Part 9

Let us, nevertheless, take a view of the reasons against it. The wild and chamois goats both subsist in a state of nature, and both are constantly distinct. The chamois sometimes comes of his own accord and joins the flock of our domestic kind, but the wild goat never associates with them, at least before he is tamed. The male wild goat and the common he-goat have very long beards and the chamois has none. The male and female chamois have very small horns: those of the male wild goat are so thick and so long, that they would scarcely be imagined to belong to an animal of his size. The chamois also appears to differ from the wild goat and the common he-goat, by the direction of his horns, which are inclined a little forwards in their lower parts, and bent backwards at the point in the form of a hook; but, as we have already remarked, in speaking of oxen and sheep, the horns of domestic animals vary prodigiously, as do also those of wild animals, according to the differences of climate. Our female goats have not their horns absolutely resembling those of the male. The horns of the male wild goat are not very different from those of our he-goat; and as the female wild goat approaches the domestic kind, and even the chamois, in size and smallness of the horns, may we not conclude, that the wild, the chamois, and the domestic goat, are, in fact, but one species, in which the nature of the females is invariably alike, while the males are subject to variations? In this point of view, which, perhaps, is not so distinct from Nature as might be imagined, the wild goat would be the male in the original race of goats, and the chamois the female. This is not imaginary, since we can prove by experience, that there are in Nature, animals where the females will equally serve the males of different species, and produce young from both. The sheep produces with the he-goat as well as with the ram, and always brings forth lambs of its own species; the ram, on the contrary, does not copulate with the she-goat. We may, therefore, look upon the sheep as a female common to two different males, and consequently, constitutes a species independent of the male. It may be the same in that of the wild goat; the female alone represents the primitive species, because her nature is constant; the males, on the contrary, vary, and there is a great appearance that the domestic she-goat, which may be considered as the same female as the chamois and the wild kind, would produce with these three different males, which alone make the variety in the species, and consequently do not alter the identity, although they appear to change the unity of it.

These, like most other possible accounts, must be found in Nature; it even appears, that the females in general contribute more to the support of the species than the males; for though both concur in the first formation of the foetus, the female, who afterwards alone furnishes all that is necessary to its growth and nutrition, modifies and assimilates it more to her own nature, which cannot fail of effacing the impression of the parts derived from the male. Thus, if we would judge deliberately and rationally of a species, the females should be the objects examined. The male gives half of the living substance, the female gives as much, and furnishes besides all the necessary matter for its formation. A handsome woman has almost always fine children; a handsome man with an ugly woman, commonly has children who are still more ugly.

Thus, in the same species, there may sometimes be two races, the one masculine, and the other feminine, both of which subsisting and perpetuating their distinctive characters, seem to constitute two different species; and this is the point where it appears almost impossible to fix the term between what naturalists call _species_ and _variety_. Suppose, for example, we should constantly couple he-goats with some sheep, and rams with others; it is evident, that after a certain number of generations, there would be established in the species of the sheep, a breed which would tend greatly towards the goat, and would afterwards perpetuate itself; for, though the first produce with the he-goat would be very little removed from the species of the mother, and would be a lamb and not a kid, nevertheless this lamb would have hair, and some other characteristics of its father. If we afterwards couple the he-goat with these female bastards, the production of this second generation will approach nearer to the species of the father, still nearer in the third, and so on. By this method the adventitious characters would soon prevail over the natural ones, and this fictitious breed might support itself, and form a variety in the species, whose origin it would be very difficult to recognize; therefore what can be done by the influence of the one species on another, may still be more effectually produced by the same species. If strong females have continually only weak males, in course of time, a feminine race will be established; and if very strong males are put to females of inferior strength and vigour, a masculine race will be the result, and will appear so different from the first, as hardly to be allowed to have one common origin, and which consequently will be regarded as really distinct and separate species.

To these general reflections, we shall add some particular observations. Linnæus speaks of two animals which he had seen in Holland, that were of the goat kind; the horns of the first were short, almost resting upon the skull, and its hair was long; the second had erect horns, the points turned back, and the hair short. These animals, which appeared to be more in species than the chamois and the common goat, nevertheless produced together, which sufficiently demonstrates that these differences in the shape of the horns, and length of the hair, are not specific and essential characters; for as these animals produced together, they must be regarded as the same species. From this example we may draw a very probable induction, that the chamois and our goat, whose principal differences consist in the shape of the horns and the length of the hair, are probably one and the same species.

In the royal cabinet there is a skeleton of an animal which was given to the menagerie under the name of _capricorne_; it perfectly resembles the domestic goat in the make of the body and the proportion of the bones, and in the form of the lower jaw, that of the wild-goat; but he differs from both in the horns; those of the wild-goat have prominent tubercles, and two longitudinal ridges; those of the common he-goat have but one ridge, and no turbercles, the horns of the capricorne have but one ridge and no tubercles, but only rugosities which are larger than those of the goat; these differences indicate, therefore, an intermediate race between the wild and the domestic goat. The horns of the capricorne are also short and crooked at the point, like those of the chamois, and, at the same time, they are compressed, and have rings; thus they partake at once of the common goat, the wild goat, and the chamois goat.

