are leaſt credulous, and deſerve moſt credit. I have quoted the paſſages entire, becauſe every article is important in the hiſtory of a brute which has ſo great a reſemblance to man. And, that we may be enabled to aſcertain the nature of this animal with the greater preciſion, we ſhall now mark the differences and conformities which make him approach or recede from the human ſpe⯑cies. He differs from man externally by the flat⯑neſs of his noſe, by the ſhortneſs of his front, and by his chin, which is not elevated at the baſe. His ears are proportionally too large, his eyes too near each other, and the diſtance between his noſe and mouth is too great. Theſe are the only differences between the face of an orang-outang and that of a man. With regard to the body and members, the thighs are proportional⯑ly too ſhort, the arms too long, the fingers too ſmall, the palm of the hands too long and nar⯑row, and the feet rather reſemble hands than the human foot. The male organs of generation differ not from thoſe of man, except that the prepuce has no fraenum. The female organs are extremely ſimilar to thoſe of a woman.

The orang-outang differs internally from the human ſpecies in the number of ribs: Man has only twelve; but the orang-outang has [96] thirteen. The vertebrae of the neck are alſo ſhorter, the bones of the pelvis narrow, the but⯑tocks flatter, and the orbits of the eyes ſunk deeper. He has no ſpinal proceſs on the firſt vertebra of the neck. The kidneys are round⯑er than thoſe of man, and the ureters have a different figure, as well as the bladder and gall-bladder, which are narrower and longer than in the human ſpecies. All the other parts of the body, head, and members, both external and in⯑ternal, ſo perfectly reſemble thoſe of man, that we cannot make the compariſon without being aſtoniſhed that ſuch a ſimilarity in ſtructure and organization ſhould not produce the ſame ef⯑fects. The tongue, and all the organs of ſpeech, for example, are the ſame as in man; and yet the orang-outang enjoys not the faculty of ſpeaking; the brain has the ſame figure and proportions; and yet he poſſeſſes not the power of thinking. Can there be a more evident proof than is exhibited in the orang-outang, that matter alone, though perfectly organized, can produce neither language nor thought, unleſs it be animated by a ſuperior principle? Man and the orang-outang are the only animals who have buttocks and calfs of the legs, and who, of courſe, are formed for walking erect; the only animals who have a broad cheſt, flat ſhoulders, and vertebrae of the ſame ſtructure; and the only animals whoſe brain, heart, lungs, liver, ſpleen, ſtomach, and inteſtines are perfectly ſi⯑milar, [97] and who have an appendix vermiformis or blind-gut. In fine, the orang-outang has a greater reſemblance to man than even to the baboons or monkeys, not only in all the parts we have mentioned, but in the largeneſs of the face, the figure of the cranium, of the jaws, of the teeth, and of the other bones of the head and face; in the thickneſs of the fingers and thumb, the figure of the nails, and the number of vertebrae; and, laſtly, in the con⯑formity of the articulations, the magnitude and figure of the rotula, ſternum, &c. Hence, as there is a greater ſimilarity between this ani⯑mal and man, than between thoſe creatures which reſemble him moſt, as the Barbary ape, the baboon, and monkey, who have all been deſigned by the general name of apes, the In⯑dians are to be excuſed for aſſociating him with the human ſpecies, under the denomination of orang-outang, or wild man. As ſome of the facts we have related may appear ſuſpicious to thoſe who never ſaw this animal, we ſhall ſup⯑port them by the authority of two celebrated anatomiſts. Tyſon^* and Cowper diſſected him [98] with the moſt ſcrupulous exactneſs, and have gi⯑ven us the reſults of the compariſons they made [99] between the different parts of his body with that of man. I have tranſlated this article from the [100] Engliſh, that the reader may be enabled to form a judgment of the almoſt entire reſem⯑blance between this animal and the human ſpe⯑cies. [101] I ſhall only remark, for the better under⯑ſtanding of this note, that the Engliſh are not confined, like the French, to a ſingle name to denote apes. Like the Greeks, they have two denominations, the one for the apes without tails, which they call apes ^*, and the other for the apes with tails, which they call monkeys. The apes of Tyſon could be no other than thoſe which we denominate pithecus or pigmy, and the cynocephalus or Barbary ape. I ſhould like⯑wiſe remark, that this author gives ſome reſem⯑blances and differences which are not ſufficiently accurate.

1. Tyſon makes it peculiar to man and the o⯑rang-outang, to have the hair on the ſhoulders directed downward, and that of the arms up⯑ward. The hair of moſt animals, it is true, is directed backward or downward; but there are ſome exceptions. The ſloth, and the leaſt ant-eater have the hair of their anterior parts directed backward, and that of the crupper and reins di⯑rected [102] forward. Hence this character is of no great moment in the compariſon of the orang-outang with man.

2. In the paſſage quoted from Tyſon, I took no notice of the four firſt differences; becauſe they are either too ſlight, or ill founded. The firſt is the difference of ſtature, which is an un⯑certain and gratuitous character, eſpecially as the author acknowledges that his animal was very young. The ſecond, third, and fourth are derived from the form of the noſe, the quan⯑tity of hair, and other minute relations. I re⯑trenched ſeveral other differences; for example, the twenty-firſt, drawn from the number of teeth. It is certain that both the human ſpe⯑cies and this animal have an equal number of teeth. If the latter had only twenty-eight, as our author remarks, it was owing to his youth; and, it is well known, that man, when young, has not a greater number.

3. The ſeventh difference is alſo very equivo⯑cal: The teſticles of children are ſituated very high; and this animal, being young, ought not to have had them pendulous.

4. The forty-eight mark of reſemblance, and the twenty-firſt, twenty-ſecond, twenty-third, twenty-fourth, and twenty-fifth marks of dif⯑ference, are derived from the figure or preſence of certain muſcles, which, as they vary in moſt individuals of the human ſpecies, ought not to be regarded as eſſential characters.

[103] 5. All the reſemblances and differences drawn from parts too minute, as the proceſſes of the vertebrae, or derived from the poſition and mag⯑nitude of certain parts, ſhould only be conſider⯑ed as acceſſory characters; ſo that the whole detail of Tyſon's table may be reduced to the reſemblances and differences we have pointed out.

6. I ſhall mention ſome characters of a more general nature, ſome of which have been omit⯑ted by Tyſon, and others imperfectly related. 1. Of all the apes, baboons, and monkeys, the orang-outang alone wants thoſe pouches with⯑in the cheeks, into which they put their food, before they ſwallow it; for the inſide of his mouth is the ſame as in man. 2. The gibbon, the Barbary ape, all the baboons, and all the monkeys, except the douc, have flat buttocks, with calloſities on them. The orang-outang alone has plump buttocks without calloſities. The douc likewiſe has no calloſities; but his buttocks are flat and covered with hair; ſo that, in this reſpect, the douc forms the ſhade be⯑tween the orang-outang and the monkeys. 3. The orang-outang alone has calfs of the legs and fleſhy buttocks. This ſingle character ſhows that he is beſt formed for walking erect; only his toes are very long, and his heel reſts with more difficulty on the ground than that of man. He runs with more eaſe than he walks; and, to enable him to walk eaſily and long, he would [104] require artificial heels higher than thoſe of our ſhoes. 4. Though the orang-outang has thir⯑teen ribs, and man but twelve. This difference does not make him approach nearer to the ba⯑boons or monkeys than it removes him from man; becauſe the number of ribs varies in moſt of thoſe ſpecies, ſome of them having twelve, others eleven, others ten, &c. Hence the only differences between the body of this animal and that of man are reduced to two, namely, the figure of the bones of the pelvis, and the con⯑formation of the feet. Theſe are the only parts worthy of conſideration, by which the orang-outang has a greater reſemblance to the other apes than he has to man.

THE PIGMY^*.

ARISTOTLE remarks, 'that there are animals whoſe nature is ambiguous, and are partly allied to man, and partly to qua⯑drupeds; ſuch as the pigmies, the kebes, and the cynocephali. The kebe is a pigmy with a tail; and the cynocephalus is perfectly ſimilar to the pigmy, except that it is larger and ſtronger, and has a longer muzzle, approach⯑ing nearly to that of the bull-dog, from which circumſtance its name has been derived. Its manners are likewiſe more ferocious, and its [107] teeth are ſtronger than thoſe of the pigmy, and have a greater reſemblance to thoſe of the dog.' From this paſſage, it is apparent, that neither the pigmy nor the cynocephalus men⯑tioned by Ariſtotle have a tail; for he ſays, that the pigmies with tails are called kebes, and that the cynocephalus reſembles the pigmy in every article, except the muzzle and teeth. Hence Ariſtotle takes notice of two apes without tails, the pigmy and cynocephalus, and other apes with tails, to which he gives the denomination of kebes. Now, to compare our own knowledge with that of Ariſtotle, we ſhall remark, that we have ſeen three ſpecies of apes without tails, the orang-outang, the gibbon, or long armed ape, and the magot, or Barbary ape, and that the pigmy is none of theſe three ſpecies; for the orang-outang and gibbon could not be known to Ariſtotle, ſince theſe animals are only found in the ſouthern parts of Africa and India, which were not diſcovered in his time; beſides, they have characters very different from thoſe he a⯑ſcribes to the pigmy. But the third ſpecies, which we call the magot, or Barbary ape, is the cynocephalus of Ariſtotle; for it has no tail; its muzzle reſembles that of a bull-dog; and its canine teeth are long and thick. Beſides, this animal is common in Aſia Minor, and other eaſt⯑ern provinces which were known to the Greeks. The pigmy belongs to the ſame country; but we know it only from the relations of travel⯑lers. [108] But, though we have never been able to procure this ape, its exiſtence is equally real with that of the cynocephalus. Geſner and John⯑ſton have given figures of the pigmy. M. Briſ⯑ſon mentions his having ſeen it, and he diſtin⯑guiſhes it from the cynocephalus or Barbary ape, which he likewiſe ſaw. He confirms Ariſtotle's remark, that theſe two animals reſemble each other in every thing, except that the cynocepha⯑lus has a longer muzzle than the pigmy^*.

