Part 15

We are indebted for the knowledge of this animal (_fig. 219._) to M. de la Condamine, and shall therefore give his account of it in his Voyage up the river Amazon. "The monkey, of which the governor of Para made me a present, was the only one of its kind that had been seen in the country. The hair on its body was of the most beautiful silvery white colour: and that on its tail was of a glossy chesnut approaching to black. Its ears, cheeks, and muzzle, were tinctured with so bright a vermilion, as to have the appearance of being the work of art. I kept it a year, and it was alive at the time I was writing this account, almost within sight of the French coast; but, notwithstanding the continual precautions that I took to preserve it from the cold, yet the rigour of the season killed it before my arrival. I preserved it in aqua vitæ, which will prove my description is not exaggerated." By this recital of M. de la Condamine, it is obvious that his description will apply to no other animal than the mico; and that it is a different, and probably, scarce species, since no author or traveller before him has made any mention of it, though it is remarkable for the bright red which animates its face, and for the beauty of its hair.

_Distinctive Characters of this Species._

The mico has neither pouches on the side of his cheeks, nor callosities on his posteriors. He has a flaccid tail, which is about half as long again as the head and body. The partition of the nostrils is not so thick as in other sagoins, but their apertures are at their sides. His face and ears are naked, and of a vermilion colour. The muzzle is short, the eyes are distant from each other; the ears are large; his hair is of a beautiful silver white colour, and of a glossy brown on the tail. He walks on all fours, and is about seven or eight inches long. The females are not subject to the periodical emanation.

ACCOUNT OF SOME ANIMALS NOT EXPRESSLY TREATED OF IN THIS WORK.

We have now finished, to the utmost of our ability, the History of Quadrupeds, but in order to render it still more complete, we shall not pass over in silence those of which we have not been able to obtain an exact knowledge. They are but few, and of those few, many must be looked upon as varieties of those species we have before mentioned; yet feeling it as a duty to state all we knew, or could gain a knowledge of, in the animal kingdom, we determined to add the following, and in which we have been as particular as possible.

1. THE WHITE BEAR.

This is a noted animal in our most northern climates. Martin and some other travellers mention it, but none of them give a sufficient description of it to enable us positively to pronounce, whether it be a different species from the common bear. Supposing every thing they have written to be fact, then that must be the case: but as we know that the species of the bear varies greatly according to the difference of climate; that there are brown, black, white, and others variegated, the colour becomes a nugatory character in constituting different species; and, consequently, the denomination of _white bear_ is insufficient to prove the species different. I have seen two small bears that were brought from Russia entirely white; nevertheless, they were most certainly of the same species as our bears of the Alps. These animals also vary greatly with respect to size; as they live a long time, and become larger and fatter in those parts of the world where they find ample provision, and are not disturbed, the character drawn from the size is still more equivocal; therefore, we have not a sufficient foundation to assert, that the bear of the northern seas is a particular species, merely because it is white and larger than our common bear. The difference of habits does not seem to be more decisive than that of colour and size. The bear of the northern seas lives upon fish; he never quits the sea coasts, and even often inhabits the floating islands of ice. But if we consider that the bear in general is an animal which feeds indifferently on every thing, and that when pressed with hunger, he has no particular choice, and that he has not the least dread of water, these habits will not appear sufficiently different to conclude that the species is not the same. The fish which the bears of the northern seas feed upon, may rather be termed flesh, as it chiefly consists of the carcasses of whales, seals, &c. and that too in a climate which produces no other animals, nor even grain nor fruits; and where, consequently, the bear is under the necessity of subsisting on the productions of the sea. Is it not probable, therefore, if the bears of Savoy were transported to the mountains of Spitzbergen, not finding any nutriment on land, they would plunge into the sea to seek for subsistence?

