Chapter 11

On commencing this Monograph of the _Genus Bos_, I entertained the confident expectation, that in the voluminous work of Cuvier's 'Animal Kingdom,' translated and enlarged by Griffith and others, I should find all that related to generic and specific distinction so clearly exhibited, and so systematically arranged, that I should have no hesitation in adopting the classification there set forth, and no difficulty in determining the place of any new species or variety. With this expectation I diligently studied that portion of Col. H. Smith's volume on the Ruminantia, which treat of the _Genus Bos_, and I here subjoin (verbatim) the generic and subgeneric characters there given of that Genus, by which it will be seen how far they fall short of the clearness and precision which are indispensable to a scientific work.

GENERIC CHARACTERS.

"_Genus BOS._--Skull very strong, dense about the frontals, which are convex, nearly flat, or concave; horns invariably occupying the crest, projecting at first laterally; osseous nucleus throughout porous, even cellular; muzzle _invariably broad_, naked, moist, _black_; ears, _in general_, _middle sized_; body _long_; legs _solid_; stature _large_."

Generic characters should be such as will apply to every species in the genus; they should likewise be such as will distinguish the genus described from every other genus. From such observations as I have been enabled to make, the five last-mentioned characters do not appear to accord with either of these conditions.

1st. The muzzle is stated to be _black_; but in the Yak, and in domestic cattle (as may be observed by any one), the muzzle is very frequently _white_; and granting that it was invariably black, other genera of the ruminantia have the muzzle black: and therefore it cannot be said to be a distinguishing mark of the _Genus Bos_.

2d. The ears are stated to be _in general middle-sized_. To pass over the extreme vagueness of the terms "_in general_" and "_middle-sized_," I may state that having measured the ears of several species, I find them to be of all lengths, varying from 5 inches to nearly 18 inches. Such a term as "_middle-sized_" may be applied "_in general_" to the ears of a vast variety of animals; and therefore it cannot be applied _in particular_ to the _Genus Bos_.

3d. The body is said to be _long_. They are, indeed, of all lengths, from 4 ft. 6 in. to nearly 11 ft. Can the term long be equally applicable to animals of such different lengths?

4th. The legs are said to be _solid_. In some species the legs are very slender, as the Zebu, Manilla Buffalo, and Domestic Ox.

5th. The stature is said to be _large_. From actual measurement I find the stature to vary from 2 ft. 8 in. to upwards of 6 ft.; the smaller species weighing not more than 100 lbs., the larger weighing as much as 2000 lbs. Can the term large be equally applicable to animals of such different sizes?

SUB-GENERIC CHARACTERS.

"_Sub-genus_ I.--_Bubalus._--Animals low in proportion to their bulk; limbs very solid; head large, forehead narrow, very strong, convex; chaffron straight; muzzle square, horns lying flat, or bending laterally with a certain direction to the rear; eyes large; ears mostly funnel-shaped; no hunch; a small dewlap; _female udder with four mammae_; _tail long_; slender."

This sub-genus comprises Cape Buffalo, Pegasse, Arnee, Domestic Buffalo.

"_Sub-genus_ II.--BISON.--Forehead slightly arched, much broader than high; horns placed before the salient line of the frontal crest; the plane of the occiput forming an obtuse angle with the forehead and semicircular in shape; fourteen or fifteen pairs of ribs; the shoulders rather elevated; the _tail shorter_; the legs more slender; the tongue blue; the hair soft and woolly."

This sub-genus comprises Aurochs, Gaur, American Bison, Yak, Gayal.

"_Sub-genus_ III.--TAURUS.--Forehead square from the orbits to the occipital crest, somewhat concave, not convex, or arched as in the former; the horns rising from the sides of the salient edge or crest of the frontals; the plane of the occiput forming an acute angle with the frontal, and of quadrangular form; the curve of the horns outwards, upwards, and forwards; no mane; a deep dewlap; _thirteen pairs of ribs_; _tail long_; _udder four teats in a square_."

This sub-genus comprises the Urus and the Domestic Ox.

Subgeneric characters should be such as will clearly distinguish the animals of one sub-genus from those of another. But here we have set down, in the sub-genus Bubalus, tail _long_, slender; in the sub-genus Taurus, tail _long_; and although the epithet slender is not added in the latter case, yet in truth it ought to be, as the tail of Taurus is quite as slender as that of Bubalus.

The udder of Bubalus is said to have four mammae; they are not stated to be in a square, but, on examination, I find they are so; the udder of Taurus has likewise four teats in a square.

Thirteen pairs of ribs are set down as a distinguishing character of the sub-genus Taurus; but the Cape Buffalo, Domestic Buffalo, and the Manilla Buffalo (in the sub-genus Bubalus), and the Gaur (in the sub-genus Bison), all possess thirteen pairs of ribs.