Mr. Brown, in his History of Jamaica, relates, that in that island there is actually to be found, 1. The common domestic goat of Europe; 2. The chamois; and 3. The wild goat. He affirms, that neither of these three animals are natives of America, but have been transported from Europe; that they have, like the sheep, degenerated and become smaller in this new country; that the wool of the sheep is changed into a rough hair like that of the goat; that the wild goat appears to be a bastard race, &c. From this we are induced to suppose that the small goat, with erect horns and crooked at the points, which Linnæus saw in Holland, and was said to come from America, is the chamois of Jamaica, that is, the chamois of Europe degenerated, and become less by the climate of America; and that the wild goat of Jamaica, which Mr. Brown calls the bastard wild goat, is our capricorne, which appears to be only a wild goat degenerated, and whose horns might have varied by the influence of the climate.

M. Daubenton, after having scrupulously examined the affinities of the chamois with those of the he-goat and the ram, says, that in general, it resembles more the first than the last; the principal differences besides the horns are the form and size of the forehead, which is less elevated and shorter in the chamois than in the goat, and the form of the nose, which is more contracted; so that in these two, the chamois bears a greater resemblance to the ram than to the goat. But supposing, for which there is much reason, that the chamois is a constant variety of the species of the he-goat, as the bull-dog and greyhound are fixed varieties in the species of the dog, we shall see that these differences in the size of the forehead and the position of the nose, are not nearly so great in the chamois, relatively to the goat, as in the bull-dog relative to the greyhound, which, nevertheless produce together, and are certainly of the same species. In other respects, as the chamois resembles the goat by a greater number of characters than the ram, if it constitute a particular species, it must necessarily be an intermediate one betwixt the goat and the ram. We have observed, that the he-goat and the sheep produce together, therefore the chamois, which is an intermediate species between the two, and at the same time is much nearer the goat than the ram, by the number of resemblances, ought to copulate with the she-goat and consequently must not be considered but as a variety constant in this species.

As the chamois which was transported to and became less in America, produces with the small goat of Africa, there can be little doubt but he would also produce with the she-goats of the common kind. The chamois, therefore, is only a constant variety in the species of the goat, as the bull-dog is in that of the dog; and, on the other hand, we can scarcely question that the wild goat is the primitive goat in the state of nature and, is with respect to domestic goats, what the muflon is to the sheep. The wild goat exactly resembles the domestic he goat, in figure, conformation, and in natural and physical habits; it only varies by two slight differences the one exterior, the other interior; the horns of the wild goat are larger than those of the common he-goat the former having two longitudinal ridges, and the latter but one; they have also large transverse rings which mark the number of years of their growth, while those of the common he-goats are only marked with transverse strokes. The figure of their bodies is in other respects perfectly alike. The interior part is also similar, excepting the spleen, which is oval in the wild goat, and approaches nearer to that of the roe-buck, or stag than that of the he-goat, or ram. This last difference may proceed from the violent exercise of this animal. The wild goat runs as fast as the stag, and leaps lighter than the roe-buck; the spleen, therefore, ought to be made like that of the swiftest running animals. This difference, then, is owing less to Nature than to custom, and it is to be presumed, that if our domestic he-goats were to become wild, and were forced to run and to leap like the wild goats, the spleen would soon assume the form most convenient to this exercise. With respect to his horns, the differences, though very apparent, do not prevent their more resembling those of the he-goat than of any other animal. Thus the wild and common he-goat approaching nearer to each other than to any other animal, even in this part, which is the most different of all, we must conclude, as they are alike in every other particular, that, notwithstanding this slight and single disagreement, they both are animals of the same species.

I consider, therefore, the wild, the chamois, and the domestic goat, as one species, in which the males have undergone greater varieties than the females; and I find, at the same time, secondary varieties in the domestic kind, which are less equivocal, as they belong equally to the males and females. We have seen that the goats of Angora, though very different from ours, in the hair and horns, are, nevertheless, of the same species. The same may be said of the Juda goat, which Linnæus with much reason has considered as a variety of the domestic species. This goat, which is common in Guinea, Angola, and other parts of Africa, differs from ours only in being smaller, fatter, and more squat; his flesh is also better, and preferred in that country to mutton, as we prefer the flesh of the sheep to that of the goat. It is the same with the Levant, or Mambrina goat,[T] with long hanging ears; which is only a variety of the goat of Angora, who has also hanging ears, but not so long. The ancients were acquainted with these goats, but they did not separate them from the common species. The variety of the Mambrina goat is more diffused than that of the goat of Angora; for we find these very long-eared goats in Egypt, and the East Indies, as well as in Syria; they give plenty of good milk, and which the eastern nations prefer to that of the cow, or female buffalo.

