CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS--THE CAT FAMILY.

The Carnivora--Division into Terrestrial (Fissipedia) and Aquatic (Pinnipedia)--Introductory Remarks on the FISSIPEDIA--Their Relations to Man and to other Animals--Their Distribution over the Surface of the Globe--Their Structure--The Diversity of their Form and Habits--Their Division into Lesser Groups--THE CAT FAMILY--Their Geographical and Chronological Distribution--Their Skeleton--The Peculiarities of their Skull, Teeth, &c.

The Carnivora, or flesh-eating Mammals, form a fourth order of the Mammalia, and are divided into two great groups, or sub-orders as they are called by zoologists, one terrestrial, and the other aquatic. The first is the group of the _Fissipedia_, or “split-feet,” so called from the fact that the feet are divided into well-marked toes; the second is the group of the _Pinnipedia_, or “fin-feet” (Seals, &c.), so called from the fact that the toes are bound together by skin, forming fins or flippers rather than feet.

THE LAND CARNIVORA.[1]

This group, which comprises all the great “beasts of prey,” is one of the most compact, as well as one of the most interesting among the Mammalia. So many of the animals contained in it have become “familiar in our mouths as household words,” bearing as they do an important part in fable, in travel, and even in history: so many of them are of such wonderful beauty, so many of such terrible ferocity, that no one can fail to be interested in them, even apart from the fact likely to influence us more in their favour than any other--that the two home pets which of all others are the commonest and the most interesting belong to the group.

No one who has had a Dog friend, no one who has watched the wonderful instance of maternal love afforded by a Cat with her kittens, no one who loves riding across country after a Fox, no lady with a taste for handsome furs, no boy who has read of Lion and Tiger hunts, and has longed to emulate the doughty deeds of the hunter, can fail to be interested in an assemblage which furnishes animals at once so useful, so beautiful, and so destructive.

It must not be supposed from the name of this group that all its members are exclusively flesh-eaters--and, indeed, it will be hardly necessary to warn the reader against falling into this mistake, as there are few people who have never given a Dog a biscuit, or a Bear a bun. Still, both the Dog and several kinds of Bears prefer flesh-meat when they can get it; but there are some Bears which live almost exclusively on fruit, and are therefore in strictness not carnivorous at all. The name must, however, be taken as a sort of general title for a certain set of animals which have certain characters in common, and which differ from all other animals in particular ways.

Comparatively few of the flesh-eaters are of direct use to man, at any rate while alive, yet one member of the group--the Dog--is the most useful of all domestic quadrupeds, though derived from one of the most savage of all--the Wolf. The Ferret, the Cheetah and the Cat are also more or less domesticated; but they come far below the Dog in amiable qualities, and in value to man. Below their value in service comes the use of their most beautiful skins; and still lower down the scent, derivable from a few species. Yet from these two last sources our fair ones seek to derive new charms, not heeding the poet Cowley’s quaint objurgation:--

“The adorning thee with so much art Is but a dangerous skill; Like to the poisoning of a dart, Too apt, before, to kill.”

Most of the Carnivora may be looked upon as man’s natural enemies, for he has no chance of making headway unless he can keep “the beast of the field” from “increasing upon him.” Amongst primæval men, the tribes who made the best weapons to keep off these, the destroyers of their families, were certain to succeed best in the struggle for existence, so that the act of sharpening a flint-stone to repel the attack of some wild beast may be said to have prepared the way for civilisation, for flint knives led to bronze hatchets, bronze hatchets to axes and hammers of iron, and when once iron-working was understood and appreciated, civilisation went on with gigantic strides.

Besides acting as one of the severest of schoolmasters in the hard school of adversity in which man has been trained, the flesh-eaters serve to keep in check, and indirectly to bring to perfection, the grass-eating tribes. Upon these--the Oxen, Antelopes, Wild Asses, &c.--the large Carnivora delight to prey; in so doing they have to put forth all their powers, their agility, strength, and cunning, while the Herbivores, at the same time, have acquired caution and swiftness of foot in the highest degree, in order to escape from their ruthless and implacable destroyers.

While the larger beasts of prey keep in check the troops of great hoofed animals, the smaller kinds, such as Cats and Ferrets, have a most important office in thinning the constantly multiplying ranks of gnawing animals, such as Rats and Mice, which would otherwise prove a plague of the worst description. Indirectly, too, our Carnivora may even influence largely the spread of certain kinds of vegetation: for instance, as Mr. Darwin has shown, where there are no Cats there is no clover! This seems strange, not to say fabulous, but it is known that clover will only flourish when there are plenty of Humble-bees, the only insects able to carry the fertilising pollen from flower to flower, and so ensure a good supply of seed for the next crop. Now, Field Mice are particularly hostile to Humble-bees, knowing quite well where to find their nests and combs, and how to get at their honey, of which they are very fond. Thus, where Field Mice exist in great numbers, Humble-bees will be comparatively few. But Mice are chiefly kept down by Cats, and so the end of this biological “house that Jack built” is that to ensure a good crop of clover it is advisable to have plenty of Cats about!

