Part 2

The ancients have affirmed that these animals are capable of generating at the age of three years: this appears to me rather doubtful, for at that age they have not attained half their growth. The genital member of the male, like that of the bull, is very long and slender; it tends forward during copulation, like that of every other animal; but in its usual state, it is bent backwards, and voids the urine between the legs, so that the male and female pass their urine in the same manner. The young camel sucks its mother twelve months, and when designed for labour, to make him strong and robust they leave him at liberty to suck or graze for a longer time, nor begin to load or put him to work till he has attained the age of four years. The camel commonly lives forty or fifty years, which term of life is proportioned to the time of its growth. It is without any foundation that some authors have advanced that he lives a hundred years.

By uniting under one point of view all the qualities of this animal, and all the advantages which are gained by him, he must be acknowledged to be the most useful of all the creatures under subordination to man. Gold and silk are not the true riches of the east, the camel is the treasure of Asia. He is of greater value than the elephant, as he does as much labour, and consumes not a twentieth part of the food. Besides the whole species is subjected to man, who propagates and multiplies it as much as he pleases. But it is not so with the elephants, whom they cannot multiply, can only subdue them individually, and that with great trouble and difficulty. The camel is not only of greater value than the elephant but perhaps not of less than the horse, the ass, and the ox, when all their advantages are united. He carries as much as two mules, and not only eats less, but feeds on herbs as coarse as the ass. The female furnishes milk longer than the cow; the flesh of young camels is as good and wholesome as veal; their hair is finer, and more sought after than the best wool. Even their excrements are useful, for sal ammoniac is made of their urine, and their dung, when dried and powdered, serves them for litter, as well as the horses, with whom they often travel in countries where neither straw nor hay is known. To conclude, they also make excellent fewel of this dung, which burns freely, gives a flame as clear, and almost as lively, as that of dry wood, and which is of great use in the deserts, where not a tree is to be seen, and where, from the deficiency of combustible matters, fire is almost as scarce as water.

THE BUFFALO, THE BONASUS, THE AUROCHS, THE BISON, AND THE ZEBU.

Although the Buffalo is now common in Greece, and tame in Italy, it was known by neither the ancient Greeks nor Romans; for he never had a name in the language of these people. The word _buffalo_, even indicates a foreign origin, not derived either from the Greek or Latin tongues. In effect, this animal is originally a native of the warmest climates of Africa and India, and was not transported and naturalized in Italy, till towards the seventh century. The moderns very improperly apply the name of _bubalus_ to this animal, which, in Greek and Latin implies indeed, an African animal, but very different from the buffalo, as it is easy to demonstrate, by many passages of ancient authors. If we would ascribe the bubalus to any particular genus, it rather belongs to that of the antelope, than to that of the ox or the buffalo[B]. Belon having seen a small hunched ox at Cairo, which differed from the buffalo and common ox, imagined it might be the _bubalus_ of the ancients; but if he had carefully compared the characters of the _bubalus_ given by the ancients, with those of this small ox, he would have discovered his error; besides, we can speak of it with decision, for we have seen this small hunched ox alive, and having compared the description we have given of it with that of Belon, we can have no doubt of its being the same animal. It was shewn at the fair at Paris in 1752, under the name of the _zebu_; which we have adopted to describe this animal by, for it is a particular breed of the ox, and not a species of the buffalo or bubalus.

[B] Upon the first publication of Buffon's History, M. Caesani made some remarks upon the assertion that the buffalo had no name in the Greek or Latin languages and with a great display of erudition, in a letter to Buffon, endeavoured to shew that there _were_ words in both these languages which nearly approached to that of buffalo; but M. Buffon himself justly remarks that Caetane rather proves the possibility of deriving the name of buffalo from some words in the Greek and Latin languages than that this name was really in use among them.

