Chapter IV: Part 4

It appears, then, from these positive testimonies, that the rein-deer formerly existed in France, at least in the mountainous parts, such as the Pyrennees, near which Gaston Phoebus dwelt as lord of the county of Foix, and that since his time they had been destroyed like the stags, who were heretofore common in this country. It is certain that the rein-deer is now to be found only in the most northern countries; but we also know, that the climate of France was formerly much more damp and cold, occasioned by the number of woods and morasses, which have since been cut down and drained. By the letter of the Emperor Julian, we learn what was the rigour of cold at Paris in his time: the description he gives of the ice on the Seine perfectly resembles what the Canadians say of the ice on the rivers of Quebec. Gaul, under the same latitude as Canada, was, two thousand years ago, what Canada is at present; that is to say, a climate cold enough for these animals to live in, which are now only to be met with in the regions of the north.

By comparing and combining the above testimonies, it appears to me, that the forests of Gaul and Germany were stocked with elks and rein-deer, and that the passages in Cæsar's Commentaries, can only be applied to those two animals. As the land was cultivated, and the waters became gradually dried up, the temperature of the climate became more mild, and those animals, who delight in cold, immediately abandoned the flat countries, and retired into the snowy region, where they lived in the time of Gaston de Foix; and if they are no longer to be found there, it is because this temperature has been ever since increasing in heat by the almost entire destruction of the forests, by the successive lowering of the mountains, the diminution of the waters, the multiplication of mankind, and by the continual increase of culture, and every other improvement. I am likewise of opinion that Pliny has borrowed from Cæsar almost all he has written of these two animals, and that he was the first author of the confusion in their names. He mentions at the same time the _alce_ and the _machlis_, from which we ought naturally to conclude, that these two names mean two different animals: however, if we remark, 1. That he only simply names the alce without any description whatever. 2. That he alone has used the name _machlis_, which word is not to be found in either Greek or Latin, but appears to be coined, and which, according to Pliny's commentators, is changed into that of _alce_ in many ancient manuscripts. 3. That he attributes to the machlis all what Julius Cæsar gives to the alce; we cannot doubt but the passage in Pliny is corrupted, and that these two names mean the same animal, namely, the elk. This question once decided will also decide another. The _machlis_ being the _elk_, the _tarandus_ must be the _rein-deer_. This name of _tarandus_ is not to be found in any author before Pliny, and in the interpretation of which, authors have greatly varied; however, Agricola and Elliot have not hesitated to apply it to the rein-deer; and for the reasons just deduced, we subscribe to their opinion. Besides, we must not be surprised at the silence of the Greeks on the subject of these two animals, nor at the ambiguity with which the Latins have spoken of them, since the northern climates were absolutely strangers to the first, and only known to the second by relation.

The elk is only found on this, and the rein-deer on the other, side of the polar circle in Europe and in Asia. We find them in America, in the lower latitudes, because the cold is greater there than in Europe. The rein-deer can bear the most excessive cold; he is found in Spitsbergen; he is common in Greenland, and in the most northern parts of Lapland and Asia. The elk does not approach so near the pole; he inhabits Norway, Sweden, Poland, Lithuania, Russia, and all the provinces of Siberia and Tartary, even to the north of China. We meet with him under the name of _Orignal_, and the rein-deer under that of _Caribou_ in Canada, and in all the northern parts of America. Those naturalists, who doubted whether the Orignal was the elk, and the Caribou the rein-deer, had not compared Nature with the testimonies of travellers. These are certainly the same animals, though like all the rest in the New Continent smaller than those in the Old.

