Part 1

Chapter 13,616 wordsPublic domain

ANIMAL PORTRAITURE

BEING FIFTY STUDIES BY WILHELM KUHNERT

ACCOMPANIED BY A SERIES OF ORIGINAL ARTICLES

BY R. LYDEKKER F.R.S.

London FREDERICK WARNE & Cº. & New York

FOREWORD

Wilhelm Kuhnert is the greatest animal-painter of our day. There has never been a more excellent colourist or more skilful draughtsman of shape and action; and there is none with a more masterly touch or more unmistakable individuality. There is no misunderstanding his intention. The lifelike likeness of the animal set in its local atmosphere is his predominating endeavour. His range is of the widest, and his subjects all come alike to him; he has no preference for any particular group or family, but draws them all, vertebrate and invertebrate, with power, truth, and sympathy.

With a knowledge of the very soul of the animal such as few possess, his pictures are replete with insight into character and its vivid expression, and fascinate even those who may not adequately appreciate their wonderful accuracy. “We who have travelled,” as Mr. G. J. Millais remarks, “do not need to be told that his studies from nature are correct. His lions, elephants, zebras, and antelopes are so real that we feel we are gazing at them on the plains of East Africa. The landscapes are simple but intense; sunlight is there, and the trees and grass are just those that grow in the habitat of these species. Kuhnert has, as it were, got inside the very skin of African life, and draws you insensibly within the charmed circle.”

In a gallery his works at once arrest attention by their vigorous realism. There is life within the frame of whatever he paints. He is the Frans Hals of animal portraiture.

He was born at Oppeln in Silesia on the 28th of September 1865, and during his student days at the Academy of Berlin, was influentially advised to devote himself to animal painting, for which he had evidently a special gift. He began, however, as a portrait painter, and from his pictures, particularly those of African life, it is clear that in that branch of art he would have distinguished himself; but fortunately, he could not withstand his inclination. From a painter of portraits of men and women he developed into a portrait-painter of animals, finding his subjects alive by the countryside and in menageries and zoological gardens, and then seeking them farther afield in Africa and Southern Asia, where he worked assiduously in forest and jungle. Fifty of his characteristic studies are included in this book, and in them, as in all, the blending of the animal with the surroundings is remarkable, and the faithfulness with which the landscape, painted on the spot, has been rendered is apparent at a glance.

Search as we will we shall find nothing truer to nature than such triumphs of art as the Polar Bear amid the Arctic ice, the hairy Tigers by the snowy mountain lake, the slender Flamingoes in the evening landscape, the Silver Gull sweeping above the ocean waves, the Black Swans as an idyll of the pool, the Capercaillie posturing in the morning light, and many other masterpieces herein.

This collection, like that of the Kuhnert Exhibition at the Fine Art Society’s Gallery in Bond Street, is arranged purely on artistic lines; no attempt has been made to classify the subjects in zoological order. It is an album of animal portraiture as fully representative of the artist as possible. The pictures have been photographically reproduced in colours from the oil paintings, and the imitation is so exact that little of the charm of the originals has been lost.

