Chapter II: Part 2

The effects which the sea produces, without the co-operation of rivers, are much less beneficial. When the coast is low, and the bottom sandy, the waves push the sand toward the shore, where, at every reflux of the tide, it becomes partially dried; and the wind, which almost always blows from the sea, drifts it upon the beach. Thus are formed those hillocks of sand, named Downs, which, if the industry of man does not fix them by suitable plants, move slowly, but invariably, toward the interior of the country, and overwhelm fields and dwellings, because the same wind that raises the sand of the beach upon the down, throws that of its summit in the opposite direction from the sea. When the nature of the sand, and that of the water which is raised with it, are such as to form a durable cement, the shells and bones, thrown upon the beach, become incrusted with it. Pieces of wood, trunks of trees, and plants growing near the sea, are enveloped in these aggregates; and thus are produced what might be denominated _indurated downs_, such as we see upon the coasts of New Holland, and of which a precise idea may be formed from the description given of them by Peron[10].

_Formation of Cliffs or Steep Shores._

On the other hand, when the coast is high, the sea, which is thus prevented from throwing up any thing, exercises a destructive action upon it. Its waves, by sapping the foundation, cause the superincumbent portion of the face of the cliff, thus deprived of support, to be incessantly falling down in fragments. These fragments are tumbled about by the billows, until the softer and more divided parts disappear. The harder portions, from being rolled in contrary directions, assume the form of boulders and pebbles; and these, at length, accumulate in sufficient quantity to form a rampart, by which the bottom of the cliff is protected against farther depredations.

* * * * *

Such is the action of water upon the solid land; and we see, that it consists almost entirely in reducing it to lower levels, but not indefinitely. The fragments of the great mountain ridges are carried down into the valleys; their finer particles, together with those of the lower hills and plains, are borne to the sea; alluvial depositions extend the coasts at the expence of the high grounds. These are limited effects, to which vegetation in general puts a stop, and which, besides, presuppose the existence of mountains, valleys, and plains, in short, all the inequalities of the globe; and which, therefore, cannot have given rise to these inequalities. The formation of downs is a phenomenon still more limited, both in regard to height and horizontal extent; and has no relation whatever to that of those enormous masses into the origin of which it is the object of geology to inquire.[11]

_Depositions formed in Water._

Although we cannot obtain a precise knowledge of the action exerted by water within its own bosom, it is yet possible to determine its limits to a certain degree.

Lakes, pools, marshes, and sea-ports, into which rivulets discharge their waters, more especially when these descend from near and steep hills, deposit large quantities of mud, which would at length fill them up entirely, if care were not taken to clean them out. The sea also throws quantities of slime and sediment into harbours and creeks; into all places, in short, where its waters are more tranquil than ordinary. The currents also heap up at their meeting, or throw out at their sides, the sand which they are continually raising from the bottom of the sea, forming it into banks and shallows.

_Stalactites._

Certain waters, after dissolving calcareous substances by means of the superabundant carbonic acid with which they are impregnated, allow these substances to crystallize after the acid has evaporated; and, in this manner, form stalactites, and other concretions. There are strata, confusedly crystallized in fresh water, which are sufficiently extensive to be compared with some of those which have been deposited by the ancient sea. The famous Travertine quarries of the neighbourhood of Rome, and the rocks of the same substance, which are formed, and continually varied in figure, by the river of Teverona, are generally known. These two modes of action may be combined; the deposits accumulated by the sea may be solidified by stalactite. Thus, when springs abounding in calcareous matter, or containing some other substance in solution, happen to fall into places where these deposits are formed, we then find aggregates in which marine and fresh-water productions may be blended. Of this description are the banks in the island of Guadeloupe, which, along with human skeletons, present land and sea shells mingled together. Of the same nature also is the quarry described by Saussure, in the neighbourhood of Messina, in which the sandstone is seen forming by the consolidation of the sand thrown up by the sea.

_Lithophytes._

In the torrid zone, where lithophytes of many species abound, and are propagated with great rapidity, their strong trunks are interwoven and accumulated so as to form rocks and reefs; and rising even to the surface of the water, shut up the entrance of harbours, and lay frightful snares for navigators. The sea, throwing up sand and mud upon the tops of these shoals, sometimes raises their surface above its own level, and forms islands, which are soon covered with a rich vegetation.