Aristotle, speaking of oxen, only mentions the common ox, except saying, that among the Arachotas in India, there are wild oxen, which differ from the domestic ones as much as wild boars differ from hogs; but in another part, he gives the description of a wild ox of Pæonia, a province adjoining to Macedonia, which he calls _bonasus_. Thus the common ox and the bonasus, are the only animals of this kind taken notice of by Aristotle; and what must appear singular, the bonasus, although fully described by this great philosopher, has not been recognised by any of the Greek or Latin naturalists who have written after him, all of whom have literally copied him on this subject; so that to this day, there is no more than the name of bonasus known, without the knowledge of the animal which it ought to be applied to. If we consider, that Aristotle, in speaking of the wild oxen of temperate climates, has only mentioned the bonasus; and that, on the contrary, the Greek and Latin authors of succeeding ages, have not spoken of the bonasus, but describe these wild oxen by the names of _urus_ and _bison_, we shall be led to believe, that the bonasus must be either the one or the other of these animals; indeed by comparing what Aristotle has said of the bonasus, with what we know of the bison, it is more than probable, that these two names indicate the same animal. Julius Cæsar is the first who mentions the urus. Pliny and Pausanias are also the first who speak of the bison. Since Pliny's time, the name of _bubalus_ has been given indiscriminately to the urus, or the bison, and this confusion has increased with time. To the bonasus, bubalus, urus, and bison, have been added, the _catopleba_, the _thur_, the _bubalus_ of Belon, the bisons of Scotland and America, and all our naturalists have made as many different species as they have found names. The truth is here so obscured by clouds, and so surrounded with errors, that it will be difficult to clear up this part of Natural History, which the contradiction of reports, the variety of descriptions, the multiplicity of names, the diversity of places, the difference of languages, and the obscurity of the times, seems to have condemned to perpetual darkness.

I shall, therefore, give my opinion upon this subject, and afterwards present the proofs upon which it is founded.

1. The animal at present called _buffalo_, (_fig. 137._) was not known to the ancients.

2. The buffalo, at present domestic in Europe, is the same as the tame or wild buffalo of India and Africa.

3. The _bubalus_ of the Greeks and Romans is neither the buffalo nor the small ox of Belon, but the animal that the gentlemen of the Academy of Sciences have described in treating of the _Barbary cow_, and which we call the _bubalus_.

_Engraved for Barr's Buffon_

4. The small ox of Belon which we have seen, and call by the name of _zebu_, is no more than a variety in the species of the ox.

5. The _bonasus_ of Aristotle is the same animal as the bison (_fig. 138._) of the Latins.

6. The _bison_ of America might originally come from the bison of Europe.

7. The _urus_ or _aurochs_, is the same animal as our common bull, in his wild and natural state.

8. The bison only differs from the aurochs by accidental varieties, and consequently he is, as well as the aurochs, of the same species as the domestic ox; so that, it appears, all the denominations, and all the pretended species of the ancient and modern naturalists may be reduced to three; namely, the ox, the buffalo, and the bubalus.

I do not doubt that some of the propositions which I have laid down will appear mere bold assertions, particularly to those who are employed with the nomenclature of animals, or have endeavoured to give a catalogue of them; nevertheless, there is not one of these assertions which I am not able to prove. But before I enter into critical discussions, each of which demand particular propositions, I shall explain the observations and facts which conducted me into this enquiry, and which having satisfied me, may also prove satisfactory to others.

Domestic animals in very few respects resemble wild ones; their nature, their size, and their form, are less constant, and more subject to changes, especially in the exterior parts of the body. The influence of climate, so powerful over all Nature, acts with more force upon captive animals, than upon free. Food prepared by the hand of man, oftentimes scantily given and ill-chosen, joined to the inclemency of a foreign sky, in time produces alterations sufficiently deep to become constant, and to be perpetuated from one generation to another. I do not pretend to say, that this general cause of alteration is so powerful as to essentially alter the nature of beings, whose constitution is so fixed as that of animals; but it changes them in certain respects; it disguises and transforms them externally; it takes away from some parts, and gives rise to others; it paints them with various colours, and by its action upon the habit of the body, it has an influence on their dispositions, instincts, and most interior qualities. A single part changed in a composition so perfect as that of an animal body, is sufficient to make the whole sensible of the alteration; and it is for this reason, that our domestic animals differ almost as much in dispositions and instincts as in figure from those who continue at large in their natural state. Of this, the sheep furnishes a striking example; this species, such as it is at present, perishes in a very short time, if man ceases from tending it with care: it is also greatly changed, and very inferior to its original species. But to adhere to our present subject; we see what changes the ox has gone through, from the combined effects of climate, nourishment, and treatment, in a wild, and in a domestic state.

The most general, and most remarkable variety in domestic and even wild oxen, consists in that sort of hunch which some have between the shoulders: this race of oxen are called _bisons_, and it has been hitherto believed, that they were of a different species from the common ox; but as we are assured, that they produce together, and that the hunch diminishes in the first generation, and disappears in the second or third, it is evident, that this hunch is only a variable and accidental character, which does not prevent the bison from belonging to the same species with the common ox. There were formerly in the desart parts of Europe, wild oxen, some without hunches, and others with them; thus the variety seems to be natural, and to proceed from the abundance and more substantial quality of food; for we remarked, when treating of the camels, that when those animals are lean, and badly fed, they have not even the appearance of a hunch. The ox without a hunch was named _vrochs_, and _turochs_, in the German tongue; and the ox with a hunch, in the same language, was termed _visen_. The Romans, who knew neither of these wild oxen before they saw them in Germany, adopted those names; of _vrochs_ they made _vrus_; and of _visen_, _bison_; and they never imagined that the wild ox described by Aristotle, under the name of _bonasus_, could possibly be either of these oxen, whose names they had thus latinised.