CONTENTS

PLATE PAGE

I. THE LION (_Felis Leo_) 1

II. THE MANCHURIAN TIGER (_Felis tigris mongolica_) 4

III. THE SEAL (_Phoca vitulina_) 6

IV. THE ELK (_Alces machlis_) 8

V. THE CAPERCAILLIE (_Tetrao urogallus_) 10

VI. THE SQUIRREL (_Sciurus vulgaris_) 12

VII. THE ROE-DEER (_Capreolus caprea_) 14

VIII. THE REINDEER (_Rangifer tarandus_) 16

IX. THE DEFASSA WATERBUCK (_Cobus defassa_) 18

X. THE HARE (_Lepus europæus_) 20

XI. THE POLAR BEAR (_Ursus maritimus_) 22

XII. THE MANDRILL (_Maimon mormon_) 24

XIII. THE WOLF (_Canis lupus_) 26

XIV. THE WILD CAT (_Felis catus_) 28

XV. THE RED KANGAROO (_Macropus rufus_) 30

XVI. THE BLUE ROLLER (_Coracias garrulus_) 32

XVII. THE BITTERN (_Botaurus stellaris_) 34

XVIII. THE KAFIR CROWNED CRANE (_Balearica chrysopelargus_) 36

XIX. THE SILVER GULL (_Larus argentatus_) 38

XX. THE GREAT HORNED OWL (_Bubo ignavus_) 40

XXI. THE FLAMINGO (_Phœnicopterus roseus_) 42

XXII. THE NILE CROCODILE (_Crocodilus niloticus_) 44

XXIII. THE WHITE-HANDED GIBBON (_Hylobates lar_) 46

XXIV. THE ABYSSINIAN GREEN MONKEY (_Cercopithecus æthiops_) 48

XXV. THE FOX (_Canis vulpes_ or _Vulpes alopex_) 50

XXVI. THE BROWN BEAR (_Ursus arctus_) 52

XXVII. THE PINE-MARTEN (_Mustela martes_) 54

XXVIII. THE LEOPARD (_Felis pardus_) 56

XXIX. THE LYNX (_Felis_ (_Lynx_) _lynx_) 58

XXX. THE INDIAN RHINOCEROS (_Rhinoceros unicornis_) 60

XXXI. THE BISON (_Bos_ (_Bison_) _bonasus_) 62

XXXII. THE GAZELLE (_Gazella dorcas_) 64

XXXIII. THE MOUFLON (_Ovis musimon_) 66

XXXIV. THE RED DEER (_Cervus elaphus_) 68

XXXV. THE BEAVER (_Castor fiber_) 70

XXXVI. THE MARMOT (_Arctomys marmotta_) 72

XXXVII. THE HAMSTER (_Cricetus frumentarius_) 74

XXXVIII. THE DUCKBILL OR PLATYPUS (_Ornithorhynchus anatinus_) 76

XXXIX. THE SPINY ANT-EATER OR ECHIDNA (_Tachyglossus aculeatus_) 78

XL. THE BLACK SWAN (_Cygnus atratus_) 80

XLI. THE BUSTARD (_Otis tarda_) 82

XLII. THE SOMALI OSTRICH (_Struthio molybdophanes_) 84

XLIII. THE PIED HORNBILL (_Buceros bicornis_) 86

XLIV. THE BLUE MACAW (_Ara cærulea_ or _Ara ararauna_) 88

XLV. THE MANDARIN DUCK (_Æx galerita_) 90

XLVI. THE HERON (_Ardea cinerea_) 92

XLVII. THE GREAT SPOTTED WOODPECKER (_Dendrocopus major_) 94

XLVIII. THE SENEGAL PARROT (_Pæocephalus senegalus_) 96

XLIX. THE GOLDFINCH (_Carduelis elegans_) 98

L. THE RAZORBILL OR AUK (_Alca torda_) 100

THE LION

(_Felis leo_)

The lion, undoubtedly, owes his title of “king of beasts” to the flowing mane with which his head and fore-quarters are adorned, as this confers upon him a dignity and grandeur of appearance entirely lacking in his maneless partner. Without his mane it is, indeed, more than questionable whether a lion would not be outclassed in style by a tiger. As it is, however, the lion, at all events so far as appearance goes, has an undisputed claim to his royal title; the magnificent mien of his draped head and shoulders, his bold, imperious eye, the powerful build of his lithe body, and his resounding roar of defiance, presenting the very ideal of supreme strength and sovereignty.

The tawny coat, which varies in tint from greyish or yellowish brown to yellow, is evidently intended to harmonise with the dry grasses and the yellow sand of the semi-desert tracts which form the favourite haunts of the lion; and this is confirmed by the fact that the newborn cubs are mottled with dark brown, thus indicating their descent from a species with a mottled or spotted coat adapted to a different environment. Indeed, Somali lions frequently retain traces of these spots, more especially in the female; and in German East Africa there exists a race of the lion in which both sexes are more or less fully and distinctly spotted.