_Incrustation._

It is also possible, that, in particular places, large quantities of the animals inhabiting shells, leave their stony coverings when they die, and that these, cemented together by slime of greater or less consistence, or by other cementing substances, form extensive deposits or shell banks. But we have no evidence that the sea can now incrust those shells with a paste as compact as that of the marbles, the sandstones, or even the coarse limestone (calcaire grossier) in which we see the shells of our strata enveloped. Still less do we any where find the sea depositing those more solid and more siliceous strata which have preceded the formation of the shelly strata.

In short, all these causes united, would not change, in an appreciable degree, the level of the sea; nor raise a single stratum above its surface; and still less would they produce the smallest hillock upon the surface of the earth.

It has been asserted that the sea has undergone a general diminution of level; and proofs of this are said to have been discovered in some parts of the shores of the Baltic.[12] But whatever may be the causes of these appearances, we are certain that they are not general in their operation; and that, in the greater number of harbours, where any alteration of the level would be a matter of so much interest, and where fixed and ancient works afford so many means of measuring its variations, the mean level of the sea is constant. There has, therefore, never been a universal lowering, nor a universal encroachment, of the waters of the ocean. In some places, indeed, such as Scotland, and various parts of the Mediterranean, evidence has been thought to have been found, that the sea has risen, and that it now covers shores which were formerly above its level[13].

_Volcanoes._

The action of volcanoes is still more limited, and more local, than any of those which have yet been mentioned. Although we have no precise idea of the means by which nature keeps up these violent fires at such great depths, we can judge decidedly, by their effects, of the changes which they may have produced at the surface of the globe. After a volcano has announced itself, by some shocks of an earthquake, it forms for itself an opening. Stones and ashes are thrown to a great distance, and lava is vomited forth. The more fluid part of the lava flows in long streams, while the less fluid portion stops at the edges of the opening, raises its margins all round, and forms a cone, terminated by a crater. Thus volcanoes accumulate upon the surface matters which were previously buried in the bowels of the earth, after modifying their nature, and raise themselves into mountains. By these means, they have formerly covered some parts of our continent, and have also suddenly produced islands in the middle of the sea. But these mountains and islands have always been composed of lava, and all their materials have undergone the action of fire: they are disposed as matters should be, which have flowed from an elevated point. Volcanoes, therefore, neither raise nor overturn the strata through which their apertures pass; and if some causes acting from those depths have contributed, in certain cases, to raise up large mountains, they cannot have been volcanic agents of the same nature as those which exist at the present day.

* * * * *

Thus, we repeat, it is in vain that we search, among the powers which now act at the surface of the earth, for causes sufficient to produce the revolutions and catastrophes, the traces of which are exhibited by its crust: And if we have recourse to the constant external forces with which we are as yet acquainted, we shall have no greater success.

_Constant Astronomical Causes._

The pole of the earth moves in a circle around the pole of the ecliptic, and its axis is more or less inclined to the plane of the ecliptic; but these two motions, the causes of which are now ascertained, are much too limited for the production of effects like those whose magnitude we have just been stating. At any rate, their excessive slowness would render them altogether inadequate to account for catastrophes which, as we have shewn, must have been sudden.

The same reasoning applies to all other slow motions which have been conceived as causes of the revolutions in question, chosen doubtless in the hope that their existence could not be denied, because it might always be easy to hold out that their very slowness rendered them imperceptible. But whether they be true or not is of little importance, for they explain nothing, as no cause acting slowly could have produced sudden effects.

Admitting that there has been a gradual diminution of the waters; that the sea has transported solid matters in all directions; that the temperature of the globe is either diminishing or increasing;--none of these causes could have overturned our strata; enveloped in ice large animals, with their flesh and skin; laid dry marine testacea, the shells of which are, at the present day, as well preserved as if they had been drawn up alive from the sea; and, lastly, destroyed numerous species, and even entire genera.

These considerations have struck most naturalists; and among those who have endeavoured to explain the present state of the globe, hardly any one has attributed it entirely to the agency of slow causes, still less to causes operating under our eyes. The necessity to which they are thus reduced, of seeking for causes different from those which we see acting at the present day, is the very circumstance that has forced them to make so many extraordinary suppositions, and to lose themselves in so many erroneous and contradictory speculations, that the very name of their science, as I have elsewhere remarked, has long been a subject of ridicule to prejudiced persons, who have only looked to the systems which it has been the means of hatching, and have forgotten the extensive and important series of authentic facts which it has brought to light[14].

_Older Systems of Geologists._

During a long time, two events or epochs only, the Creation and the Deluge, were admitted as comprehending the changes which have been operated upon the globe; and all the efforts of geologists were directed to account for the present existing state of things, by imagining a certain original state, afterwards modified by the deluge, of which also, as to its causes, its operations, and its effects, each entertained his own theory.