In the sub-genus Bison the tail is said to be _shorter_ than the tail of Bubalus; but on subjecting them to the infallible test of feet and inches, I find the tails of the Aurochs, Gaur, Yak, and Gayal, to be decidedly _longer_ than those of the Cape or the Manilla Buffalo.

The legs of Bisons are stated to be more slender than those of Buffaloes,--the reverse of this is the fact in the instances which I have had an opportunity of observing.

SPECIFIC DETAILS.

The details of a system of scientific classification should be precise, methodical, and consistent; but the method observed by Col. Smith, in describing the lengths of animals, can scarcely be called either precise or consistent; for example, he states:--

1st. That the Cape Buffalo is nine feet from _nose to ROOT of tail_.

2d. That the Gaur is twelve feet long _to the END of tail_.

3d. That the Aurochs is ten feet three inches _from nose to tail_.

4th. That the Domestic Buffalo is eight feet six inches long, _without mentioning either nose or tail_.

In none of these cases can we be even proximately certain of the length of the animal.

In the first instance we may err to the amount of the length of the head; as it is not stated whether the measure was taken when the head was extended in a line with the back, or in a position at right angles with the back, or in any intermediate position.

The following outline will illustrate this:--

It is obvious that the length of a line from the nose to the tail will vary according to the different positions of the head of the animal.

In the second instance (taking it for granted that the measure was taken from the nose), the same difficulty exists with respect to the head, and another difficulty presents itself in our being left to guess the length of the tail, which might be eighteen inches, or it might be four feet.

In the third instance, the same difficulty exists with respect to the head, and the difficulty is further complicated by our being left to guess whether the ROOT or the END of the tail is meant.

In the fourth we are completely "_at sea_."

The true value of these characteristic distinctions, definitions, or descriptions, are left to the appreciation of the judicious reader. Colonel Smith may doubtless be, what he has been styled, "an indefatigable naturalist," and "in general" an exact one; but in this special instance of the _Genus Bos_, his warmest admirers must allow that his accuracy and precision have not kept pace with his industry.

MR. SWAINSON'S TRANSCENDENTAL ATTEMPT AT CLASSIFICATION.

The following very laboured attempt to arrange the various species of _Genus Bos_ into groups, according to the Quinary or Circular System of M'Leay, is from the pen of Mr. Swainson--the precise and fastidious Swainson--who, from the number and boldness of his hypothetical views in every department of Zoology, may be truly regarded as the beau-ideal of a speculative naturalist--one of those, in short, so well described by Swift, "whose chief art in division hath been to grow fond of some proper mystical number, which their imaginations have rendered sacred to a degree, that they force common reason to find room for it in every part of nature; _reducing_, _including_, and _adjusting_, every _genus_ and _species_ within that compass, by coupling some against their wills, and banishing others at any rate."

After describing the various members of the Bovine Family according to the Procrustean method of stretching and chopping, Mr. Swainson continues in his peculiarly dogmatic style "The types of form of the _Genus Bos_, above enumerated, _we shall now demonstrate_ to be a natural group. We have seen that the first represented by the _Bos Scoticus_, or Scotch Wild Ox, is an untameable savage race, which preserves, even in the domestication of a park, all that fierceness which the ancient writers attributed to the Wild Bulls of Britain and of the European Continent. Let those who imagine that the influence of civilization, of care, and of judicious treatment, will alter the natural instincts of animals, look to this as a palpable refutation of their doctrine. Where is that boasted power of man over nature? Where the fruits of long-continued efforts and fostering protection? The _Bos Scoticus_ is as untameable now as it was centuries ago, simply for this reason, that it is in accordance with an unalterable law of nature; a law by which one type in every circular group is to represent the worst passions of mankind--fierceness, or cruelty, or horror. In the _Urus_ we consequently have the type of the wild and untameable _Ferae_ among quadrupeds, the eagles among birds, and the innumerable analogies which all the subordinate groups of these two great divisions present. Following this is the typical Ox--a god among the ancients, and that animal above all others, which, from its vital importance to man, we should naturally expect such a nation as the ancient Egyptians would exalt above all others. It is, in short, the typical perfection of the whole order of Ruminants, and consequently represents the _Quadrumana_ among quadrupeds, and the _Incessores_ among birds. The third type is no less beautiful; but it cannot be illustrated without going into details which it is not our present intention to make public: suffice it, however, to say, that in the prominent hump upon the shoulders we have a perfect representation of the Camel, one of the most striking types of the order, while it reminds us at the same time of the Buffalo, the genus _Acronatus_ among the large Antelopes, and numerous other representations of the same form. The fourth type is our _Bos Pusio_: here we find the horns, when present, remarkably small, but in many cases absent; and the size is diminutive to an extreme. These also are distinguishing marks of the groups it is to represent: the _Tenuirostres_ among birds, and the _Glires_, or mice, among quadrupeds, are the smallest of their respective classes; and both are typically distinguished by wanting all appendages to the head, either in the form of crests or horns. The fifth type is, perhaps, the most extraordinary of all; it should represent not only the order _Rasores_ among birds, but also the _Camelopardalis_ among ruminating quadrupeds. Hence we find that, in accordance with the first of these analogies, it is a peaceful domesticated race, and that it has horns of an unusually large size, even in its own group; while, at the same time, those horns have that peculiar structure which can only be traced in the Camelopardalis; they are covered with skin, which passes so imperceptibly to the horny state, that, as Captain Clapperton observes, "there is no exact demarcation where the one commences and the other ends." The five leading types of quadrupeds and birds being now represented, and in precisely the same order, _we demonstrate_ the groups to be natural by the following table:--