The conception of the fearful struggle for existence going on between beast and beast has been caught by Shakspere in a wonderful passage in his “Timon of Athens.” Apemantus would “give the world to the beasts to be rid of the men,” whereupon Timon asks him whether he would have himself “fall in the confusion of men, and remain a beast with the beasts.” Apemantus answers in the affirmative, and Timon’s rejoinder is as follows: “A beastly ambition, which the gods grant thee to attain to! If thou wert the Lion, the Fox would beguile thee: if thou wert the Lamb, the Fox would eat thee: if thou wert the Fox, the Lion would suspect thee, when, peradventure, thou wert accused by the Ass: if thou wert the Ass, thy dulness would torment thee, and still thou livedst but as a breakfast to the Wolf: if thou wert the Wolf, thy greediness would afflict thee, and oft thou shouldst hazard thy life for thy dinner: wert thou the Unicorn, pride and wrath would confound thee, and make thine own self the conquest of thy fury: wert thou a Bear, thou wouldst be killed by the Horse: wert thou a Horse, thou wouldst be seized by the Leopard: wert thou a Leopard, thou wert german to the Lion, and the spots of thy kindred were jurors on thy life: all thy safety were remotion, and thy defence, absence.” To learn the truth of these words, one has only to turn to any book of travel in Africa or India, where one is certain to read of a wholesale destruction which it is melancholy to think of.

In Great Britain this conflict is a thing of the past; but two terrible enemies of man even there have been extirpated within the historic period--namely, the Wolf and the Bear; of these and of their extirpation we shall speak when we come to describe those types. Now, happily, these greedy Carnivora are “scattered and peeled--meted out and trodden down.” Far in the north of the island there is the wild Cat, the two Martens are becoming scarcer and scarcer; the Badger is found here and there; the Polecat is rare; so that the Fox, the Stoat, and the Weasel--the last being the very least and meanest of the order alone are common.

But in the later geological epoch--pre-historic as to us--the nobler types abounded, and Great Britain was then as much the land of savage beasts as Africa and India are now.

The Carnivora are found all over the world, from the equator to the poles: in most parts of the globe they are abundant, the great exception being the Australian region of zoological geography, namely, the immense island of Australia, which can only boast of a Dog, doubtfully native, and New Zealand and the adjacent Polynesian Islands, which are quite devoid of members of the group, the native Dog of New Zealand having probably been recently introduced.

Many forms have become extinct, and, as we shall see when we come to speak of these bygone creatures, the lower we dig in the strata which compose the rocks of which our earth is made, the lower do the types become, that is to say, among the extinct Carnivora we have no animals so perfectly constructed for flesh-eating as the Cat family, for instance, but the various kinds get nearer and nearer, the lower we go, to what may be called the general plan of Mammalian structure, and farther and farther from the special type of structure found in the higher Carnivores of the present day.

There is considerable range of size among the various members of the group, the Lion and Tiger being the largest, the Weasel and Suricate the smallest. As to their habits, the Carnivore are very varied; leaving out as we do for the present the fin-footed Seals, Sea Bears, and Walruses, we yet have the semi-aquatic Otter and the _Enhydra_, or Sea Otter, both at home in the watery element, and most expert swimmers and divers; but for the most part the flesh-eaters are inhabitants of the copse, the jungle, and the forest. Many are nimble climbers, some are arboreal in their habits, living entirely in trees, and most are crepuscular, that is, hunt their prey after dusk.

As to their diet, we mentioned above that they are by no means all flesh-eaters; in fact there is every gradation from those which live exclusively on animal food, such as the Lion, Tiger, &c., to the purely herbivorous kinds of Bear. Some again, such as the Cat family, seem to prefer flesh-meat, others, such as the Otter, adopt a Lenten diet, and feed on fish or eggs. This matter, however, is, of course, largely determined by the habitat of the animal, those whose habitation is inland being compelled to devour land animals, while those living by the sea or by river-banks usually take to fish either occasionally or as a regular thing.

Turning to the structure of the group, one of the first things that strikes us is the looseness of their skin, which, instead of being stretched on the body as tightly as a drum parchment, as it is in grass-eaters--for instance, the Ox or Hippopotamus--is quite “baggy,” having between it and the flesh of the beast a layer of the loosest possible fibres. It is for this reason that the skin of any but a _very_ fat Dog can be pinched up so readily, while of a Herbivore it may be said, in the words of eulogy uttered by Mr. Squeers of his son Wackford, “Here’s firmness, here’s solidness! why you can hardly get up enough of him between your fingers and thumb to pinch him anywheres.” In consequence of this the operation of skinning a Lion or Bear is a comparatively easy one. After the first cut the beast may be _pulled_ out of his skin, almost without further use of the knife; while with an Antelope or an Ox the skin has to be _cut_ away carefully and laboriously from the underlying flesh.

The use of this loose skin will be very evident to any one who will take the trouble to watch the great Cats playing together at the Zoological Gardens. They are continually scratching one another, but the loose skin is dragged round by the claws which, in consequence, can get no hold, and do no harm; with a tight skin, on the other hand, the slightest scratch of such a claw as a Tiger’s would cause a serious wound. The looseness of the skin is very evident in the Puma and Jaguar, in which it hangs in a fold along the middle of the belly, like a great dewlap.