Thus, according to one[15], the earth was at first invested with an uniform light crust, which covered the abyss of the sea; and which being broken up for the production of the deluge, formed the mountains by its fragments. According to another[16], the deluge was occasioned by a momentary suspension of cohesion among the particles of mineral bodies; the whole mass of the globe was dissolved, and the paste thus formed became penetrated with shells. According to a third[17], God raised up the mountains for the purpose of allowing the waters, which had produced the deluge, to run off; and selected those places in which there was the greatest quantity of rocks, without which the mountains could not have supported themselves. A fourth[18] created the earth from the atmosphere of one comet, and deluged it by the tail of another: The heat which it retained from its origin, was what, in his opinion, excited the whole of the living beings upon it to sin; for which they were all drowned, excepting the fishes, whose passions were apparently less vehement.

It is evident, that, even while confined within the limits prescribed by the Book of Genesis, naturalists might still have a pretty wide range: they soon found themselves, however, in too narrow bounds; and when they had succeeded in converting the six days of creation into so many indefinite periods, the lapse of ages no longer forming an obstacle to their views, their systems took a flight proportioned to the periods which they could then dispose of at pleasure.

Even the great Leibnitz amused himself, like Descartes, by conceiving the earth to be an extinguished sun[19], a vitrified globe, upon which the vapours falling down again, after it had cooled, formed seas, which afterwards deposited the limestone formations.

By Demaillet the whole globe was conceived to have been covered with water for many thousands of years. He supposed this water had gradually retired; that all the land animals were originally inhabitants of the sea; that man himself commenced his career as a fish; and he asserts, that it is not uncommon, even now, to meet with fishes in the ocean, which are still only half converted into men, but whose descendants will in time become perfect human beings[20].

The system of Buffon is merely an extension of that of Leibnitz, with the addition only of a comet, which, by a violent blow, struck off from the sun the liquefied mass of the earth, together with those of all the other planets at the same instant. From this supposition, he was enabled to assume positive dates, as, from the present temperature of the earth, it could be calculated how long it had taken to cool down so far; and, as all the other planets had come from the sun at the same time, it could also be calculated how many ages are still required for cooling the greater ones, and to what degree the smaller are already frozen[21].

_More recent Systems._

In our own times, men of still bolder imaginations have exercised their minds upon this great subject. Some writers have revived and greatly extended the ideas of Demaillet. They suppose that every thing was originally fluid; that this fluid gave existence to animals, which were at first of the most simple kind, such as the monads and other infusory and microscopic species; that, in process of time, and by assuming different habits, the races of animals became complicated, and assumed that diversity of nature and character in which they now appear. By means of those various races of animals, part of the waters of the sea have gradually been converted into calcareous earth; while the vegetables, concerning the origin and metamorphoses of which these writers are totally silent, have, on their part, converted a portion of the same water into clay: These two earths, on being stripped of the characters which life had impressed upon them, are resolved, by a final analysis, into silex; and hence the reason that the oldest mountains are more siliceous than the rest. All the solid parts of the earth, therefore, owe their existence to life, and, without life, the globe would still be entirely liquid[22].

Other writers have preferred the ideas of Kepler, and, like that great astronomer, have considered the globe itself as possessed of vital faculties. According to them a vital fluid circulates in it; a process of assimilation goes on in it, as well as in animated bodies; every particle of it is alive; it possesses instinct and volition, even to the most elementary molecules, which attract and repel each other according to sympathies and antipathies. Each kind of mineral has the power of converting immense masses into its own nature, as we convert our food into flesh and blood. The mountains are the respiratory organs of the globe, and the schists its organs of secretion; it is by these latter that it decomposes the water of the sea, in order to produce the matters ejected by volcanoes. The veins are carious sores, abscesses of the mineral kingdom; and the metals are products of rottenness and disease, which is the reason that almost all of them have so bad a smell[23].

More recently still, a philosophy, which substitutes metaphor for reasoning, and proceeds on the system of absolute identity or of pantheism, attributes the production of all phenomena, or which, in the eyes of its supporters, is the same thing, all beings, to polarization, such as is manifested by the two electricities; and denominating every kind of opposition or difference, whether of situation, of nature, or of function, by the title of Polarisation, opposes to each other, in the first place, God and the universe; then, in the universe, the sun and the planets; next, in each planet, the solid and the liquid; and, pursuing this course, changing its figures and allegories according to its necessities, at length arrives at the last details of organic species[24].