GENUS _BOS_--_the Natural Types._

1. _Bos Scoticus._ Fierce, untameable. FERAE. RAPTORES.

2. ---- _Taurus._ Pre-eminently typical. PRIMATES. INCESSORES.

{Appendages on the head} 3. ---- _Dermaceros._ {greatly developed } UNGULATA. RASORES.

{Stature remarkably } 4. ---- _Pusio._ {small. } GLIRES. GRALLATORES.

{Fore-part of the shoulders} 5. ---- _Thersites._ {elevated } CETACEA. NATATORES.

In regard to the last type, the analogies can only be traced through the animals or types of other groups; but should the habits of _Thersites_ lead it to frequent the water (like the Buffaloes) more than any other species of true oxen--a supposition highly probable--the analogy to the _Cetacea_ and the _Natatores_ would be direct. When we find in all the other four types such a surprising representation of the same peculiarities, we are justified in believing that want of information alone prevents this analogy from being so complete as the others. These analogies, in point of fact, may be traced through the whole of the principal groups in this order, the most important, and the most numerous of ungulated animals." Our luminous classifier then triumphantly winds up:--"_Having now demonstrated_, in one of the very lowest groups of quadrupeds, the validity of those principles of natural classification we have so often illustrated," &c.

Let us not be confounded with high-sounding terms; let us rather endeavour to ascertain the meaning of them, if indeed they possess a meaning. Here we have, under the head of "_Genus_ Bos--the Natural Types"--(see p. 178), certain words arranged in regular columns, which, at a first glance, appear as though they were intended to bear some relation to each other. But let us ask the most ordinary observer, or the most profound observer, or the observer of any grade or shade between these two extremes, what resemblance--what relation--what analogy--can be discovered between an ordinary bull (_Taurus_) and a man, a monkey, or a bat (_Primates_); or between Taurus and the _Incessores_ (Perching Birds)? Or between Buffaloes, whose horns are partially covered with skin (_Dermaceros_), and cocks and hens (_Rasores_)? Can any one say wherein consists the similarity between a dwarf Zebu and a Mouse, or a Flamingo? Yet this is the material of which the columns are composed.

But one of the most unhappy of Mr. Swainson's speculations is that wherein he represents the _Bos Scoticus_, or wild ox, as the type of "an _untameable savage_ race, which preserves, even in the domestication of a park, all that fierceness which the ancient writers attributed to the wild bulls of Britain and the European continent. Let those who imagine that the influence of civilization, of care, and of judicious treatment, will alter the natural instinct of animals, look to this as a palpable refutation of their doctrine. [!] Where is that boasted power of man over nature? Where the fruits of long-continued efforts and fostering protection? [!!] The _Bos Scoticus_ is as untameable now as it was centuries ago, simply for this reason, that it is in accordance with an unalterable law of nature; a law by which one type in every group is to represent the worst passions of mankind--fierceness, or cruelty, or horror." [!!!]

Who would for a moment imagine that all this grandiloquence is bestowed upon an animal, which is so far from being fierce and untameable, that young ones, taken and reared with ordinary cattle, become, even in the first generation, as tame as domestic animals? [See account of Chillingham White Cattle, p. 140.]

For a more complete satisfaction of his thought, the reader is referred to Mr. Swainson's volume "On the Natural History and Classification of Quadrupeds," p. 274, where he has given us an incoherent abstract of Colonel Smith's article on the _Bovinae_, without, however, making the least attempt to verify the statements there recorded. The descriptions and characteristics are avowedly Colonel Smith's; but, in justice to the latter gentleman, it must be added, that the disquisitions on the circular succession of forms, and the analogical relations, are entirely Mr. Swainson's.

ON SPECIES AND VARIETY.

What constitutes a species? And how far do the limits of varieties extend? Cuvier, who is, perhaps, the best authority we can have upon this subject, in defining a species, says:--_A species comprehends all the individuals which descend from each other or from a common parentage, and those which resemble them as much as they do each other._ Thus, the different races which they have generated from them are considered as varieties but of one species. Our observations, therefore, respecting the differences between the ancestors and the descendants, are the only rules by which we can judge on this subject; all other considerations being merely hypothetical, and destitute of proof. Taking the word _variety_ in this limited sense, we observe that the differences which constitute this variety depend upon determinate circumstances, and that their extent increases in proportion to the intensity of the circumstances which occasion them.