Colour, size, and method of living, being therefore insufficient, there remains only those essential characters which may be derived from their figure. Now, all that travellers have said of the sea-bear is simply, that his head, body, and hair, are longer than in our bears, and his head much harder. If these differences be real and striking, they would suffice to constitute a different species: but I am doubtful whether Martin examined them with accuracy, and whether the others, who copied from him, have not exaggerated. "These white bears (says he) are shaped quite otherwise than those in our country; they have a long head like that of a dog, and the neck is also long; they bark almost like dogs that are hoarse; they are not so clumsy, and more nimble than our bears; they are nearly of the same size; their hair is long, and softer than wool. It is said, that common bears have a very tender head, but it is quite contrary with the white bear, for though we gave one several blows over the head, he was not in the least stunned, although they were sufficient to have knocked down an ox.[AB]" We may remark from this description, first, that the author does not speak of these bears as being larger than ours, and that, consequently we ought to suspect the testimony of those who have affirmed, that the sea-bears were thirteen feet long. Secondly, that the hair being as soft as wool does not constitute a specific character, since an animal's going frequently in the water is a sufficient cause for the hair becoming softer, and even more bushy, as is seen by the land and water beaver: those that live upon land, rather than in the water, having a rougher and thinner hair; and what makes me suspect that the other differences are not real, nor even so apparent as Martin speaks of, is that Dithmar Blefklein, in his description of Iceland, speaks of these white bears, and asserts having seen one of them killed in Greenland, which reared itself on his hind feet like other bears; but in this recital, he does not say a word which indicates that the white Greenland bear is not entirely like ours. Besides, when these animals find prey upon land, they do not seek for food in the sea: they devour rein-deer, and any other beast they can seize; they even attack men, and dig up dead bodies. But when almost famished, as they often find themselves in those desart and barren lands, they are obliged to frequent the water, in quest of seals, young walruses, and small whales. They get upon the islands of ice, where they wait for their prey; and as long as they find abundance of subsistence, they never quit their post; so that when the ice begins to float in spring, they suffer themselves to be carried away with it, and as they cannot regain the land, nor even quit the ice on which they are embarked for a long time, they frequently perish in the open sea. Those which arrive on the coasts of Norway or Iceland with these floats of ice, are so nearly famished, that they devour, with the greatest voracity, every thing they meet; and this may have occasioned the prejudice that these sea bears are more fierce and voracious than the common kind. Some authors have been persuaded that the sea-bears were amphibious, like the seals, and that they can remain as long as they please under water; but the contrary is evident, from the manner in which they are hunted. They can swim but a short time together, nor can they go above the space of a league: they are followed by a small boat, and are soon weary. If they could dispense with respiration they would plunge to the bottom, in order to rest themselves; but when they dive it is only for a short time, being obliged to rise to the surface of the water for fear of drowning, and then the hunters kill them.

[Footnote AB: Martin's Voyage to Spitzbergen.]

The common prey of these white bears is seals, but the walruses, from whom they sometimes take away their young, wound them with their tusks and oblige them to retreat. The whales also drive them from the places they frequent by their weight and magnitude, but they sometimes devour the young whales. All bears are naturally very fat, and the white bears, which feed only on animals loaded with grease, are much more so than the rest. Their fat is also nearly like that of the whale. The flesh of these bears is said not to be bad eating, and their skin makes a very warm and durable fur.

SUPPLEMENT.

I have since received a drawing of a White Bear[AC], from Mr. Collinson, and if that be perfect, the land and sea-bears are certainly distinct species, the difference in the length of their heads being sufficient to constitute them such. By this drawing it also appears that the feet of the sea-bear are formed like those of dogs, and other carnivorous animals, whereas those of the land-bear are shaped like the human hand. From the assertion of several travellers we also understand, that the former of these bears are much larger than the latter; Gerard de Veira says, that the skin of one which he killed measured twenty-three feet in length, which is three times the length of a common bear. In the collection of Voyages to the North it is stated that these bears are larger and more ferocious than those of our parts; but in the same work it is said, that although they are of a different shape, their heads and necks being much longer, and their bodies more slender, yet they are nearly of the same size with the others.

[Footnote AC: For which see vol. vi. page 270, of this Edition.]

It is generally admitted by travellers that the heads of these sea-bears are so hard that a blow which would fell an ox does not stun them, and that their voice is more like the barking of a dog than that of a common bear. Robert Lade says, that he killed two sea-bears near the river Rupper of a prodigious size, which were so ferocious that they attacked the hunters, wounded two Englishmen, and killed several savages. It is mentioned in the third Dutch Voyage to the North, that a sea-bear was killed by the sailors on the coast of Nova Zembla, whose skin was thirteen feet long. From all which I am inclined to believe that this animal, which has been so frequently distinguished for its ferocity, is a much larger species than the common bear.

2. THE TARTARIAN COW.

M. Gmelin, in the New Memoirs of the Academy at Petersburg, has given a description of this animal, which seems, at first sight, to be quite different from all those which we have spoken of under the article buffalo. "This cow (says he) which I saw alive, and of which I had a drawing made in Siberia, came from Calmuck. It was about the length of two Russian ells and a half; by this standard we may judge of its other dimensions, the proportion of which the designer has well executed. The body resembles that of a common cow: the horns bent inward; the hair on the body and head is black, except on the forehead and spine of the back, where it is white. The neck is covered with a mane, and the rest of the body with very long hair, which descends to the knees, so that the legs appear very short; the back is raised in the form of a hunch; the tail resembles that of a horse, is white, and very bushy; the fore legs are black, the hind ones white, and resemble those of the ox; there are two tufts of long hair upon the hind feet, one before and the other behind, but on the fore-feet there is but one, which is placed on the hind part. The excrements are more solid than those of the common cow; and in discharging its water the animal bends its body backward. It does not low like an ox, but grunts like a hog. It is wild, and even ferocious, for, excepting the man who gives it food, it strikes with its head all those that come near it. It dislikes the company of domestic cows, and when it sees one of them it grunts, which it seldom does on any other occasion." To this description M. Gmelin adds, "that it is the same animal spoken of by Rubruquis in his Travels into Tartary: that there are two species of these animals in that country; the first called _sarluk_, which is the same as he describes; the second _chainuk_, which differs from the other in the largeness of the head and horns, and also by the tail, which resembles that of the horse towards its insertion, and terminates like that of a cow: but that they both have the same dispositions."