It must, however, be observed, that these are what may be termed extreme examples, and that all geologists have not carried the extravagance of their conceptions to such a length as those which we have just cited. Yet, among those who have proceeded with more caution, and have not searched for geological causes beyond the limits of physical and chemical science, much diversity and contradiction still prevail.

_Diversities of all the Systems._

According to one system, every thing has been successively precipitated by crystallization, and deposited nearly as it exists at present; but the sea, which covered all, has gradually retired[25].

According to another, the materials of which the mountains consist, are incessantly worn down and carried off by the rivers to be deposited at the bottom of the sea, where they are heated under an enormous pressure, and form strata, which are one day to be violently lifted up by the heat which consolidates them[26].

A third supposes the fluid divided into a multitude of lakes, placed, like the seats of an amphitheatre, above each other, which, after having deposited our shelly strata, have successively broken their dikes, to descend and fill the basin of the ocean[27].

According to a fourth, tides of seven or eight hundred fathoms depth have carried off, from time to time, the matter lying at the bottom of the sea, and have thrown it, in the form of mountains and hills, upon the original valleys or plains of the continent[28].

A fifth makes the various fragments of which the earth is composed, fall successively from heaven, in the manner of meteoric stones, bearing the impress of their foreign origin in the unknown beings whose remains they contain[29].

A sixth represents the globe as hollow, and places within it a loadstone nucleus, which is transported from one pole to the other, by the attraction of comets, carrying along with it the centre of gravity, and the mass of waters at the surface; thus alternately drowning the two hemispheres[30].

We might mention twenty other systems, as different from one another as those enumerated. And to prevent mistake, we may here state, that our intention is not captiously to criticize or find fault with their authors; on the contrary, we admit that these ideas have generally been conceived by men of intellect and knowledge, who were not ignorant of facts, several of whom had even travelled extensively for the purpose of examining them, and who, in this manner, made numerous and important additions to science.

_Causes of these differences._

Whence comes it, then, that there should be so much contrariety in the solutions of the same problem, that are given by men who proceed upon the same principles? May not this have been occasioned by the conditions of the problem never having been all taken into consideration at once; by which it has remained hitherto indeterminate, and susceptible of many solutions,--all equally good, when such or such conditions are abstracted; and all equally bad, when a new condition comes to be known, or when the attention is directed to some condition which had been formerly neglected?

_Nature and Conditions of the Problem._

To quit the language of mathematics, it may be asserted, that almost all the authors of these systems, confining their attention to certain difficulties which struck them more forcibly than others, have endeavoured to solve these in a manner more or less plausible, and have left unnoticed others, equally numerous, and equally important. For example, the only difficulty with one consisted in explaining the changes that had taken place in the level of the sea; with another, it consisted in accounting for the solution of all terrestrial substances in one and the same menstruum; and with a third, in shewing how animals that were believed to be natives of the torrid zone could live in the frigid zone. Exhausting all the powers of the mind upon these questions, they conceived that they had done every thing that was necessary when they had contrived some method of answering them; and yet, while they neglected all the other phenomena, they did not always think of determining with precision the measure and limits of those which they had endeavoured to explain.

This is peculiarly the case with regard to the secondary formations, which constitute, however, the most important and most difficult part of the problem. During a long time, all that was done with respect to these, consisted of feeble attempts to determine the order of superposition of their strata, and the connections of these strata with the species of animals and plants whose remains they contain.

Are there certain animals and plants peculiar to certain strata, and not found in others? What are the species that appear first in order, and what those which succeed? Do these two kinds of species sometimes accompany each other? Are there alternations in their appearance; or, in other words, do the first reappear a second time, and do the others then disappear? Have these animals and plants all lived in the places where their remains are found, or have they been transported thither from other places? Do they all live at the present day in some part of the earth, or have they been partially or totally destroyed? Is there any constant connection between the antiquity of the strata and the resemblance, or non-resemblance, of the fossils contained in them to the animals and plants which now exist? Is there any connexion, in regard to climate, between the fossils and such living beings as resemble them most? May it be concluded, that the transportation of these living beings, if such a thing ever happened, has taken place from north to south, or from east to west; or were they irregularly scattered and mingled together; and can the epochs of these transportations be determined by the characters which they have impressed upon the strata?

What can be said regarding the causes of the existing state of the globe, if no reply can be made to these questions,--if there be no sufficient grounds to determine the choice between answering in the affirmative or negative? It is but too true, that, for a long time, none of these points was satisfactorily determined; and scarcely even would geologists seem to have had any idea of the propriety of clearing them up before constructing their systems.