We may form a more perfect idea of the elk and rein-deer, by comparing them with the stag; the elk is taller, thicker, and stands more erect upon his legs; his neck is shorter, his hair longer, and his antlers wider and heavier than those of the stag. The rein-deer is shorter, his legs are smaller and thicker, and his feet much larger; his hair is very thickly furnished, and his horns much longer and divided into a great number of branches, with flat terminations; while those of the elk appear to have been cut or broached at the edges. Both have long hair under the neck, short tails, and ears much longer than those of the stag; they do not leap nor bound like the roe-buck, but their pace is a kind of trot, so easy and quick, that they go over almost as much ground in the same time, without being in the least fatigued; for they will sometimes continue their trot for two days together, without resting. The rein-deer lives upon the mountains; and the elk dwells in low lands and damp forests; both go in herds like the stags, and both can be tamed, but the rein-deer with greater ease than the elk. The last, like the stag, has never lost his liberty, while the rein-deer has been rendered domestic by the most unenlightened part of mankind. The Laplanders have no other cattle. In this icy climate, which receives only the oblique rays of the sun, where the night and the day comprehend two seasons; where the snow covers the earth from the beginning of autumn to the end of spring, and where the verdure of the summer consists in the bramble, juniper, and moss, where could man expect to procure necessary nourishment for cattle? The horse, the ox, the sheep, and all the other useful animals, could not find subsistence there, nor resist the rigour of the cold; it was therefore necessary to search among the inhabitants of the forest for the least wild and profitable animals; the Laplanders have done what we should be obliged to do ourselves if we were to lose our cattle; we should then be forced to tame the stags, and the roe-bucks of our forests to supply their place; this I am persuaded, we should easily accomplish, and soon derive as much advantage from them as the Laplanders do from their rein-deer. This example ought to make us sensible how far Nature has extended her liberality towards us; we do not make use of one half her treasure, for her bounty is more immeasurable than we can imagine; she has bestowed on us the horse, the ox, the sheep, and all other domestic animals, to serve, to feed, and clothe us; and she has other species in reserve, which would ably supply the deficiency, and which only require us to subdue, and make them useful to our wants. Man is not acquainted with the powers of Nature, nor how far her productions are to be improved by the exertions of his capacity; instead of exploring her unknown treasures, he is constantly abusing those with which he is acquainted.

By comparing the advantages which the Laplanders derive from the rein-deer with those we experience from the domestic animals, we shall see that he is worth two or three of them. He is used as a horse to draw sledges and carriages; he travels with great speed and swiftness, travelling thirty leagues a day with ease, and runs with as much certainty on frozen snows as upon the mossy down. The female affords milk more substantial and nourishing than that of the cow. The flesh is excellent food. His hair makes an exceeding good fur, and his hide makes a very supple and durable leather. Thus the rein-deer alone affords all that we derive from the horse, the ox, and the sheep.

The manner in which the Laplanders rear and train these animals deserves our particular attention. Olaus, Schæffer, and Regnard, have given interesting details on this subject, of which the following is an abstract: The horns of the rein-deer, say these authors, are larger and divided into a greater number of branches than those of the stag. The food of this animal, in the winter season, is a white moss, which he finds under the deepest snow, and which he ploughs up with his horns, or digs up with his feet. In summer he lives upon the buds and leaves of trees in preference to herbs, which his forward spreading horns will not permit him to brouze on with facility. He runs upon the snow and sinks but little, by reason of his broad feet. These animals are very mild, and are kept in herds, which turn out greatly to the profit of their owners; the milk, hide, sinews, bones, hoofs, horns, hair, and the flesh, are all useful and good. The richest Laplanders have herds of four or five hundred, and the poorest have ten or twelve. They are led out to pasture, and shut up in inclosures during the night, to shelter them from the outrages of the wolves. If taken to another climate they die in a short time. Many centuries since, Steno, prince of Sweden, sent six to Frederic, duke of Holstein; and more recently, in 1533, Gustavus, king of Sweden, sent ten over to Prussia, both males and females; but they all perished, without producing either in a domestic or free state. "I would fain (says M. Regnard) have brought some rein-deer alive into France; many persons have in vain attempted it, and last year three or four were conducted to Dantzic, where they soon died, not being able to bear the heat of that climate."