In the Carnivora the skeleton, or bony framework of the body, attains its utmost perfection, both as a _tissue_ and as machinery. Its tissue is dense, white, and ivory-like, every bone is exquisitely moulded and polished, so that there are few more beautiful objects of study than a well-prepared Cat’s skeleton, and almost none more instructive or better calculated to give an idea of the perfection of “animal mechanics.” The flexibility and strength of the spine, the exquisite fitting of its joints, the small head capable of being turned in almost any direction in the search for prey or the avoidance of danger, the wonderful arrangement of levers afforded by the limbs, which exhibit at once the greatest amount of strength and the greatest amount of elasticity, all combine to fill the mind with wonder and admiration, as great as that excited by the most perfect work of art or the most stupendous phenomenon of inanimate nature.

The skull of nearly all Carnivora is distinguished from that of most other Mammals by its immense strength, and its evident adaptation to the habits of its possessor--to the effective seizing and devouring of living prey. It is remarkable for the immense roughened bony ridges, developed in many parts of it, which serve for the attachment of the mighty jaw-muscles, the great size of which causes an increase in the width of the bony _jugal arch_, extending from under the eye to just in front of the ear. Another point worthy of notice is the great shortening of the jaws, or of the _facial_ in relation to the _cranial_ portions of the skull. In this respect Carnivores, especially the most typical forms, the Cats, are very markedly distinguished from Herbivores, in which the brain-case is small and the face immensely prolonged. This has to do with the different kind of food used by the two groups--that of vegetable-eaters requiring long grinding, that of flesh-eaters powerful mincing. Connected also with this same function of mastication is the form of the _condyle_, or bony projection of the lower jaw, by which it moves on the skull, and of the smooth surface of the latter which receives it. These are in Carnivora greatly elongated transversely, and narrowed from before backwards, so that no motion from side to side, but only an up-and-down motion, is possible. The higher Carnivora, therefore, cannot _chew_ or _grind_ their food, but only _mince_ it, their sharp teeth acting exactly like scissor-blades. In the interior of the skull should be noticed a large plate of bone which extends inwards and separates the great brain, or cerebrum, from the lesser brain, or cerebellum, and prevents the jarring of that important organ likely to arise from the animal’s vigorous movements.

In the spine, or vertebral column, there is not much to notice beyond the great size of the first two vertebræ, or those which support the head, and the development of strong spines or processes for the attachment of muscles.

In the limbs there are certain points of considerable interest and importance. If a Bear and a Lion be watched while walking, a great difference will be observed in their gait: the Bear’s movements are far clumsier and less springy than those of the Lion. A little further observation will show that this is due, chiefly, to the manner in which their feet are set on the limbs, for it will be seen that the Bear keeps the sole of his foot flat on the ground, and, as his foot is very large, he has something of the awkward, sprawling movement of a man walking in shoes too big for him. The Lion, on the other hand, has his wrist and his heel lifted well above the ground, and so walks, not on the sole of his foot, but on his toes, the under surfaces of which are furnished with beautifully soft leathery pads, so as to ensure a soft, silent footstep. Then what looks like the knee of a Lion, Cat, or Dog is really his _wrist_. and what looks like a backward turned knee in his hind leg is his heel, the true elbow and knee being almost hidden by the skin.

The reason of this arrangement is seen by looking at the skeletons of the two animals. In the Bear the _metacarpals_ and _metatarsals_, or five long bones extending between the wrist and the ankle respectively, and the joints of the toes, are kept in a horizontal position, as in ourselves; in the Lion, on the contrary, the metacarpals and metatarsals are lifted almost into a vertical position, the walking surface being now afforded by the under surface of the toe-bones, or phalanges. By reason of this the Lion gets an extra lever in his leg, in addition to the two levers which the Bear possesses, namely, those afforded by the bones of the arm and fore-arm and of the thigh and leg respectively; and consequently his springiness is greatly increased. An animal which walks like the Bear, on the sole of its foot, is said to be _plantigrade_: one which walks on its fingers, like the Lion, Cat, or Dog, is called _digitigrade_.

As in all animals in which the fore limbs are used for support, and not for prehension, the collar-bone, or clavicle, is either wholly absent or quite rudimentary, and the fore limb has therefore no bony connection with the trunk, but is attached simply by muscles and ligaments. The Carnivores, in leaping or running, often come down with their whole weight upon the fore legs, and if a large bony clavicle, like that of a Monkey or Bat, were present, it would infallibly be broken.