_Reason for which the Conditions of the Problem have been neglected._

The reason of this strange procedure will be discovered, when we reflect, that all geologists have hitherto been, either mere cabinet naturalists, who had themselves paid little attention to the structure of mountains, or mere mineralogists, who had not studied in sufficient detail the innumerable varieties of animals, and the infinite complication of their various parts. The former of these have only constructed systems: the latter have furnished excellent observations, and have laid the foundation of true geological science; but have been unable to complete the edifice.

_Progress of Mineral Geology._

The purely mineral part of the great problem of the Theory of the Earth has been investigated with admirable care by Saussure, and has been since carried to an astonishing degree of development by Werner, and by the numerous enlightened pupils of his school.

The former of these celebrated men, by a laborious investigation of the most inaccessible districts, continued for twenty years, in which he examined the Alps on all sides, and penetrated through all their defiles; has laid open to our view the entire disorder of the primitive formations, and has distinctly traced the limits by which they are distinguished from the secondary formations. The other, taking advantage of the numerous excavations made in the most ancient mining district in the world, has fixed the laws by which the succession of the strata are regulated, pointing out the relative antiquity of these strata, and tracing each of them through all its metamorphoses. It is from him, and from him alone, that we date the commencement of real geology, in so far as concerns the mineral nature of the strata: but neither he nor Saussure have determined the fossil organic species occurring in each kind of stratum, with the accuracy which has become necessary, now that the number of animals already known is so great.

Other naturalists, it is true, have examined the the fossil remains of organised bodies; they have collected and figured them by thousands, and their works will serve as so many precious collections of materials. But, considering these animals and plants more with reference to their own nature, than as connected with the theory of the earth; or regarding these petrifactions as curiosities, rather than as historical documents; or, lastly, contenting themselves with practical explanations regarding the position of each fragment, they have almost always neglected to investigate the general laws affecting the geological position of organic remains, or their connection with the strata.

_Importance of Fossil Remains in Geology._

And yet, the idea of such an investigation was very natural; for it is abundantly obvious, that it is to these fossil remains alone that we owe even the commencement of a theory of the earth, and that, without them, we should perhaps never have even suspected that there had existed any successive epochs, and a series of different operations, in the formation of the globe. By them alone we are, in fact, enabled to ascertain, that the globe has not always had the same external crust; because, we are thoroughly assured, that the plants and animals must have lived at the surface before they had thus come to be buried deep beneath it. It is only by analogy that we have been enabled to extend to the primitive formations, the conclusion which is furnished directly for the secondary by the organic remains which they contain; and if there had only existed formations in which no fossil remains were inclosed, it could never have been shewn that these formations had not all been of simultaneous origin.

It is also by means of the organic remains, slight as is the knowledge we have hitherto acquired of them, that we have been enabled to discover the little that we yet know respecting the nature of the revolutions of the globe. From them we have learned, that the strata in which they are buried have been quietly deposited in a fluid; that their variations have corresponded with those of the fluid in question; that their being laid bare has been occasioned by the transportation of this fluid to some other place; and that this circumstance must have befallen them more than once. Nothing of all this could have been known with certainty, had no fossil remains existed.

The study of the mineral part of geology, though not less necessary, and even of much more utility to the practical arts, is yet much less instructive with reference to the object of our present inquiry.

We remain in utter ignorance respecting the causes which have given rise to the variety in the mineral substances of which the strata are composed. We are even ignorant of the agents which may have held some of these substances in solution; and it is still disputed, respecting several of them, whether they have owed their origin to water or to fire. After all, philosophers are only agreed on one point, which is, that the sea has changed its place; and how should this have been known, unless by means of the fossil remains?

The organic remains, therefore, which have given rise to the theory of the earth, have, at the same time, furnished it with its principal illustrations;--the only ones, indeed, that have as yet been generally acknowledged.

It is this consideration which has encouraged us to investigate the subject. But the field is vast; and it is but a very small portion of it that could be cultivated by the labour of a single individual. It was necessary, therefore, to select a particular department; and the choice was soon made. The class of fossil remains which forms the subject of this work, engaged our attention at the very outset, because it appeared to us to be that which is the most fertile in precise results, and yet, at the same time, less known, and richer in new objects of research[31].

_High importance of the Fossil Bones of Quadrupeds._

It is obvious, in fact, that the fossil bones of quadrupeds must lead to more accurate conclusions than any other remains of organized bodies, and that for several reasons.