We remarked, that the orang-outang, the pig⯑my, the gibbon, and the Barbary ape, are the only animals to which the generic name ape ought to be applied; becauſe they alone want the tail, and walk ſpontaneouſly, and oftener on two feet than on four. The orang-outang and the gibbon are very different from the pigmy and Barbary ape. But, as the two latter have a perfect reſemblance, except in the length of the muzzle and the largeneſs of the canine teeth, the one has frequently been miſtaken for the o⯑ther. They have always been mentioned under [109] the common appellation of ape, even in lan⯑guages which have one name for apes without tails, and another for thoſe which have tails. In German, both the pigmy and Barbary ape are called aff, and ape in Engliſh. It is only in the Greek language that each of theſe animals has a proper name. Cynocephalus is rather an adjec⯑tive than a proper ſubſtantive; and for that rea⯑ſon we have not adopted it.

From the teſtimony of the antients, it appears, that the pigmy is more mild and docile than all the other apes with which they were acquaint⯑ed, and that it was common in Aſia as well as in Lybia, and other provinces of Africa which were frequented by the Greek and Roman tra⯑vellers. Hence I preſume that the following paſſages of Leo Africanus and Marmol ought to be applied to the pigmy. They tell us, that the apes with long tails, which are ſhown in Mau⯑ritania, and which the Africans call mones, come from the Negro country; but that the apes with⯑out tails are natives, and very numerous in the mountains of Mauritania, Bugia, and Conſtan⯑tina: 'They have,' ſays Marmol, 'the feet, the hands, and the countenance of a man, and are extremely malicious and full of ſpirit. They live upon herbs, corn, and all kinds of fruits. They go in troops into the gardens or fields; but, before they leave the thickets, one of them aſcends an eminence, from which he views the country; and, when he ſees no perſon, he [110] gives the ſignal, by a cry for the reſt to pro⯑ceed, and removes not from his ſtation as long as they continue abroad. But, whenever he perceives any perſon approaching, he ſcreams with a loud voice; and, by leaping from tree to tree, they all fly to the mountains. Their flight is worthy of admiration; for the females, though they carry four or five young ones on their backs, make great ſprings from branch to branch. Though extremely cunning, vaſt numbers of them are taken by different arts. When wild, they bite deſperately; but by car⯑reſſes they are eaſily tamed. They do much miſchief to the fruits and corn; for they gather it together in heaps, cut it, and throw it on the ground, whether it be ripe or not, and de⯑ſtroy more than they eat or carry off. Thoſe who are tamed perform things which are al⯑moſt incredible, and imitate every human ac⯑tion^*.' Kolbe relates nearly the ſame facts with regard to the apes of the Cape of Good Hope. But, from his figure and deſcription, it is obvious, that theſe apes are baboons, and have a ſhort tail, a long muzzle, pointed nails, &c.; and that they are much larger and ſtronger than the apes of Mauritania^†. We may, therefore, preſume, that Kolbe has copied the paſſage from Marmol, and attributed to the baboons of the [111] Cape the manners and diſpoſitions of Maurita⯑nian pigmies.

The pigmy, the Barbary ape, and the baboon, were known to the antients; theſe animals are found in Aſia Minor, Arabia, Upper Egypt, and in all the northern parts of Africa. Hence this paſſage of Marmol may be applied to all the three. But it correſponds not with the baboon; for it mentions, that theſe apes have no tails. Neither is it the Barbary ape, but the pigmy, of which this author treats; for the Barbary ape is not eaſily tamed, and, inſtead of four or five, it generally produces only two young. But the pigmy, being ſmaller, ſhould produce a greater number. Beſides, it is milder and more docile than the Barbary ape, who is never perfectly tamed. For theſe reaſons, I am convinced that it is not the Barbary ape, but the pigmy, to which the paſſage in the above author ought to be ap⯑plied. The ſame remark is applicable to a paſ⯑ſage of Rubruquis; when mentioning the apes of Cathay, he remarks, 'That, in every article, they are faſhioned like man. . . . That they are more than a foot and a half high, and all covered with hair; that they live in caverns; that, in order to ſeize them, the natives put ſtrong inebriating liquors in the caverns they frequent;. . . . that they aſſemble together to drink theſe liquors, crying chinchin, from which they have obtained the name of chinchin; and that, after intoxicating themſelves, they fall [112] aſleep, when they are eaſily taken by the hun⯑ters.' Theſe characters correſpond with the pigmy, and by no means with the Barbary ape. The latter we have ſeen alive, and never heard it cry chinchin. Beſides, it is much more than a foot and a half high, and has not ſo great a reſemblance to man as the author alledges. We have the ſame reaſons for applying to the pigmy the figure and remark of Proſper Alpinus: He tells us, that the ſmall apes without tails, which he ſaw in Egypt, tame ſooner and more eaſily than any other; that they have likewiſe more ſa⯑gacity and induſtry, and are gayer and more fro⯑licſome. Now, the Barbary ape is thick, and of a conſiderable ſtature; it is a dirty, ferocious, melancholy animal, and is never fully tamed. Hence the characters given by Proſper Alpinus to his ape without a tail, apply not to the Bar⯑bary ape, and can belong to no other animal than the pigmy.

The GIBBON, or Long-armed APE^*.

THE Gibbon keeps himſelf always erect, e⯑ven when he walks on four feet; becauſe his arms are as long as both his body and legs. We have ſeen him alive. He exceeded not three feet in height; but he was young, and in cap⯑tivity. Hence we may preſume, that he had not acquired his full dimenſions, and that, in a natural ſtate, he might arrive at four feet. He has not the veſtige of a tail. But he is diſtin⯑guiſhed [114] from the other apes by the prodigious length of his arms: When ſtanding erect on his hind feet, his hands touch the ground; and he can walk on his four feet without bending his body. Round the face there is a circle of white, which gives him a very extraordinary appear⯑ance. His eyes are large, but deep ſunk. His ears are naked. His face is flat, of a tawny co⯑lour, and pretty ſimilar to that of man. After the orang-outang and the pigmy, the gibbon would make the neareſt approach to the human figure, if he was not deformed by the exceſſive length of his arms; for, in a ſtate of nature, man would likewiſe have a ſtrange aſpect. The hair and the beard, if neglected, would form round his countenance a circle ſimilar to that which ſurrounds the face of the gibbon.

This ape appeared to be of a tranquil diſpo⯑ſition, and of gentle manners. His movements were neither too briſk nor precipitant. He re⯑ceived mildly what was given him to eat. He was fed with bread, fruits, almonds, &c. He was afraid of cold and moiſture, and did not live long in a foreign climate. He is a native of the Eaſt Indies, and particularly of Coroman⯑del, Malacca, and the Molucca iſlands^*. It ap⯑pears [115] that he is likewiſe found in more northern provinces, and that we ought to refer to the gibbon, the ape of the kingdom of Gannaura, on the frontier of China, to which ſome travel⯑lers have given the name of fefé ^†.

The gibbon varies in ſize and colour. There are two in the royal cabinet, of which the ſe⯑cond, though an adult, is much ſmaller than the firſt, and is brown in all the parts where the o⯑ther is black. But they ſo perfectly reſemble each other in every other article, that they un⯑queſtionably belong to the ſame ſpecies.

The MAGOT, or BARBARY APE^*.

OF all the apes without tails^†, the Magot agrees beſt with the temperature of our climate. We kept one ſeveral years. In ſum⯑mer, he delighted to be in the open air; and, in winter, he might be kept in a room without fire. Though by no means delicate, he was al⯑ways melancholy, and ſometimes dirty. He uſed the ſame grimaces to mark his anger, or to expreſs his appetite. His movements were briſk, his manners groſs, and his aſpect more ugly than [118] ridiculous. When agitated with paſſion, he ex⯑hibited and grinded his teeth. He filled the pouches of his cheeks with the food which was given him, and generally eat every thing, ex⯑cept raw fleſh, cheeſe, and whatever had under⯑gone a kind of fermentation. When about to ſleep, he loved to perch upon an iron or wooden bar. He was always chained; becauſe, though he had been long in a domeſtic ſtate, he was not civilized, and had no attachment to his maſters. He ſeems to have been ill educated; for I have ſeen others of the ſame ſpecies more intelligent, more obedient, more gay, and ſo docile as to learn to dance, to make geſticulations in cadence, and to allow themſelves peaceably to be clo⯑thed.