The bones are all strongly bound together by elastic bands, or _ligaments_, and are covered by the great fibrous masses, or _muscles_, which, forming as they do the flesh, take the chief share in giving to each animal its characteristic shape. These muscles are, in most instances, attached to the bones by strong cords or bands resembling the ligaments, and called _tendons_. The bones being, in great measure, articulated or jointed to one another by smooth surfaces, sometimes flat, sometimes round, sometimes pulley-like, act as levers. The muscles are usually attached at one end to a fixed at the other to a movable bone; when they act, by shortening in length and widening in diameter, they make the more movable bone to turn upon the other. In this way they cause the limbs to be straightened or bent, the jaws to be opened or shut, the claws extended or retracted, and perform all the other movements of which the animal is capable. The development of the muscles in the larger Carnivora is wonderfully great. A Lion will kill an Ox with a blow of his paw, and drag it off to his lair as easily as his humble relation, the Cat, disposes of a Rat or Mouse.

We now have to consider a most important series of organs--the organs of _alimentation_ or _nutrition_; those, in fact, which serve the purposes of taking in, preparing, and digesting the food. They are the mouth with its tongue, teeth, and salivary glands, the gullet, stomach, and intestines, with the liver, and sweetbread, or pancreas.

We are all familiar in ourselves with _four_ kinds of teeth, namely (1), the “incisors,” or cutting teeth, in front; (2), the “canines,” the pointed eye-teeth that come next; (3), the “false grinders,” or “premolars;” and (4), the true grinders, or “molars.” Man has a very even and full-mouthed series; the Carnivora, on the other hand, possess a most irregular series, and in this series there are certain gaps or interspaces. Our own even orderly set is best adapted for a mixed diet, that has for the most part undergone a great amount of change by cooking. But the Carnivora, in their wild state, must eat flesh raw, and for the most part reeking, and this has to be torn from the conquered prey. So that the teeth have to be applicable to the first, or destructive process, and then to the tearing to pieces of the fleshly substance, and the scraping of the bones; they may even have to crush the bones themselves, the more spongy parts serving for food; and, greatest feat of all, to break the hardest long bones for the succulent marrow.

The mode of feeding and the form and number of the teeth of necessity correspond: tearing and gnawing are processes that need teeth like knives and scissors, while grinding or chewing require teeth like millstones. Both these kinds exist in the Bear. In the Dog the crushing teeth become less in size and importance; in the Lion they are suppressed, and all the teeth have a cutting character, their number being at the same time much reduced.

The teeth are often all that remains of certain extinct creatures; they are, therefore, a most important part of the anatomy of an animal, as well as being of great service in the matter of classification or grouping. They are the hardest of all the organs; their relation to the food of the species, and their necessary correlation to the digestive organs, makes them serve as a key to the rest of the creature’s structure, which structure is in absolute harmony with its habits and daily life.

The tongue is covered with horny projections, or papillæ, and in the Cat tribe serves as a rasp to rub and scrape off the smaller fragments of flesh from the bones. The stomach is always simple, that is, consists of a bagpipe-like cavity not divided into compartments, as in the Ruminants and some other animals. A great difference from herbivorous animals is also seen in the length of the intestine. As the food is of a highly nourishing nature it requires less time for its digestion, and a smaller surface for its absorption into the blood, and the intestine is therefore remarkably short--not more than three times the length of the body in the Lion and Wild Cat, instead of being fifteen to thirty times the length, as in some vegetable feeders. The Carnivora have, therefore, the manifest advantage of a more compact and smaller “barrel” than the Herbivora, and, in consequence, have less weight to carry, and are slim and slender-waisted.

As might naturally be expected, the organs by which the blood, loaded with nourishment from the digestive canal, is carried to all parts of the body, are well developed. The heart, if not “as hard as the nether millstone,” is yet compact and strong in the highest degree: the circulation is vigorous, and the result is seen in great courage and astonishing powers of endurance.

In the lungs, with the windpipe and larynx, in which the multitudinous cries of the group--barks, howls, roars, and whines--are produced, there is nothing to merit any special mention.

The brain of Carnivora is, as a rule, remarkably large and well formed, in conformity with their high degree of intelligence. Its surface is thrown into well-marked ridges with intervening depressions, and presents a great contrast with the almost smooth brain of a Shrew or a Hedgehog. From it are given off nerves to the tongue, teeth, skin, muscles, and other parts of the head, as well as some to organs at a considerable distance from the head, as the heart, lungs, and stomach, and, most important of all, three pairs of nerves, one for each of the organs of the higher senses--the nose, eye, and ear.

The two nerves of smell pass through a beautifully-perforated bone--hence called the “sieve-bone,” or _ethmoid_--and proceed one on each side of a bony and gristly wall which divides the two nasal chambers from one another, to a delicate membrane covering a pair of bones of wonderful complexity--a labyrinth which must be seen to be understood, for the beautiful manner in which it enfolds itself can hardly be imagined. These “spongy-bones,” as they are called, the membrane covering which forms the true organ of smell, lie in the upper and hinder part of each nasal cavity, but in front of them is a large scroll of bone, also covered by a membrane of exquisite sensitiveness, but not taking cognisance of odours. This anti-chamber, as it were, of the nose, is extremely sensitive, and its sensibility is a safeguard against intrusive dust, and deadly disease-germs. It is the _sneezing_ region, and is the natural and most careful porter of the gates of the breath.