Another difference between the aurochs and the bison is the length of the hair; the neck, shoulders, and throat of the bison are covered with very long hairs; while the aurochs have all these parts covered with a short hair, resembling that of the rest of the body, the front excepted, which has frizzled hair. But this difference of the hair is still more accidental than that of the hunch, and, like that, depends on the food and climate, as we have already proved in the goats, sheep, dogs, cats, &c. Thus, neither the hunch, nor the difference in the quantity of hair, are specific characters, but merely simple and accidental variations.

A variety still more extended, and to which naturalists have given more of character than it really deserves, is the form of the horns; they have not considered that, in our domestic cattle, the shape, size, position, direction, and even number of horns, vary so strongly, that it would be impossible to pronounce which is the true model of Nature. The horns of some cows are curved and bent downwards; others have them straight, long, and elevated. There are whole races of sheep, who have sometimes two, sometimes four horns, and there are breeds of cows who have no horns. These exterior, or, as I may say, accessory parts of the body, have as little permanency as the colours of the hair, which in domestic animals vary and combine in every manner. This difference in the shape and direction of the horns, which is so common, must not then be regarded as a distinctive character of the species; though, it is upon this character alone that our naturalists have established their species; and, as Aristotle, in the description he gives of the bonasus, says, that its horns turn inwards, they have from that alone separated it from all other oxen, and made it a particular species, without having ever seen the individual. Upon this variation of the horns, in domestic animals, we have quoted cows and ewes, rather than bulls and rams, because the females are more numerous than the males, and we may every where observe thirty cows or ewes for one bull or ram.

The mutilation of animals by castration seems to hurt the individual only, and not to affect the species; nevertheless, it is certain, that this custom restrains Nature on one side and weakens it on the other. A single male, condemned to serve thirty or forty females, must exhaust himself without satisfying them. The ardour of love must be unequal; indifferent in the male, who exceeds the designs of Nature, and too ardent in the female, who must be so limited; from thence all the productions must chiefly be tinctured with feminine qualities, a greater number of females will be produced than males; and even the males possess more of the mother than the father. This is, without doubt, the reason there are more girls than boys born in the countries where men have a great number of wives, while among those where the men are permitted to have but one, more males than females are born. It is true, that among domestic animals they commonly withhold the most beautiful from castration, to become the parent of a numerous generation. The first productions of these chosen males will be strong and vigorous; but from having too many copies from this single mould the impression of Nature is deformed, or at least impaired, and not preserved in its full perfection; the race must, therefore, be weakened and degenerate; and this, perhaps, is the cause why more monsters are to be found among domestic than wild animals, where the number of males, which concur to generation, is equal to that of the females. Moreover, when there is but one male to a great number of females they have not the liberty of consulting their own taste, and, consequently, deprived of those emotions which arise from spontaneous pleasures. In the females there remains nothing poignant in their amours, and they languish in expecting the cold approaches of a male that is not of their own choice, who is frequently not accommodated to them, and from whom they do not receive those flattering caresses as if he were obliged to court a preference. From these sluggish amours insipid beings must proceed, who will have neither that courage, spirit, nor strength, which Nature only can bestow on every species by leaving to individuals their faculties quite entire, especially the liberty of choice between the sexes. It is well known, in the example of horses, that the cross breed is always the finest; we ought not, therefore, to confine our female cattle to a single male of their own country, who already has too much the resemblance of his mother, and who, consequently, far from improving the species, can only continue to degrade it. Mankind, in this practice, have preferred their convenience to every other advantage; they have not endeavoured to support, or to embellish Nature, but submit her operations to them, that they may enjoy her productions in a more despotic manner. The males are the superior of each species; they have the most spirit, and are the least tractable; a greater number of males in our flocks therefore would render them less docile, more difficult to conduct and to watch.

To these causes of degeneration in domestic animals we must yet mention another, which alone is capable of producing more changes than all the rest put together, viz. the transportation of animals from one climate to another; oxen, sheep, and goats, have been carried to all parts; in every place they have felt the influence of the climate, and imbibed impressions from every soil and every sky, so that nothing is more difficult than to recognize, in this great number of varieties, those who are the least estranged from the type of Nature.