This ape, when erect upon his two hind legs, is generally two feet and a half, or three feet high; the female is ſmaller than the male. He walks more willingly on four feet than on two. When reſting, he commonly ſupports his body on two prominent calloſities, which are ſituated where the buttocks ought to be: The anus is placed higher. Hence his body is more inclined than that of a man, when ſitting. He differs from the pigmy or ape properly ſo called: 1. Becauſe his muzzle is thick and long, as in the dog; but the face of the pigmy is flat; 2. Becauſe he has very long canine teeth; 3. Be⯑cauſe his nails and fingers are neither ſo flat nor ſo round; and, 4. Becauſe he is larger, more [119] ſquat, and of a more ferocious and untractable diſpoſition.

There are ſome varieties in this ſpecies. We have ſeen magots of different ſizes, and with hair more or leſs deeply coloured, and more or leſs buſhy. It even appears, that the five ani⯑mals deſcribed and drawn by Proſper Alpinus, under the denomination of cynocephali ^*, are all magots, which differ only in magnitude, and in ſome other characters too ſlight to conſtitute diſtinct ſpecies. It likewiſe appears that the ſpecies is pretty generally diffuſed over all the warm climates of the Old Continent, and that they are found in Tartary, Arabia, AEthiopia, Malabar^†, Barbary, Mauritania, and as far as the Cape of Good Hope^‡.

The BABOON, properly ſo called^*.

IN man, the phyſiognomy is deceitful, and the figure of his body gives no indication of the qualities of his mind. But, in the brute creation, we may judge of the diſpoſition by the aſpect; for every internal quality appears externally. For example, in looking at the apes and baboons, it is eaſy to perceive, that the latter ought to be the moſt ſavage and miſchievous. Their manners differ as much as their figures. The orang-ou⯑tang has the greateſt reſemblance to man; and he is the moſt grave, docile, and intelligent of the whole race. The Barbary ape, which begins to recede from the human figure, and approaches to that of the brutes by his muzzle and canine teeth, is briſk, diſobedient, and naſty. The ba⯑boons, who reſemble man in the hands only, and who have a tail, ſharp nails, a large muzzle, &c. have the air of ferocious beaſts, which they are in effect. The baboon, of which a figure is [122] here given, I ſaw alive. He was not perfectly hideous; and yet he excited a degree of horror. Perpetually grinding his teeth, fretting and chafing with rage, his owner was obliged to keep him confined in an iron cage, the bars of which he moved ſo powerfully with his hands, that he inſpired the ſpectators with terror. He is a ſquat animal, whoſe compact body and ner⯑vous members indicate ſtrength and agility. He is covered with long cloſe hair, which gives him the appearance of being larger than he is in re⯑ality. His ſtrength, however, is ſo great, that he would eaſily overcome one or ſeveral men, if not provided with arms^*. Beſides, he is con⯑tinually agitated by that paſſion which renders the gentleſt animals ferocious. He is inſolently ſalacious, affects to ſhow himſelf in this ſitua⯑tion, and ſeems to gratify his deſires, per manum ſuum, before the whole world. This deteſtable action recalls the idea of vice, and renders diſ⯑guſtful the aſpect of an animal, which Nature ſeems to have particularly devoted to ſuch an uncommon ſpecies of impudence; for, in all o⯑ther [123] animals, and even in man, ſhe has covered theſe parts with a veil. In the baboon, on the contrary, they are perpetually naked, and the more conſpicuous, becauſe the reſt of the body is covered with long hair. The buttocks are likewiſe naked, and of a blood red colour; the teſticles are pendulous; the anus is uncovered, and the tail always elevated. He ſeems to be proud of all thoſe nudities; for the preſents his hind parts more frequently than his front, e⯑ſpecially when he ſees women, before whom he diſplays an effrontery ſo matchleſs, that it can originate from nothing but the moſt inor⯑dinate deſire^*. The magot, and ſome others, have the ſame inclinations; but, as they are ſmaller and not ſo petulant, they are taught mo⯑deſty by the whip. The baboon, however, is perfectly incorrigible, and nothing can tame him.

Notwithſtanding the violence of their paſſion, [124] theſe animals produce not in temperate climates. The female generally brings forth but one young at a time, which ſhe carries between her arms, in a manner fixed to her pap. Like women, ſhe is ſubject to a periodical evacuation, which is common to her with the other female apes who have naked buttocks. Theſe baboons, though miſchievous and fierce, are not carnivo⯑rous. They live chiefly on fruits, roots, and ſeeds^*. They aſſemble in troops for the purpoſe of robbing gardens: They throw the fruit from hand to hand, and over the walls; and they make great havock in all the cultivated lands.

[]

[]

[] The MANDRILL^*, or Ribbed Noſe BABOON.

THE ugglineſs of this baboon is perfectly diſguſting. His noſe, or rather his two noſtrils, are flat, from which a ſnot perpetually runs, and he licks it into his mouth with his tongue. His head is very large, and his muzzle long. His body is ſquat, and his buttocks are of a blood colour. His anus is conſpicuous, and ſituated almoſt as high as the loins. His face is of a violet colour, and ſurrounded on each ſide with deep longitudinal wrinkles, which [130] augment the ſullenneſs and deformity of his aſpect. He is likewiſe larger, and perhaps ſtrong⯑er than the baboon; but, at the ſame time, he is more peaceable, and leſs ferocious. We here give figures of both the male and the female, which we have ſeen alive. Whether they had received a better education, or if they be natu⯑rally more gentle than the baboon, they appear⯑ed to be more tractable and leſs impudent; but they were equally diſagreeable.

This ſpecies of baboon is found on the Gold Coaſt, and in the other ſouthern provinces of Africa, where he is called boggo by the Negroes, and mandrill by the Europeans. Next to the orang-outang, he is the largeſt of all the apes or baboons. Smith relates^*, that he had a pre⯑ſent [131] of a female mandrill, which was only ſix months old, and that it was as large as an adult baboon. He adds, that theſe mandrills walk al⯑ways on two feet; that they weep and groan like men; that they have a violent paſſion for women, which they never fail to gratify when they find a woman at a diſtance from relief.

The OUANDEROU^* and the LOWANDO^*.

THOUGH theſe two animals appear to belong to the ſame ſpecies, we have pre⯑ſerved to each of them the proper names they receive in Ceylon, which is their native coun⯑try; becauſe they conſtitute, at leaſt, two di⯑ſtinct and permanent races. The body of the ouanderou is covered with brown and black hairs; it has a buſhy head, and a large beard. The body of the lowando, on the con⯑trary, is covered with whitiſh hairs, and the hair on its head and beard is black. In the ſame country, there is a third race or variety, which [134] is probably the common ſtock of the other two; for the hair on its body, head, and beard, is of one uniform white colour. Theſe three ani⯑mals are not apes, but baboons, of which they have all the characters both in figure and diſpo⯑ſitions. They are wild, and even ferocious. Their muzzle is long, their tail ſhort, and they are nearly of the ſame ſize and ſtrength as the baboons. Their bodies are indeed leſs ſquat, and their hind parts ſeem to be more feeble. That of which we have given a figure, was ex⯑hibited to us under falſe appellations, both with regard to its name and climate. Its owners told us, that it came from the continent of America, and that it was called cayouvaſſou. I ſoon re⯑collected that this word cayouvaſſou is a Braſili⯑an term, which is pronounced ſajuouaſſou, and ſignifies ſapajou; and, conſequently, that it was improperly applied; ſince all the ſapajous have very long tails. But the animal under conſide⯑ration is a baboon with a very ſhort tail. Be⯑ſides, not a ſingle ſpecies of baboon exiſts in A⯑merica. Errors with regard to climate are very common, eſpecially among thoſe who exhibit wild beaſts: When they are ignorant of the cli⯑mate and the name of an animal, they fail not to give it a foreign denomination, which, whether true or falſe, equally ſerves their purpoſe.

Theſe baboon-ouanderous, when not tamed, are ſo miſchievous, that they muſt be kept in iron cages, where they are frequently agitated [135] with vaſt fury. But, when taken young, they are eaſily tamed, and appear to be even more ſuſceptible of education than the other baboons. The Indians delight in inſtructing theſe animals, and pretend that the other apes, that is, the monkeys, have a great reſpect for the baboons, who are poſſeſſed of more gravity and intelli⯑gence. In a ſtate of liberty^*, they are extreme⯑ly wild, and keep perpetually in the woods^†. If we may credit travellers, thoſe which are all white are the ſtrongeſt and moſt miſchievous. They are violently fond of women, ſtrong e⯑nough to raviſh them when found alone^‡, and often injure them ſo as to prove fatal.

The MAIMON, or Pig-tailed BA⯑BOON^*.

THE apes, baboons, and monkeys, form three tribes, with intervals between each, the firſt of which is filled by the magot, and the ſecond by the maimon. The latter conſtitutes the link or ſhade between the baboons and mon⯑keys, as the magot does between the apes and baboons. In effect, the maimon reſembles the baboons by the thickneſs and largeneſs of his muzzle, and by his ſhort, arched tail; but he differs from them, and approaches the monkeys, by the ſmallneſs of his ſize, and the mildneſs of his nature. Mr Edwards has given a figure and deſcription of the maimon, under the denomi⯑nation of the pig-tailed ape. This peculiar cha⯑racter [138] is ſufficient to diſtinguiſh him; for, of all the baboons or monkeys, he alone has a naked, ſlender, and arched tail, like that of a pig. He is nearly of the ſize of the magot, and has ſo ſtrong a reſemblance to the macaque, or hare-lipped monkey, that he might be regarded as a variety of this ſpecies, if his tail were not totally different. He has a naked, tawny face, cheſnut-coloured eyes, black eye-lids, a flat noſe, and thin lips, with ſome ſtiff hairs, but too ſhort to form whiſkers. He has not, like the apes and baboons, his teſticles and penis prominent and apparent; the whole organs are concealed un⯑der the ſkin. Hence the maimon, though vi⯑vacious and full of fire, has none of that impu⯑dent petulance peculiar to the baboons. He is gentle, tractable, and even careſſing. He is found in Sumatra, and probably in other ſou⯑thern provinces of India; of courſe, he endures with difficulty the cold of our climate. The one we ſaw in Paris lived only a ſhort time, and that which Mr Edwards deſcribed, exiſted only twelve months in London^*.