There are both wild and tame rein-deer in Lapland. In the rutting season the females are let loose to seek the wild males in the woods; and as these wild males are more robust, and stronger than the domestic ones, the breed from this mixture are preferred for harness. These rein-deer are not so gentle as the others, for they not only sometimes refuse to obey those who guide them, but often turn and furiously attack them with their feet, so that they have no other resource than to cover themselves with the sledge until the fury of the beast is subsided. This sledge is so light that the Laplander can with ease turn it over himself; the bottom of it is covered with the skins of young rein-deers, the hair of which is turned backwards, so that the sledge glides easily forwards, and is prevented from recoiling on the mountains. The harness of the rein-deer is only a collar made of the skin, with the hairs remaining on it, from whence a trace is brought under the belly, between the legs, and fastened to the fore part of the sledge. The Laplander has only a single cord, as a rein, fastened to the animal's horn, which he throws sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other of the beast, according as he would direct him to the right or left. They can travel four or five leagues an hour; but the quicker he goes the more inconvenient is the motion, and a person must be well accustomed, and travel often, to be able to sit in the sledge, and prevent it from turning over.

The rein-deer have outwardly many things in common with the stag, and the formation of their interior parts is nearly the same. From this conformity of Nature, analogous customs and similar effects result. The rein-deer sheds his horns every year like the stag, and, like him, makes very good venison. The rutting season of both is towards the end of September. The females of both species go eight months with young, and produce but one at a birth. The males have the same disgustful smell in their rutting time; and among the female rein-deer there are also found some who are barren. The young rein-deer, like the young fawns of the stag, are variously coloured; it is at first of a reddish colour, and becomes, as they grow old, almost of an entire brown. The young follow their mothers two or three years, and they do not attain their full growth till the age of four; it is at this age that they begin to dress and exercise them for labour. In order to render them more manageable they are castrated when young, which operation the Laplanders perform with their teeth. The uncastrated males are very difficult to manage, and they therefore make use only of those which are gelded, among which they choose the most lively and nimble to draw their sledges, and the more heavy to carry their provisions and baggage. They keep only one stallion rein-deer for five or six females. These animals are troubled with an insect, called the gad-fly, who burrowing under their skins deposit their eggs, so that sometimes by the end of winter the worms that proceed from them render their skins as full of holes as a sieve.

The herds of rein-deer require a great deal of care; they are subject to elope, and voluntarily strive to regain their natural liberty: they must be closely attended, and narrowly watched, and never led to pasture but in open places; and in case the herd is numerous they have need of many persons to keep them together, and to run after those which attempt to stray. They are all marked, that they may be known again, for it often happens that they stray in the woods, or mix with other herds. In short, the Laplanders are continually occupied in the care of their rein-deer, which constitute all their wealth, and they know well how to procure every convenience, or, more properly, all the necessities of life, from these animals. In the winter season they cloath themselves from head to foot with the furs of the rein-deer, which are impenetrable to frost or rain; and in summer they make use of the hides from which the fur has fallen off. They also spin the hair, and cover the sinews which they take from the body of the dead animal, for cordage and thread. They eat the flesh, drink the milk, and of the latter they also make very rich cheese. This milk, when churned, gives, instead of butter, a kind of suet. This particularly, as well as the largeness of the horns, and the plenty of fat he affords at the beginning of the rutting season, are so many proofs of the superabundance of nourishment; and what still more strongly proves his superabundance to be excessive, or at least greater than any other species, is that the rein-deer is the only animal where the female has horns as well as the male, and this last is the only one also who sheds his horns and renews them even when castrated. For in stags, fallow-deer, and roe-bucks, who have undergone this operation, the horns of the animal remain always in the same state they were at the moment of castration. Thus the rein-deer is, of all animals, that in which the superfluity of nutritive matter is the most apparent, and this, perhaps, is less owing to the nature of the animal than to the quality of its food, for the white moss, which is his only aliment during the winter, is a _lichen_, whose substance resembles that of the mushroom; it is very nourishing, and is more loaded with organic molecules, than the leaves or buds of trees, and it is for this reason that the rein-deer has larger horns, and affords more fat than the stag; and that the females, and those that are castrated, are not deprived of horns: it is the cause also of the great variety that is found in the size of the horns, and of the figure and number of the branches, beyond what is possessed by any other of the deer kind. The males who had been neither hunted nor confined, and who feed amply, and at pleasure, on this substantial aliment, have prodigious large horns, which extend backward as far as the crupper, and forwards beyond the muzzle. Those which are gelded have smaller horns, yet much larger than the stag, and those of the females are still less. Thus the horns of the rein-deer, differ not only, like others, according to age, but also according to sex and castration. The horns, therefore, are so exceedingly different in individuals, that it is not to be wondered at that authors have differed so much upon this subject.