There is but a single character in all this description which indicates that the Calmuck Cows are of a particular species, which is their grunting instead of lowing, for as to all the rest, they so strongly resemble the bisons, that I do not doubt they are of the same species, or rather the same race. Besides, though the author says that these cows do not low but grunt, yet he acknowledges they do that only very seldom; and this was, perhaps, a particular affection of the individual he saw, for Rubruquis, and others whom he quotes, do not speak of this grunting; perhaps the bisons, when they are irritated, have also an angry grunt; even our bulls, especially in the rutting season, have a hollow interrupted voice, which much more resembles grunting than lowing. I am, therefore, persuaded that this grunting cow (_vacca grunnicus_) of M. Gmelin is no other than a bison, and does not constitute a particular species.

3. THE TOLAI.

This animal, which is very common in the country which borders on the Lake Baikal, in Tartary, is a little larger than a rabbit, which it resembles in figure, colour of the hair, taste of the flesh, and in the habit of burrowing in the earth to conceal itself. Their internal structure is also the same, and they differ only in the tail, which is considerably longer than that of the rabbit; it, therefore, seems very probable that it does not really constitute a different species, but is only a variety in that of the rabbit. Rubruquis, speaking of the animals of Tartary, says, "There are rabbits with long tails, which have black and white hairs at the end. There are no stags, few hares, many gazelles, &c." This passage seems to indicate that our short-tailed rabbit is not to be met with in Tartary, or rather that it has undergone some variations in that climate, and especially in the length of the tail; for as the tolai resembles the rabbit in every other respect, I do not think it necessary to consider them as a distinct and separate species.

4. THE ZISEL.

Some authors, and among the rest, Linnæus, have doubted, whether the _zisel_, or _ziesel_ (_citillus_) were a different animal from the hamster[AD] (_cricetus_). It is true they resemble each other in many respects, and inhabit nearly the same country; but they differ by a sufficient number of characters to convince us they are really different species. The zisel is smaller than the hamster; its body is long and slender like the weasel; whereas that of the hamster is thick like the rat. It has no external ears, but only auditory passages concealed under the hair. The hamster has short ears, but they are very broad and apparent. The zisel is of a uniform cinereous grey colour, but the hamster is marked with three large white spots on each side of the breast. These differences, joined to that of their not mixing together, though natives of the same country, are sufficient to decide the fact of their being two different species, though they resemble each other in the shortness of their tails and legs, in their teeth, being like those of the rat, and have the same natural habits, such as burrowing in the earth, laying up magazines of provisions, destroying grain, &c. Besides, to leave no doubt on this subject, we shall observe, that Agricola, an exact and judicious author, in his little Treatise of Subterraneous Animals, gives a description of both, and so clearly distinguishes them, that it is impossible to confound them; therefore, we may certainly affirm that the hamster and the zisel are two different species; and, perhaps, as distinct from each other as the weasel and the rat.

[Footnote AD: The _hamster_ is found in Misnia, Thuringia, and Hanover. The _zisel_ is found in Hungary, Austria, and Poland, where it is called _suset_.]

5. THE ZEMNI.

There is another animal in Poland and Russia, called _ziemni_, or _zemni_, which is of the same genus as the _zisel_, but larger, stronger, and more mischievous. It is somewhat smaller than the domestic cat. Its head is large, its body slender, and its ears short and round. It has four large incisive teeth which project out of the mouth, the two in the lower jaw being thrice as long as the two in the upper. The feet are very short, and covered with hair; they are divided into five toes, and armed with crooked claws. The hair is soft, short, and of a mouse colour. The tail moderately large. The eyes small and hidden like those of the mole. Rzaczynski has called this animal the _small subterranean dog_. This author seems to be the only one who has spoken of the zemni, though it is very common in some provinces of the North. Its natural disposition and habits are nearly the same as those of the hamster and zisel. It bites dangerously, eats greedily, and plunders orchards and gardens. It burrows an habitation in the earth, and lives upon grain, fruits, and pot-herbs, which it stores in magazines for its winter support.