In popular estimation the lion is inseparably connected with Africa, where it formerly ranged from one end of the continent to the other, although it has long since disappeared from most parts of Tunis and Algeria, as well as from Cape Colony. As a matter of fact, _Felis leo_ is as much an Asiatic as an African animal; while in the time of Xenophon it was probably found so far west as Thrace and Macedonia. Earlier still, that is to say in prehistoric times, its range included the greater part of temperate Europe, not excepting the British Isles. Unlike the tiger, however, the lion never inhabited the countries to the east of the Bay of Bengal, nor penetrated to the swamps of Lower Bengal itself, which are unsuited to its habits. Even so late as the Mutiny, lions were to be met with over a considerable tract in central India; although they are nowadays restricted to that district of Kathiawar, known as the Gir, where they survive only by protection. In the valleys of the Euphrates and Tigris, as well as in parts of Persia, lions are still to be met with; but how numerous they are in these countries is difficult to ascertain.

In Africa lions appear to be most abundant in the British, German, and Portuguese eastern provinces, in some districts of which they seem bolder and more prone to attack human beings than in many other parts of the continent. In Somaliland, where they are smaller and greyer than usual, their number has been greatly reduced of late years. The handsomest lions of all are those with dark brown or black manes; but in some parts of the country, at all events, black-maned lions do not form a distinct race, as dark and light maned cubs may be found in the same litter.

Although the skulls of the two species present considerable differences, a lioness, apart from the absence of stripes, is not unlike a tiger in general appearance; and it has long been a question whether the lion or the tiger is the more powerful animal, although the balance of opinion seems to be in favour of the tiger’s claim to superiority in this respect. Certain it is, that the lion is much the more noisy animal of the two; a tiger never roaring in the persistent manner characteristic of the lion. The impression caused by the lion’s roar appears to depend greatly on the idiosyncrasy of the listener and the circumstances under which it is heard. Very noteworthy is the fact that the roar of the two species is essentially similar in character.

As a rule, lions, when too feeble to capture more active prey, turn into regular man-eaters much less frequently than tigers; but this may be in part explained by the bolder nature of many African tribes, as compared with the natives of a large extent of India; and when a lion makes himself obnoxious, such tribes have no hesitation in attacking and destroying the marauder.

Lions in Africa subsist, to a great extent, on the flesh of antelopes and zebras, or bontequaggas; generally stalking their game in parties of two or three, but one alone making the fatal spring. When stalking, a lion stretches out its body to the fullest extent, and crawls so close to the ground that even in low grass its presence is generally undetected till too late. Occasionally a party of lions combine their forces to pull down a large animal like a buffalo. Zebras can defend themselves only by kicking, but the gemsbok and the sable antelope will pin a lion with their horns, and sometimes come off victorious.

It has been very generally stated that lions are mainly, if not exclusively, monogamous, and that they mate for life. It has, however, been pointed out by Mr. Roosevelt that if this were really the case, they would almost always be found in pairs, that is to say, a lion and a lioness together. That they are thus found not infrequently may, indeed, be freely admitted; but, on the other hand, it is much commoner to come across a lioness and her cubs, an old lion with several lionesses and their young, a single lion or lioness, a couple of lions and lionesses, or, lastly, a small troop, which may be composed either solely of males or females, or of a mixture of the two sexes. “These facts,” writes the great American hunter, “are not compatible with the romantic theory in question.”