Having thus explained the general causes of varieties among domestic animals, I shall proceed to the particular proofs of what I have advanced on the subject of oxen and buffaloes. I have said, 1st. _That the animal at present known by the name of the buffalo was not known by the ancient Greeks, and Romans._ This is evident, since none of their authors have described, or even used, a name which can be applied to it; besides, we are informed, by the annals of Italy, that the first buffalo was brought there towards the end of the fifth century, A. D. 595.

2. _The Buffalo, at present domestic in Europe, is the same as the wild or tame buffalo of India and Africa._ This needs no other proof, than the comparison of our description of the buffalo, taken from an animal we saw alive, with the remarks that travellers have given of the buffaloes of Persia, Mogul, Bengal, Egypt, Guinea, and the Cape of Good Hope. In all these countries this animal is the same, and does not differ from our buffalo but in very slight differences.

3. _The Bubalus of the Greeks and Romans, is not the buffalo, nor the small ox of Belon; but the animal that the gentlemen of the Academy has described under the name of the cow of Barbary._ This appears clear from Aristotle placing the bubalus with the stags and fallow deer, and not with the oxen. In other parts, he speaks of him among the roe-bucks, and says, that he but badly defends himself with his horns, and that he flies from ferocious animals. Pliny, in speaking of the wild oxen of Germany, says, that it is through ignorance that the common people give the name of bubalus to these oxen, for the bubalus is an animal of Africa, which in some measure resembles a calf or a stag. The bubalus is then a timid animal, who has no other resource than by flight to avoid the attack of ferocious animals, who consequently from this circumstance must be swift, and possess something of a make between the calf and a stag; all these characters, not one of which apply to the buffalo, are found perfectly united in the figure of the animal which _Horatius Fontana_ sent to Aldrovandus, and of which the gentlemen of the Academy have given a figure and description under the name of the _cow of Barbary_; and they have thought, with me, that it was the bubalus of the ancients.[C]

[C] The zebu, or small ox of Belon, has none of the characters of the bubalus; it differs from it almost as much as our ox differs from the antelope: Belon also is the only naturalist who has considered this small ox to be the bubalus of the ancients.

4. _The small ox of Belon is only a variety in the species of the ox._ We shall easily prove this, by only referring to the figure of the animal given by Belon, Prosper Alpinus, Edwards, and to the description we have made. We have seen it alive; his conductor told us, that he brought him from Africa, where he was called _Zebu_; that he was domestic; and that they used him to ride on. This animal is, in fact, very gentle and familiar; he is of an agreeable figure, though heavy and thick; nevertheless he so perfectly resembles the ox, that I cannot give a more just idea of him, than by saying, if we were to look at a very handsome bull, through a glass that diminishes objects one half, the figure would very near approach that of the zebu.

5. _The Bonasus of Aristotle is the same as the bison of the Latins._ This proposition cannot be proved, without a critical discussion, with the whole detail of which I shall not trouble the reader. Gesner, who was a learned man, as well as a naturalist, and who thought with me, that the bonasus might be the bison, has more carefully than any other person examined and discussed the observations which Aristotle gives on the bonasus, and at the same time has corrected many erroneous expressions in the translation of Theodore Gaza, which nevertheless all the naturalists have followed without examination: in adopting, therefore, his elucidations, and in suppressing from the remarks of Aristotle, whatever is obscure, contradictory or fabulous, they appear to me reduced to the following description:

The bonasus is a wild ox of Poeonia, and is at least as big as a domestic ox, and of the same make; he is covered from the shoulders to the eyes with a long hair, like the mane of a horse; his voice is like the ox; his horns are short, and curved round the ears; his legs are covered with long hair, soft as wool, and his tail is small compared to his size, although in other respects it resembles that of the ox. Like the bull, he has the custom of pawing the ground with his feet; his hide is hard, his flesh is tender, and good. By these characters, which are all we can rely on from Aristotle, we see how near the bonasus approaches towards the bison. Every part, in fact, agrees, the shape of the horns excepted, but which, as we have already observed, greatly varies in animals, who are, notwithstanding, of the same species. We have seen such crooked horns, taken from an hunched ox of Africa, and we shall hereafter prove, that this hunched ox is no other than the bison. This we shall be able to confirm by the testimonies of ancient authors. Aristotle mentions the bonasus as an ox of Poeonia; and Pausanias, speaking of the Poeonian bulls, says, in two different parts of his works, that these bulls are bisons; he even expressly says, that the bulls of Poeonia, which he saw at the public games at Rome, had very long hair upon the breast, and about the jaws. In short, Julius Cæsar, Pliny, Pausanias, Solinus, &c. in speaking of wild oxen, mention the aurochs and the bison, but take no notice of the bonasus. It must, therefore, be supposed, that in less than four or five centuries the species of the bonasus has been lost, unless we allow that the names _bonasus_ and _bison_ indicate only the same animal.