Upon these principles it is obvious, that the most superficial characters are the most variable. Thus colour depends much upon light; thickness of hair upon heat; size upon abundance of food, &c. In wild animals, however, these varieties are greatly limited by the natural habits of the animal, which does not willingly migrate from the places where it finds, in sufficient quantity, what is necessary for the support of its species, and does not even extend its haunts to any great distances, unless it also finds all these circumstances conjoined. Thus, although the Wolf and the Fox inhabit all the climates from the torrid to the frigid zone, we hardly find any other differences among them, through the whole of that vast space, than a little more or less beauty in their furs. The more savage animals, especially the carnivorous, being confined within narrower limits, vary still less; and the only difference between the Hyaena of Persia and that of Morocco, consists in a thicker or a thinner mane.

Wild animals which subsist upon herbage, feel the influence of climate a little more extensively, because there is added to it the influence of food, both in regard to its abundance and its quality. Thus the Elephants of one forest are larger than those of another; their tusks also grow somewhat longer in places where their food may happen to be more favorable for the production of the substance of ivory. The same may take place in regard to the horns of Stags and Rein-deer. Besides, the species of herbivorous animals, in their wild state, seem more restrained from migrating and dispersing than the carnivorous species, being influenced both by climate, and by the kind of nourishment which they need.

We never see, in a wild state, intermediate productions between the Hare and the Rabbit, between the Stag and the Doe, or between the Martin and the Weasel. Human artifice contrives to produce all these intermixtures of which the various species are susceptible, but which they would never produce if left to themselves.

The degrees of these variations are proportional to the intensity of the causes that produce them, namely, the slavery or subjection under which these animals are to man. They do not proceed far in half-domesticated species.

In the domesticated herbivorous quadrupeds, which man transports into all kinds of climates, and subjects to various kinds of management, both in regard to labour and nourishment, he procures certainly more considerable variations, but still they are all merely superficial: greater or less size; longer or shorter horns, or even the want of these entirely; a hump of fat, larger or smaller, on the shoulder; these form the chief differences among particular races of the _Bos Taurus_, or domestic Black Cattle; and these differences continue long in such breeds as have been transported to great distances from the countries in which they were originally produced, when proper care is taken to prevent crossing.

Nature appears also to have guarded against the alterations of species which might proceed from mixture of breeds, by influencing the various species of animals with mutual aversion. Hence all the cunning and all the force that man is able to exert is necessary to accomplish such unions, even between species that have the nearest resemblance. And when the mule-breeds that are thus produced by these forced conjunctions happen to be fruitful, which is seldom the case, this fecundity never continues beyond a few generations, and would not probably proceed so far, without a continuance of the same causes which excited it at first.

This being the case, it is quite clear that the fact of two animals producing an intermediate race is no proof whatever of their specific identity; for it is well known, and has been already alluded to, that several animals. Birds as well as Mammalia, produce offspring, and are nevertheless distinct, both as it regards anatomical structure and external form.

Neither does it constitute the species identical if either or both the hybrids be even capable of fruitful intercourse with the original or parent species. Hamilton Smith goes so far as to say, that "if it even were proved that a prolific intermediate race exist, produced by the intermixture of both, it would not fully determine that both form only one original species: what forms a species, and what a variety, is as yet far from being well understood."

It is, however, pretty generally agreed, that animals are of the same species, that is to say, have been derived from one common stock, when their offspring have the power, _inter se_, of indefinitely continuing their kind; and conversely, that animals of distinct species, or descendants of stocks originally different, cannot produce a mixed race which shall possess the capability of perpetuating itself.

To conclude, it must be obvious, that permanent anatomical differences are the only true criteria of distinctions of species.

THE BANTENG OF JAVA.

_Bos Bantinger, or Bantiger. Bos Sondaicus?_

The above figure was drawn from a stuffed specimen in the British Museum. In colour, shape, and texture of horns, and apparent want of dewlap, it bears some resemblance to the Gaur; but in the skeleton of the Gaur the sacrum consists of _five_ vertebrae, and the tail of _nineteen_; while in the skeleton of the Banteng, the sacrum consists of but _four_ vertebrae, and the tail of _eighteen_.

BRITISH DOMESTIC CATTLE.

It does not come within the scope of the present work to give the varieties of Domestic Cattle; for these the reader is referred to the many excellent works already published on the subject. It will be sufficient in this place to notice a few interesting facts--statistical, anecdotal, &c.--in relation to their domestic history.

INFLUENCE OF COLOUR IN BREEDING.