Another singularity, which is common to the rein-deer and the elk, we must not omit. When these animals run, their hoofs at every step make a crackling noise, as if all their limbs were disjointed; and it is this noise, or perhaps the scent, which informs the wolves of their approach, who way-lay them, and if the wolves are many in number, they will attack and kill him; for the rein-deer is able to defend himself against a single wolf, not, as may be imagined, with his horns, for they are rather of disservice than of use, but with his fore-feet, which are very strong, and with which he strikes the wolf with such force, as to stun, or drive him away; after which he flies with such speed as to be no longer in danger of being overtaken. He has a more dangerous, though a less numerous, and a less frequent enemy, in the _rosomack_, or _glutton_; this animal is more voracious, but heavier than the wolf; he does not pursue the rein-deer, but conceals himself in a tree, and waits the arrival of his prey; as soon as the rein-deer comes within his reach, he darts upon him, fastens himself with his nails upon his back, and tearing his head or neck with his teeth, never quits his place till he has killed him. He makes the like attacks, and uses the stratagems to conquer the elk, who is stronger than the rein-deer. This _rosomack_, or _glutton_ of the north, is the same animal as the _carcajou_ or _quincajou_, of North America; his battles with the _orignal_ are celebrated; and, as we have formerly said, the _orignal_ of Canada is the same as the elk of Europe. It is singular, that this animal, who is scarce bigger than a badger, is able to conquer an elk, whose size exceeds that of a horse, and whose strength is so great, that with a single stroke of his foot he can kill a wolf. But it is attested by so many authorities, that we cannot have the least doubt of its being the fact.

The elk and rein-deer are both ruminating animals, as their method of feeding, and the formation of their interior parts demonstrate; nevertheless, Tornæus Scheffer, Regnard, Hulden, and others, have affirmed, that the rein-deer does not ruminate. Ray justly declares this to be incredible; and, in fact, the rein-deer does ruminate like every other animal who has many stomachs. A domestic rein-deer does not live more than fifteen or sixteen years, but it must be presumed, that his life is of a longer duration in a wild state; for this animal being four years before he arrives at his full growth, ought to live twenty-eight or thirty years when in his natural state. The Laplanders hunt the wild rein-deers by different methods, according to the difference of seasons. In the rutting season they make use of their domestic females to attract the wild males. They shoot them with the musket, or with the bow, and they deliver their arrows with such strength, that notwithstanding the thickness of their hair and hide, they often kill one of these beasts with a single arrow.

We have collected the facts in the history of the rein-deer with the greater care and circumspection, because we could not acquire personal information on the subject, as it is impossible to keep such an animal alive in these parts. Having mentioned my regret on this subject to some of my friends, Mr. Colinson, Member of the Royal Society in London, a gentleman as commendable for his virtues, as for his literary merit, was so kind as to send me over the skeleton of a rein-deer, and I received from Canada the foetus of a caribou. By means of these two species, and of several horns which were brought to me from different places, I have been enabled to verify the general resemblances, and the principal differences between the rein-deer and the stag.

With respect to the elk, I saw a living one about fifteen years ago; but as he continued only a few days in Paris, I had not time to have a drawing finished; and that was the only one by which I had an opportunity to verify the description which the gentlemen of the Academy of Sciences had formerly given of this animal, and to assure myself that it was exact, and perfectly conformable to Nature.[R]

[R] With respect to the figures of animals, we have in all cases endeavoured to be more correct than the French edition, by the addition of many original figures accurately studied from the life, and whenever living subjects could not be obtained, by comparing those drawings with preserved figures in different cabinets, by which means we have been enabled to remedy several defects; and in no one more so than in our figure of the _Elk_.