In the first place, they indicate much more clearly the nature of the revolutions to which they have already been subjected. Shells certainly announce the fact, that the sea has once existed in the places where they have been formed; but the changes which have taken place in their species, when rigorously inquired into, may have arisen from slight changes in the nature of the fluid in which they lived, or merely in its temperature. They may even have been produced by causes still more accidental. We can never be perfectly assured that certain species, and even genera, inhabiting the bottom of the sea, and occupying certain fixed spaces, for a longer or shorter time, may not have been driven away and supplanted by other species or genera.

In regard to quadrupeds, on the contrary, every thing is precise. The appearance of their bones in strata, and still more of their entire carcases, announces, either that the stratum itself which contains them has, at a former period, been laid dry, or, at least, that dry land must have existed in its neighbourhood. Their disappearance renders it certain, that this stratum has been inundated, or that the dry land in question has ceased to exist. It is from them, therefore, that we learn with perfect certainty the important fact of repeated irruptions of the sea, which the shells and other marine productions could not of themselves have proved; and it is by a careful investigation of them, that we may hope to ascertain the number and the epochs of these irruptions.

Secondly, The nature of the revolutions which have altered the surface of the globe, must have exerted a more powerful action upon terrestrial quadrupeds, than upon marine animals. As these revolutions have consisted chiefly of changes in the bed of the sea, and as the waters must have destroyed all the quadrupeds which they reached, if their irruption was general, it would necessarily have destroyed the entire class; or if it only overwhelmed certain continents at one time, it would at least have destroyed the species peculiar to those continents, without having the same effect upon the marine animals. On the other hand, millions of aquatic animals would have been left dry, or buried under newly-formed strata, or thrown violently on the coasts; while their races would still have been preserved in some more peaceful parts of the sea, whence they might again be propagated after the agitation of the waters had ceased.

Thirdly, This more complete action is also more easily ascertained. It is more easy to demonstrate its effects, because, the number of quadrupeds being limited, and the greater part of their species, at least the large ones, being known, we have more means of determining whether fossil bones belong to them, or to a species that is now lost. As, on the other hand, we are very far from being acquainted with all the testaceous animals and fishes which inhabit the sea, and as we are still probably ignorant of the greater number of those which live in deep water, it is impossible to know with certainty, whether a species which occurs in a fossil state, may not still exist somewhere alive. And hence, we see naturalists persisting in giving the name of pelagic shells, that is to say, shells inhabiting the open sea, to the belemnites, cornua-ammonis, and other testaceous remains, which have hitherto been found only in the older strata; meaning by this, that if they have not yet been discovered in a living state, it is because they inhabit the depths of the sea, far beyond the reach of our nets.

_Small probability of discovering New Species of large Quadrupeds._

Naturalists, certainly, have not yet explored all the continents, nor do they even know all the quadrupeds which inhabit the countries that they have explored. New species of this class are discovered from time to time; and those who have not examined with attention all the circumstances belonging to these discoveries, might also imagine that the unknown quadrupeds, whose bones are found in our strata, may remain to this day concealed, in some islands not yet discovered by navigators, or in some of the vast deserts which occupy the middle of Asia, Africa, the two Americas, and New Holland.

However, if we carefully examine what kinds of quadrupeds have been recently discovered, and in what circumstances they have been found, we shall see that there is little hope of our ever finding alive those which have hitherto been observed only in a fossil state.

Islands of moderate extent, and at a considerable distance from the continents or large islands, possess very few quadrupeds, and these, for the greater part, of diminutive size. When they happen to contain any of the larger species, these must have been carried to them from other countries. Bougainville and Cook found no other large quadrupeds than hogs and dogs in the South Sea Islands; and the largest species of the West India Islands was the _agouti_.

It is true that the great continents, such as Asia, Africa, the two Americas, and New Holland, possess large quadrupeds, and, generally speaking, contain species peculiar to each; insomuch, that whenever large countries of this description have been discovered, which their situation has kept isolated from the rest of the world, the class of quadrupeds which they contained has been found entirely different from any that existed elsewhere. Thus, when the Spaniards first penetrated into South America, they did not find a single species of quadruped the same as any of Europe, Asia, or Africa. The puma, the jaguar, the tapir, the cabiai, the llama, the vicuna, the sloths, the armadilloes, the opossums, and the whole tribe of sapajous, were to them entirely new animals, of which they had no idea. Similar circumstances have recurred in our own time, when the coasts of New Holland and the adjacent islands were first explored. The various species of kangaroo, phascolomys, dasyurus, and perameles, the flying phalangers, the ornithorynchi and echidnæ, have astonished naturalists by the strangeness of their conformations, which presented proportions contrary to all former rules, and were incapable of being arranged under any of the systems then in use.