[]

The MACAQUE or Hare-lipped MONKEY^*, and the EGRET^*.

OF all the guenons, or monkeys with long tails, the macaque makes the neareſt ap⯑proach to the baboons. Like them, his body is [141] ſhort and ſquat, his head and muzzle large, his noſe flat, his cheeks wrinkled, and, at the ſame time, he exceeds moſt of the other monkeys in ſize. He is alſo extremely ugly; ſo that he might be regarded as a ſmall ſpecies of baboon, if his tail were not long and buſhy, while that of the baboons in general is very ſhort. This ſpecies is a native of Congo, and other ſouthern provinces of Africa. It is numerous, and ſubject to ſeveral varieties in ſize, in colour, and in the diſpoſition of the hair. The body of that deſcribed by Haſſelquiſt was more than two feet long; and thoſe we have ſeen exceeded not a foot and a half. The one we have denominated egret, becauſe it has a creſt or tuft of hair on the top of the head, appears to be only a variety of the macaque, which it reſembles in every article, except this, and ſome other ſlight differences in the hair. They are both of mild manners, and extremely tractable. But, independent of a diſ⯑agreeable muſky odour which they both diffuſe, they are ſo dirty, ſo ugly, and ſo loathſome, that, when they make their grimaces, they cannot be viewed without horror and diſguſt. Theſe monkeys go often in troops, eſpecially in their expeditions to rob gardens. Boſman relates, that they take in each paw a quantity of millet, [142] and an equal quantity under their arms and in their mouths; that they return thus loaded leaping on their hind feet, and, when purſued, they drop the ſtalks which they held under their arms and in their hands, preſerving only what they carry in their teeth, to enable them to run with more ſpeed on their four feet. He adds, that they examine, with the moſt ſcrupulous accuracy, every ſtalk of millet they pull, and, if it does not pleaſe them, they throw it on the ground, and tear up others. By this delicacy of choice, they do more damage than by their robberies^*.

The PATAS^* or red MONKEY.

THE Patas belongs to the ſame country, and is nearly of the ſame ſize with the macaque; but his body is longer, his face leſs hideous, and his hair more beautiful. He is re⯑markable for the brilliancy of his robe, which is of ſo vivid a red as to have the appearance of being painted. We have ſeen two varieties of this ſpecies. The firſt has a black line above the eyes, which extends from ear to ear. The ſe⯑cond differs from the firſt only in the colour of this line, which is white. Both have long hair under the chin and round the cheeks, which makes a fine beard: But, in the firſt, it is yel⯑low, and, in the ſecond, white. This variety ſeems to indicate others in the colour of the hair; and I am inclined to think, that the monkey [145] mentioned by Marmol^*, which is of the colour of a wild cat, and ſaid to come from the Negro country, is a variety of the patas.

Theſe monkeys are not equally dexterous as the other kinds; and, at the ſame time, they are extremely inquiſitive. ‘'I have ſeen them,' ſays Brue, 'deſcend from the tops of the trees to the extremities of the branches, in order to ad⯑mire the barks as they paſſed. They ſtare for ſome time, ſeem to be entertained with what they have ſeen, and then give place to thoſe who come after. They became ſo fami⯑liar as to throw branches at the Frenchmen, who returned the compliment by the ſhot of their muſkets. Some of them ſell, others were wounded, and the reſt were ſtruck with a ſtrange conſternation. One party raiſed hide⯑ous cries; another collected ſtones to throw at the enemy: Some of them, with their bowels in their hands, attempted to throw their in⯑trails at the ſpectators. At laſt, perceiving the combat to be at leaſt equal, they retired^†.'’

It is probably of this ſpecies of monkey which le Maire ſpeaks of in the following terms: ‘'The havock which theſe monkeys make in the fields of Senegal, when the millet and other grains are ripe, is not to be expreſſed. They aſ⯑ſemble [146] to the number of forty or fifty. One of them ſtands ſentinel on a tree, liſtens, and looks about on all ſides, while the others are buſy. When he perceives any perſon, he ſets up loud ſhrieks to alarm the band, who obey the ſignal, fly off with their prey, leaping from tree to tree with prodigious agility. The fe⯑males, who carry their young in their arms, fly with the reſt, and leap as if they were load⯑ed with no burden^*'’

Though, in every region of Africa, the ſpecies of apes, baboons, and monkeys, are very nume⯑rous, ſome of which are pretty ſimilar; yet it is remarked by travellers, that they never inter⯑mix, and that each ſpecies commonly inhabits a different quarter of the country^†

The MALBROUCK^*, and CHI⯑NESE-BONNET^**

THESE two monkeys ſeem to be of the ſame ſpecies, which, though different in ſome reſpects from that of the Macaque, makes ſo near an approach to it, that we are doubtful whether the macaque, the egret, the malbrouck, and the Chineſe-bonnet, are only four varieties, or permanent races, of the ſame ſpecies. As theſe animals produce not in our climate, we cannot aſcertain the identity or diverſity of their ſpecies, but muſt judge from the differences in their figure and in their external qualities. The macaque and the egret are ſo ſimilar, that we preſumed them to be one ſpecies. It is the ſame with the malbrouck and Chineſe-bonnet. But, as the latter differ from the former more than they differ between themſelves, we thought it beſt to ſeparate them.

Our preſumption, with regard to the diverſity of theſe two ſpecies, is founded, 1. On the dif⯑ference [149] in their figure; 2. On that of the colour and diſpoſition of the hair; 3. On the different proportions in the ſkeletons of the two kinds; and, in fine, on the two former being natives of the ſouthern regions of Africa, while the two latter are natives of Bengal. This laſt conſideration is of equal weight with any of the others; for we have ſhown, that, in wild animals totally in⯑dependent of man, the diſtance of climate is a pretty certain indication of remoteneſs of ſpe⯑cies. Beſides, the malbrouck and Chineſe-bon⯑net are not the only ſpecies or races of monkeys found in Bengal^* It appears, from the evi⯑dence of travellers, that there are four varieties, namely, white, black, red, and gray monkeys. They alledge that the black kind are moſt eaſi⯑ly tamed. Thoſe we ſaw were of a reddiſh gray colour, and appeared to be tame, and even docile.

'Theſe animals,' travellers remark^† 'ſteal fruits, and particularly the ſugar cane. One ſtands ſentinel on a tree, while the others load themſelves with the booty. If he perceives any perſon, he cries houp, houp, houp, with a [150] loud and diſtinct voice. The moment this ſignal is given, the whole troop throw down the canes they held in their left hand, and run off on three feet. When purſued hard, they quit what they had in their right hand, and ſave themſelves by climbing trees, which are the uſual places of their abode. They leap from tree to tree; and even the females, though loaded with their young, which they hold firmly, leap like the others; but they ſometimes fall. Theſe animals are never more than half-tamed, and always require a chain. Even in their own country, they never pro⯑duce, when in bondage: They require to be at perfect freedom in the woods. When fruits and ſucculent plants fail, they eat inſects, and ſometimes deſcend to the margins of rivers, and the ſea-coaſt, to catch fiſhes and crabs. They put their tail between the pincers of the crab, and, whenever the pincers are cloſed, they carry it quickly off, and eat it at their leiſure. They gather cocoa nuts, and are well acquainted with the method of extracting the juice for drink, and the kernel for food. They likewiſe drink the zari which drops from the bamboos, which they place on the tops of trees, in order to extract the liquors; and they uſe it occaſionally. They are taken by means of a cocoa nut, with a ſmall hole made in it. They put their paw into the hole with difficul⯑ty [151] becauſe it is narrow; and the people who are watching, ſeize them before they can diſ⯑engage themſelves. In the provinces of India inhabited by the Bramins, who kill no ani⯑mals, the number of monkeys, which are high⯑ly venerated, is almoſt infinite. They come in troops into the cities, and enter the houſes at all times with perfect freedom; ſo that thoſe who ſell proviſions, and particularly fruits, pot-herbs, &c. have much difficulty in preſer⯑ving their commodities.' In Amadabad, the capital of Guzarat, there are three hoſpitals for animals, where lame and ſick monkeys, and even thoſe who, without being diſeaſed, chooſe to dwell there, are fed and cheriſhed. Twice every week, the monkeys in the neighbourhood aſ⯑ſemble ſpontaneouſly in the ſtreets of the city. They then mount upon the houſes, each of which has a ſmall terrace, or flat roof, where they lie during the great heats. On theſe two days, the inhabitants fail not to lay upon theſe terraces rice, millet, ſugar canes, and other fruits in their ſeaſon; for, if theſe animals, by any accident, find not their proviſions in the accuſtomed place, they break the tiles which cover the reſt of the houſe, and commit great outrages. They never eat any thing, without thoroughly examining it; and, when full, they fill their cheek-pouches for another occaſion. In places frequented by the monkeys, the birds dare not build their neſts on [152] the trees; for they never fail to deſtroy the neſts, and daſh the eggs on the ground^*.