"The elk (says the compiler of the Memoirs of the Academy) is remarkable for the length of his hair, the bigness of his ears, the smallness of his tail, and the form of his eye, the great angle of which is very wide, as well as the mouth, which is much larger than that of oxen, stags, or other animals who have cloven feet. The elk which we dissected was nearly of the size of a stag. The length of his body was five feet and a half, from the end of the muzzle to the beginning of the tail, which is only two inches long; as it was of a female, the head had no horns; and the neck was only nine inches long and nearly of the same breadth. The ears were nine inches long, and four wide. The colour of the hair was not much unlike that of the ass, the grey tinge of which sometimes approaches that of the camel; but it differed in other respects, for it was shorter, and from that of the camel, which is much finer. The length of the hair was three inches, and its thickness equalled that of the largest mane of a horse; this thickness gradually diminished towards the extremity which was very pointed; towards the root it also diminished, but, all of a sudden, grew thicker again; and this end was of a different colour from the rest of the hair, being white and diaphanous, like the bristles of a hog. The hair was as long as that of a bear, but straighter, thicker, flatter, and all of the same kind. The upper lip was large and loosened from the gums, but not so large as Solinus has described it, nor as Pliny has given to the animal which he terms _machlis_. These authors say, that this beast is constrained to go backwards when he is at pasture to prevent his lip from entangling between his teeth. We observed in the dissection, that Nature had provided against this inconvenience by the size and strength of the muscles, destined to elevate the upper lip. We also found the articulations of the leg very strongly bound together by ligaments, whose firmness and thickness might have given rise to the opinion that the _alce_ was not able to raise himself up when once he was down. His feet were like those of the stag, having no peculiarity except that of being larger. We have observed, that the great angle of the eye was slit downwards much more than in the stag, fallow-deer, and roe-buck, but this slit was not in the direction of the opening of the eye, but made an angle with the line which goes from one corner of the eye to the other; the inferior lachrymal gland was an inch and a half long. We found a part in the brain, which, from its size, seemed to point out a connection with that of the smell, which, according to Pausanias, is more exquisite in the elk, than in any other animal; for the olfactory nerves, commonly called the _namillary nocesses_, were without comparison larger than in any other animal we ever dissected. As for the bit of flesh which some authors have placed upon his back, and others under his chin, if they have not been deceived, or have not been too credulous, those things were peculiar to those elks of which they have spoken."

We can add our own testimony to that of the gentlemen of the Academy, for in the female elk, which we saw alive, there was no bunch either under the chin or on the neck; nevertheless, Linnæus, who ought to be acquainted with elks better than we can pretend to be, as he lives in the same country, makes mention of this bunch, and has even given it as an essential character of the elk: _Alces cervus cornibus a caulibus palmatis caruncula gutturali_. Linnæus, Syst. Nat. Edit. X. p. 66.--There is no other method of reconciling this assertion of Linnæus, with our negation, than by supposing this bunch, or _guttural caruncula_, to belong to the male elk which we have not seen. But if that be the case, this author should not have made it an essential character of the species, since the female has it not; perhaps also, this bunch is only a common disorder among the elks, a kind of wen; for in the two figures of this animal, given by Gesner, the first, who has no horns, has a thick caruncula under the neck; and in the second, which represents a male elk with horns, there is no caruncula.

In general the elk is much larger and stronger than the stag or rein-deer. His hair is so rough, and his hide so hard, that a musket ball can scarcely penetrate it. His legs are very firm, with so much agility and strength, especially in the fore feet, that he can kill a man or a wolf, and even break a tree by one single stroke with his foot. Nevertheless, he is hunted nearly as we hunt the stag, with men and dogs. It is affirmed, that when he is pursued he often falls down all at once, without being either shot or wounded. From this circumstance some have presumed that this animal was subject to the epilepsy, and on this presumption (which is not well founded, since fear alone might produce the same effect) this absurd conclusion has been drawn, that his hoof is a remedy for the epilepsy, and even a preventative against it; and this ridiculous opinion has been so universally dispersed, that many people still wear rings, the collet of which incloses a small piece of the hoof of an elk.