If there yet remained some great continent to be discovered, we might still hope to become acquainted with new species, among which there might be found some having more or less similarity to those of which we have discovered the remains in the bowels of the earth. But it is sufficient to cast a glance over the map of the world, and see the innumerable directions in which navigators have traversed the ocean, in order to be satisfied that there remains no other large land to be discovered, unless it may be situated towards the South Pole, where the existence of life would necessarily be precluded by the accumulation of ice.

Hence, it is only from the interior of the large divisions of the world, that we can have any hope of still procuring quadrupeds hitherto unknown. But a little reflection will be sufficient to convince us, that our expectations from this source have as little foundation as from that of the islands.

Doubtless, the European traveller cannot easily traverse vast extents of countries, which are either destitute of inhabitants, or are peopled only with ferocious tribes; and this is more especially true with regard to Africa. But there is nothing to prevent the animals themselves from roaming over these countries in all directions, and penetrating to the coasts. Even when there may be great chains of mountains between the coasts and the deserts of the interior, they must always be broken in some places to allow the rivers to pass through; and, in these burning deserts, the quadrupeds naturally follow the banks of rivers. The inhabitants of the coasts also ascend these rivers, and soon become acquainted with all the remarkable species which exist even to their sources, either from personal observation, or by means of intercourse with the inhabitants of the interior. At no period, therefore, could civilized nations have frequented the coast of a large country for any considerable length of time, without gaining some tolerable knowledge of such of the animals which it contained as were remarkable for their size or configuration.

This reasoning is confirmed by well known facts. Although the ancients never passed the mountains of Imaus, or crossed the Ganges, in Asia; and, although they never penetrated very far beyond Mount Atlas, in Africa; yet were they, in reality, acquainted with all the large animals of these two divisions of the world; and, if they have not distinguished all the species, it was not because they had not seen them, or heard them spoken of by others, but because the mutual resemblances of some of these species caused them to be confounded together. The only important exception which can be opposed to this assertion, presents itself in the Tapir of Malacca, recently sent home from India by two young naturalists, pupils of mine, Messrs Duvaucel and Diard, and which in fact is one of the most interesting discoveries with which Natural History has been enriched in these latter times.

The ancients were perfectly acquainted with the Elephant; and the history of that quadruped is given more accurately by Aristotle than by Buffon. They were not even ignorant of some of the differences which distinguish the elephants of Africa from those of Asia[32].

They knew the two-horned Rhinoceros, which has never been seen alive in modern Europe. Domitian exhibited it at Rome, and had it stamped on his medals, which have been very well described by Pausanias.

The one-horned Rhinoceros, distant as was its country, was equally known to them. Pompey shewed one at Rome; and Strabo has accurately described another which he saw at Alexandria[33].

The Rhinoceros of Sumatra described by Mr Bell; and that of Java, discovered and sent home by Messrs Duvaucel and Diard, do not appear to inhabit the continent. Hence, it is not surprising, that the ancients should have been ignorant of them; besides, they probably would not have distinguished them from the others.

The Hippopotamus has not been so well described as the preceding animals; yet very exact representations of it have been left by the Romans in their monuments relative to Egypt, such as the statue of the Nile, the Palestrine pavement, and a great number of medals. In fact, this animal was repeatedly seen by the Romans; having been exhibited by Scaurus, Augustus, Antoninus, Commodus, Heliogabalus, Philip, and Carinus[34].

The two species of Camel, the Bactrian and Arabian, are both very well described and characterized by Aristotle[35].

The Giraffe, or Camelopard (Camel-Leopard), was also well known to the ancients. A live one was shewn at Rome, in the circus, during the dictatorship of Julius Cæsar, in the year of Rome 708; and ten of them were exhibited together by Gordian III. all of which were killed at the secular games of Philip[36], a circumstance which may well surprise the moderns, who have only witnessed a single individual, which was sent by the Soldan of Egypt to Laurentius de Medicis, in the fifteenth century, and is painted in the frescoes of Poggio-Cajano.

If we read with attention the descriptions of the Hippopotamus, given by Herodotus and Aristotle, and which are supposed to have been borrowed from Hecatæus of Miletum, we shall find, that they must have been made up from two different animals, one of which was perhaps the true hippopotamus, and the other was assuredly the Gnou[37], a quadruped, of which our naturalists begin to take notice only about the end of the eighteenth century. It is the same animal of which fabulous accounts were given by Pliny and Ælian, under the name of _catoblepas_ and _catablepon_[38].