Neither the tiger nor other ferocious animals are the moſt formidable enemies to the mon⯑keys; for they eaſily make their eſcape by their nimbleneſs, and by living on the tops of trees, where nothing but ſerpents have the art of ſur⯑priſing them. ‘'The apes,' a traveller re⯑marks, 'are maſters of the foreſts; for their dominion is not diſputed either by the tiger or lion. The only animals they have to dread are the ſerpents, who make perpetual war up⯑on them. Some of theſe ſerpents are of a pro⯑digious ſize, and ſwallow an ape in a moment. Others are ſmaller, but more agile, and go in queſt of the apes on the trees. . . . . They watch the time when the apes ſleep^† &c.'’

The MANGABEY^*, or MONKEY with white EYE-LIDS.

WE have had two individuals of this ſpecies, both of which were ſent to us under the appellation of Madagaſcar apes. It is eaſy to diſtinguiſh the mangabeys from all the other monkeys by a very remarkable character. Their eye-lids are naked, and of a very ſplendid white colour. They have a thick, broad, long muzzle, and a prominent ring round their eyes. Some of them have the hair on the head, neck, and upper part of the body, of a yellow brown colour, and that on the belly white. In others, the hair on the head and body is lighter; and they are diſtinguiſhed from the reſt by a broad collar of white hair, which ſurrounds their neck and cheeks. Both carry their tail arched, and the hair on it is long and buſhy. They come from the ſame country as the vari, or ruffed mau⯑cauco; and, as they reſemble him in the length []

[]

[155] of the muzzle and tail, in the manner of car⯑rying the latter, and in the varieties of colour, they ſeem to form the ſhade between the makis and the guenons, or long-tailed monkeys.

The MONA,^* or varied MONKEY.

THE mona is the moſt common of the mon⯑keys. We had one alive for ſeveral years. The mona and the magot agree beſt with the temperature of our climate. This circumſtance is alone ſufficient to prove, that the mona is not a native of the ſouthern regions of Africa and the Eaſt Indies; and, in fact, it is found in Bar⯑bary, Arabia, Perſia, and other parts of Aſia [157] which were known to the antients^*, who called it kebos, cebus, or coephus, on account of the va⯑riety of its colours. Its face is brown, with a kind of beard interſperſed with white, yellow, and a little black. The hair on the top of the head and neck is a mixture of yellow and black: That on the back is a mixture of red and black. The belly, as well as the inſide of the thighs and legs, are whitiſh. The external parts of the legs and feet are black, and the tail is of a deep gray colour. There are two ſmall white ſpots, one on each ſide of the root of the tail, a creſcent of gray hair on the front, and a black band from the eyes to the ears, and from the ears to the ſhoulder and arms. Some have called it nonne from a corruption of mone or mona, and o⯑thers the old man, on account of its gray beard. But the vulgar appellation of varied monkey is beſt known, and correſponds with the Greek name kebos, and Ariſtotle's definition of the monkey with a long tail, and various colours.

In general, the monkeys have milder diſpoſi⯑tions than the baboons, and their character is leſs melancholy than that of the apes. They are extravagantly vivacious; but have no fero⯑city; for they become tractable the moment their attention is fixed by fear or reſtraint. The mona is particularly ſuſceptible of education, and even of ſome attachment to thoſe who take [158] care of him. The one we kept allowed him⯑ſelf to be touched and carried about by the peo⯑ple with whom he was acquainted; but, to o⯑thers, he permitted not this freedom, and even bit them. He likewiſe endeavoured to obtain his liberty: He was fixed with a long chain. When he could either break the chain or diſen⯑gage himſelf, he fled to the fields, and, though he did not ſpontaneouſly return, he allowed himſelf to be taken by his maſter. He eat every thing, roaſted meat, bread, and particular⯑ly fruits. He likewiſe ſearched for ſpiders, ants, and inſects^* When ſeveral morſels were thrown to him at once, he filled his cheeks with them. This practice is common to all the ba⯑boons and monkeys, to whom Nature has gi⯑ven pouches in their cheeks, where they can keep a quantity of food ſufficient to nouriſh them for a day or two.

The CALLITRIX, or GREEN-MONKEY^*.

CALLITRIX is a term employed by Ho⯑mer, to denote, in general, the beautiful colour of the hair of animals. It was not till ſeveral ages after Homer's time, that the Greeks applied this name to particular ſpecies of mon⯑keys. Its application to the animal under con⯑ſideration is peculiarly proper. The body is of a beautiful green colour, the throat and belly are white, and the face is of a fine black. He is found in Mauritania, and in the territories of antient Carthage. Hence it is probable that he was known to the Greeks and Romans, and [161] that it was one of thoſe long-tailed monkeys to which they gave the name of callitrix. In the neighbourhood of Egypt, both on the AEthiopian and Arabian ſide, there are white monkeys, which the antients have likewiſe denoted by the generic name of callitrix. Proſper Alpinus and Pietro della Valle^* mention theſe white mon⯑keys. We have not ſeen this white ſpecies: It is perhaps only a variety of the green monkey, or of the mona, which is very common in theſe countries.

The green monkey ſeems alſo to be found in Senegal, as well as in Mauritania and the Cape de Verd iſlands. M. Adanſon relates, that the woods of Podor, along the river Niger, are fil⯑led with green apes. 'I diſcovered apes,' ſays he, 'only by the branches they throw down from the tops of the trees; for, in other reſpects, they are ſo ſilent and nimble in their gambols, that it would be difficult to perceive them. I killed one, two, and even three, before the others ſeemed to be alarmed. However, after moſt of them were wounded, they began to take ſhel⯑ter; [162] ſome of them concealed themſelves be⯑hind the large branches, ſome deſcended on the ground, and the greateſt number ſprung from the top of one tree to another. . . . . . . During this operation, I continued to ſhoot, and, in the ſpace of twenty fathoms, I killed twenty-three in leſs than an hour, and not one one of them uttered the ſmalleſt cry, though they frequently aſſembled in troops, grinded their teeth, and aſſumed a threatening aſpect, as if they meant to attack me;' Voyage au Se⯑negal, par M. Adanſon, p. 178.

THE MUSTACHE^*.

THE muſtache ſeems to belong to the ſame country as the macaque; becauſe, like the latter, his body is ſhorter and more ſquat than in the other monkeys. It is probably the ſame animal which the voyagers to Guinea have cal⯑led white-noſe ^*; becauſe the lips below the noſe are of a bright white colour, and the reſt of the face is of a blackiſh blue. There are al⯑ſo two tufts of yellow hair under the ears, which [164] give it a ſingular appearance; and, as it is, at the ſame time, very ſmall, it appears to be the moſt beautiful of all the monkeys.

THE TALAPOIN^*.

THOUGH the ſize of this monkey be ſmall, its figure is beautiful. Its name ſeems to indicate that it comes from Siam, and the other eaſtern provinces of Aſia. It is certain, however, that it is a native of the Old Conti⯑nent, and exiſts not in the New; becauſe it has cheek-pouches and calloſities on the buttocks, neither of which characters belong to the ſago⯑ins or ſapajous, the only American animals who can be compared to the monkeys. But, inde⯑pendent of the name, I am inclined to think that this monkey is more common in the Eaſt Indies than in Africa; becauſe it is affirmed by voyagers, that moſt of the apes in this part of Aſia are of a browniſh green colour. ‘'The apes of Guzarat are of a browniſh green co⯑lour, and have long white beards and eye-brows. Theſe animals, which the Banians, [166] from a religious principle, allow to multiply without end, are ſo familiar, that numbers of them perpetually enter the houſes; and the ſellers of fruits and confections have much difficulty in preſerving their wares^*.'’

M. Edwards has given a figure and deſcrip⯑tion of a monkey, under the denomination of the middle-ſized black ape, which ſeems to make a nearer approach to the talapoin than any other. I here add Edwards's deſcription^†, and refer to the figure he has given, that the reader may compare the two animals. If the ſize and co⯑lour be excepted, they have ſuch a reſemblance to each other, that they may be regarded as ſpe⯑cies very nearly allied, if not varieties of the ſame ſpecies. In this caſe, as we are not certain []

[167] that our talapoin is a native of the Eaſt Indies, and as Edwards aſſures us, that his monkey came from Guinea, we muſt refer the talapoin to the ſame climate, or rather ſuppoſe that it is common to the ſouthern regions of both Africa and Aſia. It is probably the ſame ſpecies of black apes mentioned by Boſman, under the name of Baurdmannetjes, whoſe ſkin, he re⯑marks, is an excellent fur^*.

The DOUC^*, or Cochin-China Monkey.