As there are but few people in the northern parts of America, all animals, and particularly elks, are in greater numbers there than in the north of Europe. The savages are not ignorant of the art of hunting and taking the elks; they follow them by the track of their feet, and very often for many days together, and by address and perseverance they often gain their end. Their method of hunting them in winter is particularly singular. "They make use of rackets (says Denys), by means of which they walk on the snow without sinking. The _orignal_ does not get forward very fast, because his sinking in the snow greatly fatigues him. He eats nothing but the young shoots of the trees, therefore, where the savages find the trees eaten, they presently meet with the animals, which are never far off, and which they approach very easily. They throw darts at them, which are large clubs, having at the end a large pointed bone, which pierces like a sword. If there be many orignals in one troop the savages put them to flight, for then the orignals, placing themselves in a rank, describe a large circle, sometimes more than two leagues, and which, by frequently traversing, they harden so much with their feet that they no longer sink in. The savages wait for and kill them as they pass, with their darts." In comparing this relation with those we have already quoted, we find, that the savage and the _orignal_ of America, are exact copies of the Laplander and elk of Europe.

SUPPLEMENT.

M. Allemand, in his edition, has added some remarks respecting the elk and rein-deer, and, among them, says, that M. de Buffon appears to be warranted in the opinion that the elk of Europe is the orignal of North America, and that the only difference between them is in the size; but that most travellers differ from M. de Buffon's general conclusion, that the latter is the largest. Mr. Dudley, in particular, has described an _orignal_ to the Royal Society, which had been killed by some hunters, that was more than ten feet high; a stature requisite to carry the horns which La Hontan has affirmed to weigh from three to four hundred pounds.

The Duke of Richmond had a female orignal in his park, in the year 1766, which he received as a present from General Carleton, then governor of Canada; it was not more than a twelvemonth old, and was about five feet in height; its back and thighs were of a deep brown, and the belly much lighter; but this animal did not live more than nine or ten months. M. Allemand says, that he received the head of a female orignal from Canada, which was much larger, as it measured, from the end of the muzzle to the ears, two feet three inches, was two feet eight inches round at the ears, and one foot ten inches near the mouth, and its ears were nine inches long; this head being dried was consequently less in its dimensions than when the animal was alive.

In the same manner this gentleman considers M. de Buffon's opinion, that the caribou of America is the same animal as the rein-deer of Lapland, and he is induced so to do by comparing the drawing of the rein-deer (taken from life by Ridinger) with that of the drawing of an American caribou, sent him by the Duke of Richmond, who had kept one of those animals a considerable time in his park.

To the remarks already given concerning the rein-deer, there is little to add, yet the opportunity must be embraced of giving the figure (_fig. 150._) of a female, drawn from life while in the possession of the Prince of Condé; he received it from the King of Sweden, who also sent him two males, one of which died on his way, and the other almost as soon as he arrived in France. This animal was about the size of a hind, though her legs were somewhat shorter, and in her body she was more bulky. She had also horns like the male, but shorter, and which were separated into antlers, some of them pointing forwards, and others bent backwards. M. de Sevé gave me a very particular description of this animal; he said, the length of the body, from the muzzle to the crupper, was five feet one inch; the height of the withers, two feet eleven inches, and nine lines more at the crupper; the hair was very close, about an inch long on the body, longer on the belly, and very short on the legs; upon the body it was a reddish brown, intermixed in some places with a yellowish white, being of a deeper colour on part of the back, on the thighs, on the top of the head, and on the eye-pits; round the eyes and nostrils were black; the point of the muzzle white; the ears, over which the hair was thick, a yellowish white mixed with brown, the inside of them had long white hairs; the neck, and the long hairs below the breast, and upon the upper part of the back, were of a yellowish white; the legs and thighs were of a deep brown, and of a greyish white on the insides, of which colour were also the hairs which covered the hoofs; the feet were cloven; the two fore toes being broader than the hind ones; they were all very thin, and extremely black.