The way in which the eyes of the Carnivora are set in their head indicates their habits of life. They look straight forward, and are expressive, in the nobler kinds, of the energy and cruelty of their owner’s disposition. As in many of the Lemurs, the eye possesses what is called a _tapetum_, a sort of reflecting mirror in the bottom of the eye, which redoubles, as it were, the faint rays of evening, evidently a very important thing for these, mostly nocturnal, animals.

The sense of hearing is as perfect as that of sight; not, perhaps, in the higher, musical sense of the word, but for catching the faintest and feeblest undulations of the air. The Mole is supposed to be most sharp of hearing; but it is a question whether he is quicker of hearing than his cruel neighbour the Rabbit-killing Weasel. Any one who has watched a Cat sitting demurely by a Mouse-hole, or a Terrier on the look out for a Rat, will give these Carnivores credit for the most acute sense of sound. Anatomy corroborates what simple observation suggests, and the internal as well as external organs of hearing in the Carnivora are most exquisitely perfect.

Many members of the group live in families, that is, a male and female with their young form a little _coterie_ by themselves, and associate very little with other families. Very few live in great societies or herds, after the manner of the grass-eating animals, such as Oxen, Antelopes, or Wild Horses, but an exception to this is afforded by the Wild Dogs of Constantinople, which roam the streets in great numbers, and by Wolves, which invariably hunt in packs.

The Dogs and Wolves, besides being gregarious, resemble the Herbivora in another and far less amiable characteristic, that is, they do not choose a mate for life or even for a season, but let their affections run wild and practise the most unmitigated polygamy and polyandry. Many of the larger Cats, on the contrary--the Lion, for instance--choose a mate, to whom they are wonderfully faithful.

The young are always born in a comparatively helpless condition, not able to run about at once like a new-born Calf or Foal; they are generally blind for some time after birth, and are entirely dependent on the mother for food and warmth.

The higher Carnivora are most kind parents, and to the best of their ability, _educate_ their young. This was well known to the ancients: Ezekiel the prophet (xix. 2, 3) gives this character of the Lioness in inimitable language: “What is thy mother? A Lioness: she lay down among Lions, she nourished her whelps among young Lions. And she brought up one of her whelps: it became a young Lion, and it learned to catch the prey; it devoured men.” All writers bear witness to the painstaking way in which the parent Lion or Tiger trains up its young and practises them for their trade of slaughter. Sometimes both parents, sometimes only one, go out with their offspring, and by example and precept show them the safest places to hide, the proper moment to spring, the best place to seize the victim, and so on. And the future tyrants are very apt, they thoroughly enjoy their schooling, and make the best possible use of their opportunities; so much so that the young of the great Cats are far more dreaded than the old ones, as they not only kill to satisfy hunger, but commit wholesale slaughter, simply for practice and to keep their paws in.

The diversity of form and structure in the group of land Carnivora is very great. We find, as in the groups we have considered previously, many different kinds or _species_, amongst which are creatures so different as the great and powerful Lion and the small and insignificant Weasel, the active Tiger and Jaguar, and the lazy Glutton. These species, as very little observation shows us, naturally fall into certain larger groups or _genera_, having important characteristics in common; for instance, the Lion, Tiger, Leopard, Jaguar, Lynx, and all the small Cats, are so much like one another, and so different from all other animals, as to be put in the one genus _Felis_, which is distinguished by having retractile claws, and by being quite devoid of true grinding teeth. Again, the Dog and Wolf have so many points in common, that they are placed in the single genus _Canis_, the Dog being called _Canis familiaris_, the Wolf _Canis lupus_. If a number of genera are found to agree pretty closely with one another in essential matters, they are grouped into a _family_; thus we have the family _Mustelidæ_, which includes not only the Weasel (_Mustela_), but a number of other genera, such as the Otter, Badger, Skunk, and many others. Furthermore, the families are conveniently grouped into _sub-orders_, according to characters considered to be of greater importance than those which determine genera or families. We may roughly compare this method of grouping to the way in which the soldiers in an army are arranged. Thus, individual men--corresponding to species--are arranged in _companies_, which we may take to represent genera; several companies are united into a _regiment_, just as a number of genera are united into a family; a greater or less number of regiments go to form a _battalion_, in the same way as the families go to form a sub-order; and, lastly, two or three battalions constitute an _army_, which is the complete assemblage, and corresponds, in our rough illustration, to an _order_.

We suppose that nine persons out of ten, if asked to give three common examples of land Carnivores, would, almost without hesitation, name the Cat, the Dog, and the Bear. The most accomplished naturalist would be unable to give a better answer to this question, as those three well-known animals are types of the three primary sections into which the whole sub-order is divided, and which may, in fact, be termed respectively the groups of the Cats, Dogs, and Bears. It must be borne in mind, however, that the words are here used in the broadest and most general sense, for the group of “Cats” includes not only the animals properly so-called, but also the Civets, Ichneumons, Hyænas, whilst amongst “Bears” are grouped Racoons, Otters, Badgers, Weasels, and many others.