The cubs, generally two or three in number, come into the world, unlike kittens, with their eyes open, and are then about one-third the size of a cat. As already mentioned, they are heavily mottled with brown on a tawny ground, and it is very significant that these markings are to a great extent intermediate in character between the rosettes of leopards and jaguars and the stripes of the tiger. A peculiar feature in which the cubs of lions differ from those of leopards and jaguars, and thereby resemble those of tigers, is the presence of a white spot near the summit of the back of each ear. From these facts it has been inferred, in the first place, that the lion is most nearly related to the tiger, and, in the second place, that lions, tigers, leopards, and jaguars are all members of a single group. As regards the mutual relationships of these species, it is generally believed that spots represent an earlier and more primitive type of colouring than transverse stripes, and it is therefore inferred that the stripes of the tiger, which are very frequently partially split or double, have been derived from the fusion of leopard-like rosettes into transverse chains. As the self-coloured coat of the adult lion is evidently a modern feature, it seems clear that tigers and lions are to be regarded as the most specialised members of the whole group.

Before the investigations which led up to these modern advanced views had been undertaken, it was very generally believed, on account of its self-coloured tawny coat, that the American puma--locally known as the American lion--was one of the nearest relatives of _Felis leo_. If, however, beauty be but skin deep, colour is an even less deeply seated feature among animals; and, as the result of the study of the markings of young cubs of the puma, it seems certain that this species has acquired its uniform tawny livery quite independently of the lion. For newly born puma cubs exhibit a pattern of quadrangular blackish markings totally different in form and arrangement from those of young lions, tigers, leopards, or jaguars, and approximating in some degree to those of the smaller cats. Accordingly, in the opinion of the investigator to whom we are indebted for these very interesting views with regard to the inter-relationships of the various members of the feline tribe, it seems highly probable that the puma may be an overgrown self-coloured representative of the group of smaller cats typified by the ordinary domesticated species and its wild relatives.

A remarkable feature connected with the tuft at the tip of the tail of the lion is the frequent presence of a horny spur or claw, the function of which is still unknown, although it is certain that it is not employed, as was once thought to be the case, to goad the animal into fury when the tail is lashed against the flanks. It has been asserted that this spur is found only in the Indian lion; but this is as erroneous as the statement made by the same writer that it represents the last joint of the vertebræ of the tail to which the blood is unable to obtain access. A very similar structure exists in one member of the kangaroo tribe, known as the spur-tailed wallaby, in which, however, the spur is common to both sexes and quite constant in its development.

Menagerie lions, it may be mentioned, generally display a greater luxuriance and profusion of mane than their wild relatives; while it is in the former alone that any marked development of long hair on the under surface of the body is noticeable. The reason for this is, of course, too obvious to require explanation, more especially when it is borne in mind that lions inhabiting open plains with grass-jungle have larger manes than those which have to get their living in a country overgrown with thorn-bushes.

THE MANCHURIAN TIGER

(_Felis tigris mongolica_)

The tiger is, and apparently always has been, an essentially Asiatic animal, although it enters south-eastern Europe in the Caucasus, whence its range extends eastwards through Persia, Afghanistan, and India, to Java and Sumatra, while northward it is found through China and Mongolia to Korea and Amurland. Very noteworthy is its absence from Ceylon, which seems to indicate that its original home was central Asia, and that it is a comparatively recent immigrant into southern Asia.

Four local races of the tiger are recognised by naturalists, namely, the typical Indian tiger, the Persian tiger (_F. tigris virgata_), the Javan tiger (_F. t. sondaica_), and the Manchurian or Siberian tiger (_F. t. mongolica_ or _longipilis_). As regards splendour of coat, the finest of these races is the Manchurian tiger, which differs from the Indian race by the great length and woolliness of its winter coat and the larger extent of white on the face, under-parts, and the inner side of the limbs. It also appears to be a more stoutly built animal, and attains a very large size. Its skin commands a very high price. From both these races the Persian tiger, which is probably the one found in the Caucasus, differs by the copious fringe of long hair on the cheeks, throat, and under-parts; while it is also of inferior bodily size. The Javan and Sumatran tiger, which may be the same as the one inhabiting the Malay countries, differs from all the other three by the light areas on the head, body and limbs being of small extent, ill-defined, and dirty or buffish white in colour instead of pure white. In size it is always relatively small, and appears to be the smallest of all. The degree of development of the dark stripes appears to vary individually; but the Persian race seems to be the most fully striped of all, and shows in perfection the characteristic looping, or splitting of the stripes.