No conclusion must be drawn as to the size of the rein-deer's horns from the figure we have given, as some of them have horns so enormous as to reach back to their cruppers, at the same time branching out above a foot in the front. There can be little doubt but the large fossil horns found in Ireland have belonged to a species of the rein-deer, and of which Mr. Collinson informed me that he had seen some which had an interval of ten feet between their extremities; it must be to this species and not to the elk which the fossil bones of the animal, called mouse-deer, must be attributed. But it must be admitted, that there do not at present exist any rein-deer of sufficient size and strength to carry horns of that magnitude as are found in a fossil state in Ireland, in many parts of Europe, and even in North America. I have lately been informed there are two kinds of the rein-deer, the one considerably larger than the other, of which I was not acquainted when I gave my former description; the one I referred to, and compared to the caribou of America, and the Greenland fallow-deer, was of the small sort.

It has been asserted by some travellers, that the rein-deer is the fallow-deer of the north; while Pontoppidan says the rein-deer is not able to exist but in the northern regions, and even there they are obliged to dwell on the tops of the highest mountains; this author also asserts that their horns are moveable, that they can turn them about at pleasure, and that over the eyelids they have an opening in the skin, through which they see, when the glare of the snow prevents them from opening their eyes.

Upon almost the slightest motion these animals make a crackling noise; when running, touched, or even surprised, this noise is heard. I have been informed it is the same with the elk but I cannot ascertain it as the fact.

THE WILD, CHAMOIS, AND OTHER GOATS.

Although it appears that the Greeks were acquainted with the wild and chamois goats yet they have not described them by any particular denomination, nor even by characters sufficiently exact by which to distinguish them; they have only mentioned them under the general name of _Wild Goats_. They probably presumed, that these animals were of the same species as the domestic goats, never having given them proper names, as they have done to every other species of quadrupeds. On the contrary, our modern naturalists have regarded the wild and chamois goats as two real and distinct species, and both different from that of the common goat. There are facts and reasons for and against both opinions, of which we shall give a detail, and wait until it be ascertained whether they intermix together and produce fertile individuals, experience having taught us, that this is the sole criterion on which can the question be decided.

_Engraved for Barr's Buffon_

The male wild goat differs from the chamois, by the length, thickness, and form of his horns; he is also more bulky, vigorous, and stronger. The female wild goat has smaller horns than the male, and nearly resembling those of the chamois. In other respects, these two animals have the same customs, the same manners, and inhabit the same climate; only the wild goat being more agile, and stronger, climbs to the summits of the highest mountains, while the chamois never goes higher than the second stage; but neither of them are to be found in the plains; both clear their way in the snow, and both bound from one rock to another. Both are covered with a firm solid skin, and cloathed in winter with a double fur, with very rough hair outwardly, and a more fine and thicker underneath. Both of them have a black stripe on the back, and tails nearly of the same size. The number of exterior resemblances in fact is so great, and the conformity of the exterior parts is so complete, that we might be led to believe these two animals were only simple varieties of the same species. The wild, as well as the chamois goats when taken young, and brought up with domestic goats, are easily tamed, imbibe the same manners, herd together, return to the same fold, and probably, copulate and produce together. But this last fact, the most important of all, and which alone would decide the question, is not ascertained.[S] We have never learnt for a certainty whether the wild and the chamois copulate with our goats; we only suppose it, and in this respect agree with the ancients. But our presumption appears founded upon those analogies which experience has seldom contradicted.

[S] Sonnini has an important fact upon this subject. He says that M. Berthoud van Berchem saw mongrels which proceeded from the copulation of a wild goat brought up at Aigle in the Lower Vallais, in the house of the governor of Vatteville, with many domestic goats. All the inhabitants of the town of Aigle were witnesses of this fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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