It will, perhaps, be as well to give the scientific names for these three groups which we have, most unscientifically, called Cats, Dogs, and Bears. We have first the _Æluroidea_,[2] or Cat-like animals; next the _Cynoidea_,[3] or Dog-like animals; and, lastly, the _Arctoidea_,[4] or Bear-like animals. We also give below a list of the families of land Carnivores arranged under their respective sections, with the most important forms belonging to each family; as such a list will, in all probability, be useful for reference.[5]

The splitting up of our flesh-eaters into these sections is not an arbitrary matter, but is determined by certain definite anatomical characters, one of the chief of which is the structure of the base of the skull. These matters will, however, be better discussed under the various families, when we shall also devote a short time to that very important branch of anatomy, the form, number, and arrangement of the teeth.

THE CAT FAMILY.[6]

This is the chief of the families of Carnivora, containing as it does all the great beasts of prey. Its members are the most perfectly constructed of animals for a life of rapine; their weapons--teeth and claws--attain the utmost degree of perfection, and their elegant form, silent movements, and often beautiful colouring, make them in every respect the culminating forms of the flesh-eating group, and one of the chief of the upper branches of the great Mammalian tree.

Both the Old and New World are well stocked with Cats. Everywhere they are the correlates, geographically speaking, of the beautiful forms of the Herbivora, and are their natural checkmates in the earth-peopling process. Their terrible office is to cull out the surplus number of Goats, Antelopes, Deer, Oxen, and Sheep; they also are not good neighbours to the Monkey tribes, nor to Rats, Cavies, Hares, Squirrels, and other gnawing animals. The smaller Cats also add feathered game to their diet. Everywhere they are the terror of woodland and of field, of plain and of forest. All are of the kindred of the Lion, and, like him, all “go about, seeking whom they may devour.”

Man has half tamed one of the smallest--we say _half tamed_, for does not the demon that possesses all Cats still only slumber in the heart of the tamest domestic variety? As for the Hunting Leopard, he is deceived in the services he renders, and, in his own mind, is hunting for himself, and not for his master.

It is only necessary to mention the animals belonging to this noble family of “gentlemen caterers” to assure oneself that in it are contained the best known, the most skilled, the most perfectly armed of all the Carnivorous order. We have the Wild Cats existing under many forms nearly all over the world, the Lion the great tyrant of Africa, the Tiger the despot of India, the Puma and Jaguar taking their place in America, the Leopard helping the work of the Lion and Tiger in Africa and Asia, the Lynxes found in both Old and New Worlds, and the Cheetah, or Hunting Leopard of Asia and Africa. To these need only be added the Wolf, Hyæna, and Bear, to exhaust the list of “beasts of prey” in the ordinary acceptation of the term, that is, of beasts which are dangerous to man, for we “lords of creation” are not sufficiently generous to include under the term beasts of equal cruelty which prey on the lower animals.

By most naturalists all these animals are grouped together under the single genus _Felis_, which is thus said to include a great number of species, as _Felis leo_ (the Lion), _Felis tigris_ (the Tiger), _Felis catus_ (the wild Cat), &c. It is very usual to separate from the rest the Hunting Leopard, and make it constitute by itself a distinct genus, _Cynælurus_, or _Gueparda_, distinguished from its cousins by its great length of leg, and a slight difference in the form of its teeth. Some naturalists separate, in addition, the Lynxes, making of them the genus _Lyncus_, and others, again, prefer to make separate genera of all the chief kinds, calling the Lion _Leo nobilis_, the Tiger _Tigris regalis_, and so forth. This separation or union is, however, a mere conventional matter, and we prefer to consider all _Felidæ_ as belonging to the one genus _Felis_, as the simplest and most comprehensible plan.

The _Felidæ_ are found over almost the whole world, being absent only in Australia, New Zealand, the south-eastern part of the Malay Archipelago, the Polynesian Islands, Madagascar, and the Antilles. In all other parts of the world Cats--using the word in a wide sense--are found, and, wherever they are found they are feared, for such a compact assemblage of bloodthirsty tyrants and ruthless destroyers has no parallel in the whole animal kingdom.

Remains of fossil Felidæ have been found as far back as the Miocene or even the Eocene epoch, in the South of England, and Central and South Europe, in North-west India, in Nebraska, in North America, and in the caves of Brazil. Of these the best known is the great cave Lion or Tiger, the _Felis spelæa_.

Every part of these animals is so altered and specialised from the usual type of Mammalian structure as to assist in the best possible way the capturing, killing, and devouring of living prey. Looking merely at the outside, we are struck with the lithe, agile form, the small head, the total absence of anything like a “pot-belly,” the well-proportioned limbs, the usually close fur, the stealthy, silent movements, and the eager, restless glance: all characters suited to an animal to which powers of quiet rapid movement through jungle or long grass, of quick observation, and of great strength and agility, are of the utmost importance.