The striped coat of the tiger seems designed to break up the outline of the body, and thus to render the animal as inconspicuous as possible. That it is not, as was once thought, a special adaptation to match the surroundings of the animal in the jungles of Bengal, will be evident from what is stated above as to the distribution of the tiger and its comparatively recent entry into India.

Information is still required with regard to the habits of the Manchurian tiger, which has only of recent years been hunted by European sportsmen, or exhibited alive in zoological gardens. It appears, however, that these northern tigers prey on almost all the animals of their native country, from the largest to the smallest. In summer they will overpower and kill such fierce animals as bears, while in times of scarcity during the long winter they may be driven to prey on mice and rats. To capture their victims they frequently resort to the drinking-places of the latter, and in summer they likewise pay constant visits to the salt-pans where the wapiti and other deer come to lick the salt.

Each pair of tigers generally frequents the same lair, which in mountainous districts is concealed amid rocks, while in the plains the requisite shelter is afforded by reed-brakes. In winter the tigers may be completely snowed up in their retreats. As in India, the tigress is reported to separate herself from the tiger a short time before giving birth to her young; these being born in some dense thicket or rocky cleft, their number varying from two to four. At birth they are about the same size as lion-cubs, but are marked in the same fashion as their parents, although clothed in more woolly coats. In India it is generally stated that the female keeps apart from the male while the cubs are young, although both parents have been seen with their offspring. Like lions, tigers associate for the greater part of the year in pairs, and are strictly monogamous.

Whether old tigers in Siberia turn man-eaters, after the fashion of their brethren in India, does not appear to be known; but in much of their range it is probable that they do not resort to this mode of livelihood, on account of the sparseness of the population. It appears, however, that throughout northern China and Siberia the natives regard the tiger with much the same superstitious awe as do the natives of Hindustan. All the Siberian natives consider the tiger as a being of high nature, although the Tunguses look upon it as an evil spirit which has come under the influence of the Shamans, or sorcerers.

Fossil bones from the New Siberian Islands indicate that the Manchurian tiger once ranged beyond the Arctic Circle.

THE SEAL

(_Phoca vitulina_)

Of all mammals except whales, dolphins, and sea-cows, the true seals, of which the common British species is the typical representative, are those which have become most completely adapted to an aquatic existence. This is shown by the spindle-shaped form of the body, the total absence of external ears, the conversion of the fore-limbs into flippers, and the backward direction of the hind pair, which are also flipper-like, and lie parallel to the short tail to form an efficient rudder-like organ.

Seals are evidently descended from land Carnivora, and possibly from that long extinct group the Creodontia. When fully developed, their cheek-teeth consist of a single middle cusp, flanked by a smaller one in front and behind; and there are no teeth specially corresponding with the scissor-like pair characteristic of the modern land Carnivora. This fact, unless the teeth are degenerate, is all in favour of the direct descent of seals from creodonts.

From the true seals of the family _Phocidæ_ the eared seals, or _Otariidæ_, differ by retaining small external ears, as well as by the fact that the hind-flippers are not permanently turned backwards; this latter feature being also distinctive of the walrus (_Odobænidæ_). In addition to being the most specialised of the aquatic Carnivora, the true seals are also the most widely distributed, inhabiting nearly all seas, and being likewise found in the Caspian Sea and in Lakes Aral and Baikal. Although seals go on land nightly to sleep, and likewise spend a considerable amount of time in the day on the shore or on ice, while the females give birth to their young on land, none of the _Phocidæ_ regularly leave the water for a period of several weeks during the breeding-season, after the fashion of their eared cousins. Neither do any of them yield commercial sealskin, which is a product of certain members of the eared groups. Commercially, they are therefore valued only for their hides and oil, for the sake of which vast numbers are annually slaughtered.