THE Douc is the laſt of that claſs of ani⯑mals which we have called apes, baboons, and monkeys. Without being preciſely any of theſe three kinds, he participates of each. He is allied to the monkeys by the length of his tail, to the baboons by his ſize, and to the apes by his flat face. He ſeems, by a particular cha⯑racter, to form the ſhade between the monkey's and ſapajous: In theſe two tribes of animals, the monkeys are diſtinguiſhed by naked buttocks, and all the ſapajous have theſe parts covered with hair: Of all the monkeys the douc has hair on the buttocks, like the ſapajous. He reſembles them alſo in the flatneſs of the muzzle. But, upon the whole, he has much more affinity to [169] the monkeys than to the ſapajous, from which he differs by his tail not being prehenſile, and by other eſſential characters. Beſides, the inter⯑val which ſeparates the two tribes is immenſe; for the douc and all the monkeys belong to the Old Continent, and all the ſapajous are natives of the New World. It may likewiſe be remark⯑ed, that, as the douc, like the monkeys, has a long tail, but has no calloſities on the buttocks, he forms the ſhade between the orang-outangs and monkeys; as the gibbon does on another account, having no tail, like the orang-outangs, but, like the monkeys, having calloſities on the buttocks. Independent of theſe general rela⯑tions, the douc has peculiar characters which render him diſtinguiſhable, at firſt ſight, from the apes, baboons, monkeys, and ſapajous. His robe, which is variegated with many colours, ſeems to indicate the ambiguity of his nature, and diſtinguiſhes his ſpecies in a conſpicuous manner. Round his neck there is a collar of a purpliſh blue colour. A white beard ſur⯑rounds his cheeks. His lips are black, and he has a black ring round his eyes. His face and ears are red, the top of his head and body gray, the breaſt and belly yellow. His legs are white below and black above. His tail is white, with a large ſpot of the ſame colour on the loins. The feet are black, with ſeveral ſhades of diffe⯑rent colours.

[170] This animal, which I was aſſured came from Cochin-China, is likewiſe found in Madagaſcar; and it is the ſame with what Flacourt men⯑tions, under the name of Sifac, in the following terms: 'In Madagaſcar, there is another ſpecies of white monkey, with a tawny collar, which frequently walks on the two hind legs. It has a white tail, and two tawny ſpots on the flanks. It is larger than the vari (maucauco), and ſmall⯑er than the varicoſſi (vari). This ſpecies is call⯑ed Sifac, and feeds upon beans. It is very fre⯑quent about Andrivoura, Dambourlomb, and Ranafoulchy^*.' The tawny collar, the white tail, and the ſpots on the flanks, indicate, in the cleareſt manner, that the Sifac of Madagaſcar is the ſame ſpecies with the douc of Cochin-China.

Travellers aſſure us, that, in the ſtomachs of the large apes in the ſouthern provinces of Aſia, bezoars are found of a ſuperior quality to thoſe of the goats and gazelles. Theſe large apes are the ouanderou and the douc; and, of courſe, to them the production of the bezoars muſt be referred. It is alledged, that the bezoars of the ape are always round, while the other kinds are of dif⯑ferent figures^†.

The SAPAJOUS^* and the SA⯑GOINS^†

WE now paſs from the Old Continent to the New. All the four-handed animals formerly deſcribed, and which were compre⯑hended under the generic names of apes, baboons, and monkeys, belong excluſively to the Old Con⯑tinent; and all the reſt, whoſe hiſtory we are a⯑bout to relate, are found only in the New World. We firſt diſtinguiſh them by the two generic names ſapajous and ſagoins. The feet of both are conſtructed nearly in the ſame man⯑ner with thoſe of the apes, baboon, and mon⯑keys. But they differ from the apes by having tails. They differ from the baboons by the want of cheek-pouches and calloſities on their buttocks. In fine, they differ from the apes, baboons, and monkeys, by having the portion between their noſtrils very broad and thick, and the apertures placed to a ſide and not under the noſe. Hence the ſapajous and ſagoins differ not only ſpecifically, but generically from the apes, [173] baboons, and monkeys. When compared with each other, we likewiſe find that they differ in generic characters; for all the ſapajous have pre⯑henſile tails, which are ſo conſtructed that the animals can uſe them as fingers to lay hold of any thing. This under part of the tail, which they fold, extend, curl up, or unfold at pleaſure, and by the extremity of which they ſuſpend themſelves on the branches of trees, is generally deprived of hair, and covered with a ſmooth ſkin. The tails of all the ſagoins, on the con⯑trary, are proportionally longer than thoſe of the ſapajous, and are ſtraight, flaccid, and entire⯑ly covered with hair; ſo that they can neither uſe the tail in laying hold of any thing, nor in ſuſpending themſelves. This differnce alone is ſufficient to diſtinguiſh a ſapajou from a ſa⯑goin.

We know eight ſapajous, which may be re⯑duced to five ſpecies: 1. The ouarine or gouariba of Braſil. This ſapajou is as large as a fox, and differs from the alouate of Cayenne in colour only. The hair of the ouarine is black, and that of the alouate is reddiſh; and, as they re⯑ſemble each other in every other reſpect, I con⯑ſider them as belonging to the ſame ſpecies. 2. The coaita, which is black like the ouarine, but not ſo large. The exquima ſeems to be a variety of this ſpecies. 3. The ſajou, or ſapajou properly ſo called, is ſmall, of a brown colour, [174] and commonly known by the name of the ca⯑puchin monkey. Of this ſpecies there is a va⯑riety, which we ſhall call the gray ſajou, to di⯑ſtinguiſh it from the brown ſajou. 4. The ſai, which ſome travellers have called the weeper, is ſomewhat larger than the ſajou, and has a broad⯑er muzzle. There are two kinds, which differ only in colour, the one being reddiſh brown, and the other whitiſh red. 5. The ſaimiri, which is commonly called the orange monkey. It is the ſmalleſt and moſt beautiful of the ſa⯑pajous.

We are acquainted with ſix ſpecies of ſagoins: 1. The ſaki, which is the largeſt, and whoſe tail is covered with hair ſo long and buſhy, that it has been called the fox-tailed monkey. There ſeems to be a variety in this ſpecies. I have ſeen two, both of which appeared to be adults; but the one was almoſt twice as large as the o⯑ther. 2. The tamarin is generally black, with the four feet yellow. But they vary in colour; for I have ſeen ſome of them brown, and ſpotted with yellow. 3. The ouiſtiti, which is remark⯑able for large tufts of hair round its face, and an annulated tail. 4. The marikina, which has a mane round the neck, and buſhy hair, like the lion, at the end of the tail. From this circum⯑ſtance it has received the appellation of the lion⯑monkey. 5. The pinche, whoſe face is of a beautiful black colour, with hair which deſcends [175] from the top and each ſide of the head, in the form of long ſmooth treſſes. 6. The mico is the moſt beautiful of the ſagoins. Its hair is of a ſilver white colour, and its face is as red as ver⯑milion.

We proceed to the hiſtory and deſcription of each of theſe ſapajous and ſagoins, moſt of which have hitherto been unknown.

The OUARINE^* and ALOUATE^†.

THE Ouarine and Alouate are the largeſt four-handed animals in the New Conti⯑nent. In ſize they much exceed the largeſt monkeys, and approach to the magnitude of [177] baboons. They have prehenſile tails, and con⯑ſequently belong to the family of ſapajous, in which they hold a diſtinguiſhed rank, not only by their ſtature, but alſo by their voice, which reſounds like a drum, and is heard at a great diſtance. Maregrave relates^*, 'That, every morning and evening, the ouarines aſſemble in the woods; that one of them takes a more e⯑levated ſtation, and gives a ſignal with his hand for the others to ſit around and liſten to him; that, when he peceives them to be all ſeated, he begins a diſcourſe, in a tone ſo loud and rapid as to be heard at a great diſtance; and a perſon would be led to think that the whole were crying together; that all the reſt, how⯑ever, keep the moſt profound ſilence; that, when he ſtops, he gives a ſignal with his hand for the others to reply; that, in an inſtant, the whole cry together, till he commands ſilence by another ſignal, which they obey in a mo⯑ment; that the firſt reſumes his diſcourſe or ſong; and that, after hearing him attentively for a conſiderable time, the aſſembly breaks up.' Theſe facts, which Marcgrave ſays he has often witneſſed, may perhaps be exaggerated, and ſeaſoned a little with the marvellous: The whole may be founded on the terrible noiſe made by theſe animals. They have a kind of oſſeous drum in their throat, in the concavity of which the ſound is augmented, multiplied, and [178] makes a howling noiſe. Hence theſe ſapajous have been diſtinguiſhed from all others by the name of howlers. We have never ſeen the ou⯑arine, but have the ſkin of an alouate, and like⯑wiſe a dried foetus of the ſame ſpecies, in which the bone of the throat, the inſtrument of the great noiſe he makes, is already perceptible^*. According to Marcgrave, the ouarine has a large ſquare face, black and brilliant eyes, ſhort, round⯑iſh ears, and a tail naked at the extremity, which adheres firmly to every thing it can embrace. The hair on the whole body is black, long, ſmooth, and luſtrous; that on the chin and throat is longer, and forms a kind of round beard; and that on the hands, feet, and part of the tail, is brown. The female is of the ſame colour with the male, and differs from him on⯑ly in being ſmaller. The females carry their young on their back, and leap with them from branch to branch, and from tree to tree. The young embrace with their arms and hands the narroweſt part of the mother's body, and remain firmly fixed as long as ſhe is in motion. Be⯑ſides, [179] theſe animals are ſo wild and miſchievous, that they can neither be conquered nor tamed. They bite cruelly; and, though not carnivorous, they fail not to excite terror by their frightful voice, and their ferocious aſpect. As they feed only upon fruits, pot-herbs, grain, and ſome in⯑ſects, their fleſh is not bad eating^*. ‘'The hunt⯑ers,' Oexmelin remarks, 'bring home in the evening the monkeys they kill in the country of Cape Gracias-a-Dio. They roaſt one part of theſe monkeys, and boil the other: The fleſh is good, and reſembles that of the hare; [180] but it is ſweetiſh, and requires a great deal of ſalt in dreſſing. The fat is very good, and as yellow as that of a capon. We lived upon theſe animals during all the time we remained there, becauſe we could procure no other food, and the hunters ſupplied us daily with as many as we could eat. I went to ſee this ſpecies of hunting, and was ſurpriſed at the ſagacity of theſe animals, not only in diſtinguiſhing par⯑ticularly thoſe who make war againſt them, but, when attacked, in defending themſelves and providing for their own ſafety. When we approached, they all aſſembled together, uttered loud and frightful cries, and threw at us dried branches which they broke off from the trees. Some of them voided their excre⯑ments in their hands, and threw them at our heads. I likewiſe remarked, that they never abandoned one another; that they leapt from tree to tree with incredible agility; and that they flung themſelves headlong from branch to branch, without ever falling to the ground; becauſe, before reaching the earth, they always caught hold of a branch either with their hands or tail; ſo that, if not ſhot dead at once, they could not be laid hold of; for, even when mortally wounded, they remain fixed to the trees, where they often die, and fall not till they are corrupted. More than four days af⯑ter death, I have ſeen them firmly fixed to the trees; and fifteen or ſixteen of them are fre⯑quently [181] ſhot before three or four of them can be obtained. What is ſingular, as ſoon as one is wounded, the reſt collect about him, and put their fingers into the wound, as if they meant to ſound it; and, when much blood is diſcharged, ſome of them keep the wound ſhut, while others make a maſh of leaves, and dexte⯑rouſly ſtop up the aperture. This operation I have often obſerved with much admiration. The females bring forth but one young, which they carry in the ſame manner as the Negreſſes do their children. The young monkey em⯑braces its mother's neck with the two fore-feet, and with the two hind it lays hold of the mid⯑dle of her back. When ſhe wants to give it ſuck, ſhe takes it in her paws, and preſents the breaſt to it, like a woman. . . . There is no o⯑ther method of obtaining the young but by killing the mother; for ſhe never abandons it. When ſhe is killed, it falls from her, and may then be ſeized. When theſe animals are em⯑barraſſed, they aſſiſt each other in paſſing a brook, or from one tree to another. . . . Their cries are heard at the diſtance of more than a league^*.'’