In the skeleton there are two points of importance, as relating both to the habits of the Cat tribe and to the determining of their systematic position in zoology. These are the character of the skull, and the structure and arrangement of the bones of the toes. Both these points furnish characters by which the Cats may be separated from all other families. To these two points, therefore, we will proceed at once, as, without going into lesser details, there is nothing of special importance in the vertebral column, large limb bones, &c. All the points mentioned in the introduction to the group as being characteristic of the Carnivorous type of skull are here carried to their extreme. The bony ridges for the attachment of the jaw-muscles are immense; the jaws attain their utmost limit of structure and strength, and the lower jaw being perfectly incapable of motion from side to side, the teeth, as we shall see by-and-by, act like scissors and not like mill-stones.

If the skull of a Cat be examined, there will be seen on its under surface, near the hinder end, a pair of rounded swellings, directed somewhat obliquely. On looking at the skull from the side, there is seen to be a roundish aperture, the auditory meatus, leading into each of these swellings, which are found to be thin-walled half globes, stuck on, as it were, to the under surface of the skull. Round the aperture is fixed, in the living state, the Cat’s prominent external ear, and stretched across it, like the parchment of a drum, is a thin membrane, which vibrates with every sound. The rounded cavity is called the “drum of the ear,” the membrane stretched across it the “drum membrane,” or “tympanic membrane,” and the bony half-globe, which forms the floor of the drum cavity, is the “bulb of the drum,” or _bulla tympani_.

Closely pressed against the hinder wall of this bulla is a sort of bony clamp, which seems to keep the bulla in its place, and running obliquely along the surface of the swelling is an indistinct groove, corresponding to which, in the interior of the drum, is a bony wall, dividing the drum cavity into an inner and an outer compartment, these two divisions being formed from separate bones, as an examination of a very young skull will show.

The almost globular form and great relative size of the _bulla tympani_; the absence of any distinct bony passage leading from its cavity to the interior, the opening being quite flush with the wall of the drum; and the division of the cavity into two parts by a bony partition, are all very important as distinctive characters of the Cat family, and also, with lesser modifications, of the whole Æluroid group.

The power of retracting the claws, so characteristic a feature of all the true Cats (which are, without exception, digitigrade), is brought about by certain peculiarities of structure of the last two joints of the toes. Of the three _phalanges_, or bones which make up the skeleton of the toe, the first, or that nearest to the wrist or ankle, is of the ordinary shape: about three times as long as broad, with a regular cylindrical shaft, and pulley-like ends, for articulation with the bone to which it is joined. The second, or middle phalanx, is pretty much like the first, except that its shaft is scooped out on one side, so as to make a greater distance between it and the corresponding bone of the next toe than there would otherwise be. The third and last joint, called the _ungual phalanx_, from the fact of its supporting the claw, has the regular pulley-surface to articulate with the preceding joint, but its farther end is strongly curved downwards and pointed at the end; it has, in fact, the shape of the horny talon of which it forms the supporting core. Further support is afforded to the claw by an outgrowth of the phalanx, which commences near its articular end, and grows over the end of the claw like a sort of hood, thus giving the ungual phalanx of the Cat a most peculiar and unmistakable shape. Between the upper surfaces of the last phalanx and the last but one passes a strong and very elastic ligament, which so pulls upon the ungual phalanx as to bend it on its predecessor, and so cause the two to be almost parallel, the hood of the claw-bearing bone being received between the preceding joint of its own toe and that of the next; hence the scooping out of the middle phalanges. Thus, by the action of this ligament, the claw under ordinary circumstances is pulled back within its covering of skin, which forms for it a sort of protecting pouch, and effectually prevents its being worn down by rubbing against the ground. But when the Cat strikes its prey, it bends the paw upon the wrist by means of the strong _flexor_ (or bending) muscles, which are placed along the under surface of the fore-arm and hand. The end of the string-like tendons of one of these muscles divides into four slips, one for each toe, and, running along the under surface of the first two phalanges, is inserted into the corresponding surface of the third, and, this under surface being bent upwards by the elastic ligament, the tendon is, when the claw is retracted, put upon the stretch. But when the flexors come into play, they pull upon the ungual phalanx, causing it to turn through a quarter-circle upon its articulation, and thus protruding the claw from its pouch. Immediately the flexors relax the elastic ligament is again allowed to act, and the claw springs back into its place of repose.

This arrangement is of great importance, as the Cat family always attack their prey in the first instance by a stroke of the powerful fore-paw, and not, as do the Dogs, by a grip of the teeth.

Not less characteristic of the Cat family than the points we have just considered are the number and form of the teeth, which here attain the most perfectly carnivorous character, being so constructed as to be wholly incapable of grinding, thus making it impossible for their possessor to live upon any but highly nourishing animal food.

In the front part of the Cat’s upper jaw are six small teeth with chisel-like edges--three on each side of the middle line. These teeth are, in shape, not unlike our own front teeth, and, like them, are single-fanged, but their small size, when compared with those that follow, is remarkable. They are borne by a bone quite distinct in young skulls from that which carries the other teeth--the premaxillary bone--and are, therefore, classed as _incisor_ teeth. Corresponding with them in the lower jaw are six similar teeth--the lower incisors; so that the incisors of the Cat are said to be (3-3)/(3-3), that is, three on each side above and below.