6. THE POUCH.

The same author, Rzaczynski, mentions another animal, called by the Russians _pouch_: it is larger than the domestic rat; its muzzle is long, it burrows, and commits depredations in the gardens, &c. There were such numbers near Suraz and Volhinia, that the inhabitants were obliged to abandon the culture of their gardens. This pouch is possibly the same as what Seba calls the _Norwegian rat_, of which he gives a figure and description.

7. THE PEROUASCA.

There is also in Russia and Poland, especially in Volhinia, an animal which the Russians call _perewiazka_, and _przewiaska_ by the Polanders, a name we may translate the _girdled weasel_. This animal is not so big as the pole-cat; it is covered with a whitish hair, transversally striped with a yellowish red, which appears like so many girdles. It lives in the woods, and burrows in the earth; its skin is sought after and makes a very beautiful fur.

8. THE SOUSLIK.

There is found at Casan, and in the provinces watered by the Wolga, and even in Austria, a small animal called _souslik_ in the Russian language, which furnishes a beautiful fur. In figure and shortness of tail, it greatly resembles the short-tailed-field-mouse; but what distinguishes it from the mouse or rat kind, is its coat, which is in every part sprinkled with small spots of a glossy and shining white; these spots are exceedingly small, and placed at a little distance from each other; they are more apparent upon the loins, than on the shoulders and head. Mr. Pennant, an English gentleman, thoroughly versed in Natural History, favoured me with one of these sousliks, which had been sent him from Austria, as an animal naturalists were not acquainted with. I soon recognised it to be the same as that of which I had a skin in my possession, and of which M. Sanchez had furnished me with the following account. "The rats called _sousliks_, are taken in great numbers in the salt vessels in the river _Kama_, which descends from Solikamski, where the salt pits are, and falls into the Wolga above the town of Casan. The Wolga from Simbuski to Somtof, is covered with these salt vessels, in which these animals are taken, as well as in the lands which border on those rivers. They have been named _souslik_, that is, dainty-mouthed, because they are very fond of salt."

SUPPLEMENT.

We have since learnt, that these animals generally live in the desart, and burrow in the sides of the mountains where the earth is blackish; that some of them make their holes seven or eight feet long, at the end of which they form different apartments for storing up provisions for the winter, which consist of ears of corn, peas, lint, and hemp seeds: or if they be not cultivated lands, different kinds of herbs, all of which they keep separate in different parts of their holes, to which they have from two to five entrances, always winding, and the mouths of them sometimes seven feet asunder; they also dig holes for their habitations separate from their magazines. Besides grain and herbs they feed upon young mice, but are unable to encounter the full-grown ones. The females have from two to five young ones at a time, which are first blind, and without hair; nor do they begin to see till after the hair appears.

9. THE GOLDEN-COLOURED MOLE.

It is said that there is in Siberia a mole, called the _golden-coloured mole_, and whose species may probably be different from the ordinary mole, because the Siberian has no tail, and a very short muzzle; the hair is mixed with red and green, and of a gold shade; only three toes on the fore-feet, and four on those behind: whereas the common mole has five toes on each foot. We are ignorant of the proper name of this animal, of which Seba has given a figure.

10. THE WHITE WATER-RAT.

The European Water Rat is found in Canada, but its colour is different; its back is brown, the rest of the body white, and in some few places yellow. The head, muzzle, and extremity of the tail, are white. The hair seems softer and more glossy than that of our water-rat: but they are perfectly alike in every other respect, and no doubt are of the same species. The whiteness of the hair is produced by the coldness of the climate: and, it is highly probable, that in the northern parts of Europe, there are white water rats as well as in Canada.

11. THE GUINEA-HOG.

Though this animal differs from the common hog in some characters, nevertheless I presume it to be of the same species, and that these differences are only varieties produced by the influence of the climate. Of this we have an example in the Siam hog, which also differs from that of Europe, although it is certainly of the same species, since they intermix and produce together. The Guinea hog is nearly of the same figure as ours, and about the same size as the Siam hog, that is, smaller than the wild boar, or our domestic hog. It is a native of Guinea, and has been transported into Brasil, where it has multiplied as in its own native country. It is domestic and quite tame. Its hair is short, red, and glossy: it has no bristles, not even on the back; but the neck and the crupper near the tail, are covered with hair somewhat longer than the rest of the body. Its head is not so big as that of our hog, from which it also differs in the shape of its ears, which are very long, pointed, and turn backwards upon the neck. Its tail is much longer, almost touching the ground, and without hair. This race of hogs, which, according to Marcgrave, originally belonged to Guinea, is also met with in Asia, and particularly in the island of Java, from whence they have been transported to the Cape of Good Hope by the Dutch.[AE]