Moſt of theſe facts are confirmed by Dam⯑pier [182] ^†: He aſſures us, however, that the females generally produce two young, one of which the [183] mother carries between her arms, and the other on her back. In general, the ſapajous, even of the ſmalleſt ſpecies, are not very prolific; and it is probable that the largeſt produce not above one or two at a time.

The COAITA^* and EXQUIMA^†.

NEXT to the ouarine and alouate, the co⯑aita is the largeſt of the ſapajous. I ſaw one of them at the palace of the Duke of Bouil⯑lon, [185] where, by its familiarity, and even its ca⯑reſſes, it procured the affection of thoſe who had the charge of it. But, notwithſtanding all the care and attention it received, it was unable to reſiſt the cold of the winter 1764. It died, to the regret of its maſter, who was ſo obliging as to ſend it to me, to be placed in the Royal Cabinet. I ſaw another in the houſe of the Marquis de Montmirail. This was a male, and the former a female. Both were equally trac⯑table and well tamed. Hence this ſapajou, by its mild and docile diſpoſition, differs much from the ouarine and alouate, who are ſo wild that no art can tame them. Neither has it, like them, an oſſeous pouch in the throat. Like the oua⯑rine, its hair is black, but rough. The coaita likewiſe differs from all the other ſapajous, by having only four fingers on his hands. By this character and his prehenſile tail, he is eaſily di⯑ſtinguiſhed from the monkeys, who have all five fingers, and a flaccid tail.

The animal called exquima by Marcgrave, is a ſpecies very nearly allied to the coaita, and is perhaps only a variety of it. This author ſeems to have been deceived when he tells us, that the exquima is a native of Guiney and Congo. The figure he has given of it was alone ſufficient to have convinced him of his error; for it repre⯑ſents this animal with a tail rolled up at the point, a character which belongs excluſively to the ſa⯑pajous. Of courſe, Marcgrave's exquima is not [186] a monkey of Guiney, but a ſapajou with a pre⯑henſile tail, which had been tranſported thither from Braſil. The name exquima, or quima, by abſtracting the article ex, and which ought to be pronounced quoima, is not very different from quoaita, the manner in which ſeveral authors ſpell the name coaita, Hence every circum⯑ſtance concurs in eſtabliſhing Marcgrave's exqui⯑ma, which he calls a Guiney monkey, to be a Braſilian ſapajou, and a variety only of the co⯑aita, which it reſembles in diſpoſitions, ſize, co⯑lour, and the prehenſile tail. The moſt remark⯑able difference is, that the exquima has whitiſh hair on the belly, and a white beard, two inches long, under the chin^*. Our coaitas have neither a beard nor white hair on the belly. But theſe differences ſeem not ſufficient to conſtitute two diſtinct ſpecies; for we learn from the evidence of travellers, that ſome coaitas are black and others white, and ſome have beards and others no beards: 'There are,' ſays Dampier, 'great droves of monkeys, ſome of them white, but moſt of them black; ſome have beards, others [187] are beardleſs. They are of a middle ſize, yet extraordinary fat at the dry ſeaſon, when the fruits are ripe; and they are very good meat, for we ate of them very plentifully. The In⯑dians were ſhy of eating them for a while; but they ſoon were perſuaded to it, by ſeeing us feed on them ſo heartily. In the rainy ſea⯑ſon they have worms in their bowels. I have taken a handful of them out of one monkey we cut open; and ſome of them ſeven or eight feet long. They are a very waggiſh kind of monkey, and played a thouſand antick tricks as we marched at any time through the woods, ſkipping from bough to bough, with the young ones hanging at the old ones backs, making faces at us, chattering, and, if they had oppor⯑tunity, piſſing down purpoſely on our heads. To paſs from top to top of high trees, whoſe branches are a little too far aſunder for their leaping, they will ſometimes hang down by one another's tails in a chain; and ſwinging in that manner, the lowermoſt catches hold of a bough of the other tree, and draws up the reſt of them^*.' All theſe facts, even the worms in the inteſtines, correſpond with our coaitas. M. Daubenton, in diſſecting theſe animals, found a great number of worms, ſome of which were from twelve to thirteen inches long. It is obvi⯑ous, therefore, that the exquima of Marcgrave is [188] a ſapajou of the ſame ſpecies, or, at leaſt, of a ſpecies very nearly allied to that of the coaita.

We muſt likewiſe remark, that, if the animal mentioned by Linnaeus, under the name of Diana ^*, is really, as he ſays, the exquima of Marcgrave, he has omitted the prehenſile tail, which is the moſt eſſential character, and ought alone to determine whether this diana belongs to the genus of ſapajous, or to that of the monkeys, and, of courſe, whether it is found in the Old or the New Continent.

Independent of this variety, the characters of which are conſpicuous, there are other varieties, though leſs remarkable, in the ſpecies of the co⯑aita. That deſcribed by M. Briſſon had whi⯑tiſh hair on all the under parts of the body. But thoſe I have ſeen were entirely black, and had very few hairs on the inferior parts of the body, where the ſkin appeared, and was equally black with the hair. Of the two coaitas men⯑tioned by Mr Edwards^†, the one was black and [189] the other brown. On account of the length and ſlenderneſs of their legs and tail, they were called ſpider monkeys.

Some years ago, a coaita was ſent me, under the denomination of chamek, which, I was told, came from the coaſt of Peru. I ſhall give a de⯑ſcription of it in the margin^*, from which it will appear that this chamek of Peru, with the exception of a few varieties, is the ſame animal with the coaita of Guiana.

Theſe ſapajous are very dexterous and intel⯑ligent. They go in companies, and mutually warn and aſſiſt each other. It uſes its tail as a fifth hand, and ſeems to employ this inſtrument more than either its hands or feet^†. To balance [190] this advantage, Nature has deprived this animal of a thumb. We are aſſured that it ſeizes fiſhes with its tail; which is by no means incredible; for we have ſeen one of our coaitas lay hold in this manner of a ſquirrel, which had been put into its chamber as a companion. They have the addreſs to break the ſhells of oyſters, in or⯑der to eat them^*. It is certain, that, in order to paſs from one tree to another, whoſe branches are too diſtant for a leap, they form a chain, by hanging down^†, linked to each other by their tails, and ſwinging in that manner till the loweſt catches hold of a branch, and draws up the reſt. They ſometimes paſs rivers by the ſame expe⯑dient. [191] The females bring forth but one or two young, which they always carry on their back. They eat fiſh, worms, and inſects; but fruits are their common food. When the fruits are ripe, they become very fat, and their fleſh is then ſaid to be excellent^*.

The SAJOU^*, or Capuchin Monkey.