Following the last incisor, and separated from it by a short interval, comes on each side in both jaws a long, pointed fang, the chief means by which the Cats seize and hold on to their prey. These are the _canines_, or dog-teeth, and correspond to the “eye-teeth” in ourselves, those adze-like teeth immediately following and slightly projecting beyond the last incisor. When the mouth is closed the lower canines are seen to bite in front of the upper, and to fit into the space between the latter and the incisors. The canines of the Cat are written thus, (1-1)/(1-1).

Following the canines, but separated from them by a slight interval or _diastema_, are, in the upper jaw four, in the lower three teeth, which correspond to our “grinders,” or molars and premolars. In the upper jaw the foremost tooth of this set is as small as one of the incisors, and its crown is simple, or nearly so. The next two teeth are larger and have sharp, cutting edges, divided into three points, or _cusps_. The second of these two teeth is much the larger, its edge is more blade-like, and the front part of its inner edge sends off a strong blunt process, which is supported by a distinct root, so that this tooth has three roots instead of two like its predecessor; it is also of much greater size than any of those in front, and, biting like a scissor-blade against the corresponding tooth of the lower jaw, is called the _sectorial_, or _carnassial_ tooth. Behind it comes the last of the set, a small tooth with a transversely-set, almost flat crown.

In the lower jaw, the grinding series is represented by only three teeth, all more or less resembling the second of the series in the upper jaw. Of these the third is the largest, and is called the lower carnassial, biting, as it does, against the upper tooth of that name. In every case the teeth of the lower jaw bite _within_ those of the upper, and, the jaws being so articulated as to allow only of up and down motion, and being incapable of play from side to side, the molars and premolars entirely lose their character of grinders, and become trenchant, cutting up the food, in fact, in precisely the same manner as a pair of scissors.

Now comes the question, which of these teeth are premolars, and which molars? This is decided by finding which of them have their place occupied in the young kitten by its first set of back-teeth, the _deciduous_ or _milk molars_, and which, on the other hand, have no predecessors: those which replace the milk molars being the premolars of the adult, those which arise as altogether new teeth, and have no representatives in the young animal, molars. The examination of a young Cat shows that there are, behind the canines, in the upper jaw three, and in the lower two teeth; that is to say, one less on each side of each jaw than in the adult. As age advances these deciduous or milk molars all drop out, and are replaced by the permanent premolars, while behind the last milk molar of each jaw an entirely new tooth makes its appearance--the true or permanent molar. Thus it is seen that only the last tooth in each jaw is a molar, and that the carnassials are of different natures in the two jaws, the upper being the last (third) premolar, the lower the single molar.

We therefore write the premolars of the Cat (3-3)/(2-2), and the molars (1-1)/(1-1), so that the whole “dental formula” is as follows:--_i._, (3-3)/(3-3), _c._, (1-1)/(1-1), _p._, (3-3)/(2-2), _m._, (1-1)/(1-1) = 30. In the milk dentition, the number of incisors and canines is the same as in the adult, and, as we have just stated, the molars are absent, so that the formula is _di._, (3-3)/(3-3), _dc._, (1-1)/(1-1), _dm._, (3-3)/(2-2) = 26, _di_, _dc_, _dm_, standing for deciduous incisors, canines, and molars.

The tongue in this family becomes an important adjunct to the teeth, almost losing its character as a delicate organ of taste. The little elevations or papillæ which beset the tongue in all animals--in ourselves for instance--are formed into strong horny spines set closely together like the teeth of a file, and, as may be seen any day at feeding-time at the Zoological Gardens, used to rasp the flesh from the bones as effectively as any file would do it. Most people must have noticed the different texture of a Cat’s and a Dog’s tongue. In the latter it is as smooth as in ourselves, in the former it has more of the texture of a piece of coarse sandpaper.

In some _Felidæ_, such as the Domestic Cats, the pupil, or small aperture in front of the eye which lets in light to the sensitive retina beyond, has the round shape it possesses in man, only in the dark, when it is dilated to receive every ray of light available. In the day, on the other hand, when more light is to be had than the animal requires, the pupil contracts to an ellipse, or in the strongest light to a mere line. This is not the case in the larger Cats, such as the Lion, Tiger, and Leopard, in which also the eyes themselves and the cavities in the skull for their reception are smaller, proportionally, than in the Domestic Cat.

Taking the structure of the Cat tribe, all in all, there is nothing whatever to make it the least difficult to suppose that they all sprang from one stock, and that size and colour, and every other point in which they now differ from each other, may have been brought about, through long periods of time, as the result of the influence of their surroundings. It is necessary to presume this, for classifiers from necessity lay hold on the most minute differences, for the sake of making proper specific distinctions, although these differences may be merely the outcome of some change of locality, warmer, or colder, drier, or moister, higher upon the hills, or lower down on the plains. Once developed, however, it becomes hereditary, and then a _variety_ becomes a _race_, and a race solidifies into a _species_. Yet, the result once obtained, however it arose, the profit is great to us who are careful observers and enthusiastic admirers of the infinite fecundity of Nature.