[T] The name of Mambrina goat arises from this animal being common on the mountain of Mambre or Mamre, situated in the southern part of Palestine, near the environs of Herbron. It is the only sort which is diffused over Lower Egypt. It is said that its ears are so long that they drag them on the ground, and that the Orientalists cut one of them that the animal may feed: but this is an exaggeration and an error; the ears do not trail upon the ground, neither are they cut.

With respect to the small goat that Linnaeus saw alive, and which produced with the American chamois, it must have, as we observed, been originally transported from Africa; for it so greatly resembles the African he-goat, that we cannot doubt of its being of the same species, or that it, at least, owes its first origin to it. This goat is small in Africa, and would become still less in America; and we know, by the testimony of travellers, that it has for a long time been as customary to transport from Africa, as from Europe into America, sheep, hogs, and goats, whose races still subsist without any other alteration than a diminution in the size.

After having examined the different varieties of goats, and considered them relatively to each other, it appears to me, that of the nine or ten species of which the nomenclators speak, there is, in reality, but one; for instance, 1. The wild he-goat is the principal stock of the species. 2. The capricorne is the wild goat degenerated by the influence of climate. 3. The domestic he-goat derives his origin from the wild he-goat. 4. The chamois is only a variety in the species of the she-goat, with whom he would be able to produce as well as the wild goat. 5. The small goat with erect horns, crooked at the points, which Linnæus speaks of, is the chamois of Europe become smaller in America. 6. The other small goat with horns lying flat, and which produced with the small chamois of America, is the same as the he-goat of Africa, and the production of these two animals prove, that our chamois and domestic he-goat would also produce together, and are, consequently, of the same species. 7. The dwarf goat, which is probably the female of the African buck, and, like the male, only a variety of the common kind. 8. It is the same with the bucks and she-goats of Juda, they are only varieties of our domestic goats. 9. The goat of Angora is also of the same species, since it produces with our goats. 10. The Membrina goat, with large pendulous ears, is a variety in the race of the goats of Angora. These ten animals, therefore, are only ten different races of one species, produced by the difference of climate. _Capræ in multos similitudines, transfigurantur_, says Pliny; and in effect, we see by this enumeration, that the goats, although essentially like each other, yet vary much in their external form; and if we should comprehend, with Pliny, under the generic name of Goats, not only all those we have mentioned but also the roe-buck, the gazelle, the antelope, &c. this would be the most extended species in Nature, and contains more kinds and varieties than that of the dog. But Pliny was not sufficiently informed of the real differences of species when he joined the roe-buck, antelope, &c. to the species of the goat. These animals, though bearing much resemblance to the goat in many respects, yet are different species; and we shall see, from the following articles, how much the antelopes vary, both in species and races; and after enumerating all the goats and all the antelopes we shall find many animals still remain, which participate of both. In the whole history of quadrupeds I find nothing more difficult to explain, nor more confused or uncertain, than the accounts given by travellers of goats, antelopes, and other species which have an affinity to them. I have exerted all my endeavours, and employed all my attention, to throw some light upon it, and shall not regret my labour, if what I now write may contribute to prevent errors, fix ideas, and bring forth the truth, by extending the views of those who would study Nature.--But to our subject.

All goals are liable to vertigos; this disease is also common to the wild and chamois goats, as well as the inclination to climb up rocks, and the custom of continually licking stones, especially those which are impregnated with nitre or salt. In the Alps are rocks which have been hollowed by the tongues of the chamois; these are commonly composed of soft and calcinable stones, in which there is always a certain quantity of nitre. These natural agreements, these conformable customs, appear to be sufficient indexes of the identity of species. The Greeks, as we have said, did not separate these into three different species; and our hunters, who, probably, never consulted the Greeks, have always looked upon them as the same species. Gaston Phoebus, when speaking of the wild goat, particularises him under the name of the wild buck; and the chamois, which he calls _ysarus_ and _sarris_, is also, according to him, but another wild goat. I own that all these authorities do not make a complete proof, but by uniting them with the facts and reasons we have produced, they form such strong presumptions upon the unity of the species of these three animals, that we can harbour no doubt on the subject.

The wild and chamois goats, one of which I look upon as the male, and the other as the female stock of the goat kind, are only found, like the muflon, who is the stock of the sheep, in deserts, and in the most craggy and highest mountains. The Alps, the Pyrennees, the mountains of Greece, and those in the islands of the Archipelago, are almost the only places where the wild and the chamois goats are to be found. But although both dislike heat and inhabit the regions of snow and ice, yet they have also an aversion to excessive cold. In summer, they chuse the north side of the mountains; in winter they move to the southern and even descend from the summits. Neither can support themselves on their legs upon the ice when it is smooth, but if there be the least inequalities on its surface, they bound along with security.

The chace of these animals is very laborious, and dogs are almost useless in it. It is likewise very dangerous, for the animal finding himself hard pushed will turn and strike the hunter with his head, and sometimes throw him over a precipice. The chamois is as swift, though not so strong, as the wild goats; they are more numerous, and commonly go in herds; they are not, however, so numerous as they were formerly, at least in our Alpine and Pyrenean mountains.