WE are acquainted with two varieties of this ſpecies, the brown ſajou, or capu⯑chin monkey; and the gray ſajou, which dif⯑fers from the brown in colour only. They are [194] both of the ſame ſize, and have the ſame figure and diſpoſitions. They are both very agile, and their nimbleneſs and dexterity are extremely a⯑muſing. We have had them alive; and, of all the ſapajous, their conſtitution ſeems to be beſt adapted to our climate. If kept in a chamber during the winter, they live comfortably for ſe⯑veral years. We can even give ſeveral exam⯑ples of their producing in this country. Two young ones were brought forth in the M. de Pompadour's lodging at Verſailles; one in the houſe of M. de Reaumur at Paris, and another in Mad. de Pourſel's in Gatinois^*. But, in this country, they never produced above one at a time, while, in their native climate, they often produce two. Beſides, theſe ſajous are very whimſical in their taſte and affections. They are fond of particular perſons, and diſcover the greateſt averſion to others.

[195] We remarked a ſingularity in theſe animals, which makes the females be often miſtaken for the males. The clitoris is prominent, and ap⯑pears to be as large as the penis of the male.

The SAI^*, or WEEPER.

WE have ſeen two varieties of this ſpecies; the firſt was of a blackiſh brown co⯑lour; and the ſecond, which I have called Sai with a white throat, has white hair on the breaſt, throat, and round the ears and cheeks. It differs from the firſt by having leſs hair on the face. But, in every other article, they per⯑fectly reſemble each other. Their diſpoſitions, ſize, and figure, are the ſame. Travellers have mentioned theſe animals under the name of weepers ^†; becauſe they make a plaintive noiſe, and, when irritated, have the appearance of crying. Others have called them muſk monkeys, [197] becauſe, like the maucauco, they have a muſky odour^*. Others have given them the name of macaque ^†, which they borrowed from the ma⯑caque of Guiney. But the macaques are mon⯑keys with flaccid tails; while the former belong to the ſapajous, becauſe their tails are prehen⯑ſile. The females have only two paps, and pro⯑duce two young at a time. They are mild, do⯑cile, and ſo timid, that their common cry, which reſembles that of a rat, becomes a kind of groan⯑ing when they are threatened with danger. In this country, they eat May-bugs and ſnails^‡ in preference to all other food. But, in Braſil, their native climate, they live chiefly on grains and wild fruits^‖, which they gather from the trees, and rarely deſcend upon the earth.

The SAIMIRI^*, or Orange Monkey.

THE Saïmiri is commonly known by the name of the golden, orange, or yellow ſa⯑pajou. It is common in Guiana; and there⯑fore has received from ſome voyagers the ap⯑pellation of the Cayenne Sapajou. From the gracefulneſs of its movements, the ſmallneſs of its ſize, the brilliant colour of its hair, the large⯑neſs and vivacity of its eyes, and its round vi⯑ſage, the ſaïmiri has uniformly been preferred to all the other ſapajous: It is indeed the moſt beautiful of this tribe. But it is likewiſe the [200] moſt delicate^*, and the moſt difficult to tranſ⯑port and preſerve. From theſe characters, and particularly from that of the tail, which is on⯑ly half-prehenſile, and, though not ſo muſcular as that of the ſapajous, is not abſolutely uſeleſs and flaccid, the ſaïmiri ſeems to form the ſhade between the ſapajous and the ſagoins.

The SAKI^*, or Fox-tailed Monkey.

THE Saki, which is commonly called the fox-tailed monkey, becauſe its tail is gar⯑niſhed with very long hair, is the largeſt of the ſagoins. When full grown, it is about ſeven⯑teen inches long, while the largeſt of the other five ſpecies exceeds not nine or ten. The hair on the body of the ſaki is very long, and that on the tail is ſtill longer. His face is reddiſh, and co⯑vered with a whitiſh down. He is eaſily di⯑ſtinguiſhed from all the other ſagoins, ſapajous, and monkeys, by the following characters.

The TAMARIN^*, or Great-eared Monkey.

THIS ſpecies is much ſmaller than the pre⯑ceding, and differs from it in ſeveral cha⯑racters. The tail of the tamarin is covered with ſhort hair, while that of the ſaki is garniſhed with hair remarkably long. The tamarin has alſo large ears, and yellow feet. It is a beauti⯑ful animal^†, very lively, and eaſily tamed, but [204] ſo delicate that it cannot long reſiſt the incle⯑mency of our climate.

The OUISTITI^*, or Striated Monkey.

THE Ouiſtiti is ſtill ſmaller than the tama⯑rin, both the head and body not exceeding half a foot in length. His tail is more than a foot long, and, like that of the maucauco, mark⯑ed with alternate rings of black and white; the hair on the tail is ſtill longer, and more buſhy than that of the maucauco. The face of the ouiſtiti is naked, and of a dark fleſh-colour. [206] He has two tufts of long white hair before his ears, which conceal them when we look the a⯑nimal in the face. Mr Parſons has given a good deſcription of this animal in the Philoſophical Tranſactions^*; and Mr Edwards, in his Glean⯑ings, has given an excellent figure of it. He remarks, that, of ſeveral he ſaw, the largeſt weigh⯑ed not above ſix ounces, and the ſmalleſt only four and a half; and judiciouſly adds, That the ſuppoſition that the ſmall AEthiopian monkey mentioned by Ludolph, under the denomination of fonkes, or guereza, was the ſame animal with the ouiſtiti, is without any foundation^†. It is certain, that neither the ouiſtiti, nor any other ſagoin, exiſts in AEthiopia; and the fonkes or guereza of Ludolph is probably the maucauco or loris, which are common in the ſouthern regions of the Old Continent. Mr Edwards farther re⯑marks, that, when the ouiſtiti is in good health, its hair is very buſhy; that one of thoſe he ſaw, [207] which was very vigorous, fed upon ſeveral things, as biſkets, fruits, pot-herbs, inſects, and ſnails; that, one day, being unchained, it dart⯑ed upon a ſmall china golden fiſh that was in a baſin, which it killed and devoured with avi⯑dity; and that, afterward, ſmall eels were pre⯑ſented to it, which, at firſt, frighted it, by twiſt⯑ing round its neck; but that it ſoon overcame and ate them. Mr Edwards ſubjoins a fact, which proves that theſe ſmall animals might be multiplied in the ſouthern parts of Europe: He tells us that they produced young in Portugal, where the climate is favourable to them. They are at firſt very ugly, having hardly any hair on their bodies; and they adhere firmly to the teats of the mother. When they have become a little larger, they fix themſelves upon her back or ſhoulders; and, when ſhe is fatigued by carrying them, ſhe rubs them off againſt a wall, and the father inſtantly allows them to mount upon his back, in order to aſſiſt the mother^*.

The MARIKINA^*, or Silky Monkey.

THE Marikina is commonly diſtinguiſhed by the name of the ſmall lion-ape. We reject this compound denomination, becauſe the markina is not an ape, but a ſagoin. Beſides, he has no more reſemblance to a lion than a lark has to an oſtrich, there being no other relation be⯑tween them but a kind of mane round the face of the marikina, and a tuft of hair at the end of his tail. His hair is long, ſilky, and vivid. He has a round head, a brown face, red eyes, and round naked ears, concealed under the long hair which ſurround his facé: Theſe hairs are [] [...] [] [...] [] [...] [210]of a bright red colour, and thoſe on the body and tail are pale yellow, almoſt white. This animal has the ſame manners, the ſame vivacity, and the ſame inclinations with the other ſagoins. Its conſtitution ſeems to be more robuſt; for we have ſeen one that lived five or ſix years in Paris, without anyother precaution than keeping in during the winter in a warm room.

The PINCHE^*, or Red-tailed Monkey.

THE Pinche, though very ſmall, is larger than either the ouiſtiti or the tamarin. Including head and body, it is about nine inches long, and the length of the tail is, at leaſt, eighteen inches. It is rendered remarkable by a kind of ſmooth white hair upon the top and ſides of the head, eſpecially as this colour is won⯑derfully contraſted by that of the face, which is black, and interſperſed with a gray down. The eyes are black, and the tail, from its origin to near the middle, is of a lively red, where it changes to a browniſh black, which continues [212] to the point. The hair on the ſuperior parts of the body is of a yellowiſh brown colour; that on the breaſt, belly, hands, and feet, is white. The whole ſkin is black. The throat is naked and black, like the face. Though its figure be ſingular, it is a beautiful animal. Its voice is ſoft, and rather reſembles the chanting of a ſmall bird than the cry of a quadruped. It is extreme⯑ly delicate, and requires great precautions to be tranſported from America to Europe^*.

The MICO^*, or fair MONKEY.

WE owe our knowledge of this animal to M. de la Condamine; and, therefore, we ſhall tranſcribe the account he has given of it: 'The monkey, of which the Governour of Para made me a preſent, is the only one of the kind that had been ſeen in this country. The hair on its body was of a beautiful ſilvery white colour; and that on its tail was a ſhining cheſnut approaching to black. Its ears, cheeks, and muzzle, were of ſo lively a vermilion co⯑lour, that it had the appearance of being the work of art. I kept it for twelve months; and, now that I am in ſight of the French coaſt, it is ſtill alive. But, notwithſtanding all my precautions to defend it againſt the cold, it fell a victim to the rigour of the ſeaſon be⯑fore my arrival. . . . I have preſerved it in aquavitae, which will be ſufficient to ſhow that [215] my deſcription is not exaggerated^*.' From this narration it is obvious, that M. de la Con⯑damine's deſcription will apply to no other ani⯑mal than the Mico; and that it is a diſtinct, and probably a very rare ſpecies. Though remark⯑able for the beauty of its hair, and the lively red which adorns its face, it was never mention⯑ed by any former author or traveller.