The Ethiopian Boar of Agatharchides, which is described as having horns, is precisely the Ethiopian Boar of modern times, the enormous tusks of which deserve the name of horns nearly as much as those of the elephant[39].

The Bubalus and Nagor are described by Pliny[40]; the Gazelle by Ælian[41]; the Oryx by Oppian[42]; the Axis, so early as the time of Ctesias[43]; and the Algazel, and Corinne, are accurately figured upon the Egyptian monuments[44].

Ælian has well described the _Bos grunniens_ or Yak, under the name of the ox having a tail which serves for a fly-flapper[45].

The Buffalo was not domesticated by the ancients; but the Indian Ox, of which Ælian speaks[46], and which had horns large enough to hold three amphoræ, was assuredly that variety of the buffalo which is now called the _arnee_. And even the wild ox with depressed horns, which is mentioned by Aristotle as inhabiting Arachosia, a province of ancient Persia, could be nothing else than the common buffalo[47].

The ancients were acquainted with the hornless variety of the ox[48], and with the African oxen, whose horns, being only attached to the skin, moved with it[49]. They also knew the Indian oxen, which equalled the horse in speed[50]; and those which were so small as not to exceed a he-goat in size[51]. Nor were the broad-tailed sheep unknown to them[52],--nor those of India, which were said to be as large as asses[53].

Although the accounts left us by the ancients, respecting the Aurochs, the Rein-deer, and Elk, are all mingled with fable, they are yet sufficient to prove that these animals were in some degree known to them, but that the reports which had reached them, had been communicated by ignorant people, and had not been corrected by a judicious examination[54]. These animals still inhabit the countries which the ancients assigned to them; and have only disappeared in such of them as have been too much cultivated for their habits. The aurochs[55] and elk still exist in the forests of Lithuania, which were formerly continuous with the great Hercynian Forest. The former of these animals still occurs in the northern parts of Greece, as it did in the days of Pausanias. The rein-deer inhabits the snowy regions of the north, where it always had its abode; it changes its colour, not at pleasure, but according to the change of the seasons. It was in consequence of mistakes scarcely excusable, that it was imagined to have occurred in the Pyrenees in the fourteenth century[56].

Even the White Bear had been seen in Egypt while under the Ptolemies[57].

Lions and Panthers were common at Rome, where they were presented by hundreds in the games of the Circus. Even several Tigers were exhibited there, as well as the Striped Hyena and the Crocodile of the Nile. In the ancient mosaics preserved at Rome, there are excellent representations of the rarest of these animals. Among others, the striped hyena is seen represented with accuracy in a fragment preserved in the Museum of the Vatican; and, while I was at Rome in 1809, a mosaic pavement, composed of natural stones, arranged in the Florentine manner, was discovered in a garden beside the triumphal arch of Galienus, which represented four Bengal tigers executed in a superior manner.

In the Museum of the Vatican, there is deposited the figure of a crocodile in basalt, which is almost a perfect representation of that animal[58].

It cannot in the least be doubted, that the _Hippotigris_ was the Zebra, which, however, is only found in the southern parts of Africa[59].

It would be easy to shew that almost all the more remarkable species of Apes and Monkeys have been distinctly indicated by the ancients, under the names of _Pitheci_, _Sphinxes_, _Satyri_, _Cebi_, _Cynocephali_, and _Cercopitheci_[60].

They even knew, and have described several species of Glires of inconsiderable size, when these animals presented any thing remarkable in their conformation or properties[61]. But the small species are of no importance with reference to the object in view; and, it is sufficient for our purpose to have shewn, that all the large species, which possess any remarkable character, and which we know to inhabit Europe, Asia, and Africa, at the present day, were known to the ancients; whence we may fairly conclude, that their silence in respect to the small quadrupeds, and their neglect in distinguishing the species which very nearly resemble each other, as the various species of antelopes, and of some other genera, were occasioned by want of attention and ignorance of methodical arrangement, rather than by any difficulty proceeding from climate. We may also conclude, with equal certainty, that, as the lapse of eighteen or twenty centuries, together with the advantages of circumnavigating Africa, and of penetrating into India, have added nothing in this department to the information left us by the ancients, there is no probability that succeeding ages will add much to the knowledge of our posterity.

But perhaps some persons may be disposed to employ an opposite train of argument, and to allege that the ancients were not only acquainted with as many large quadrupeds as we are, as has already been shewn, but that they have described several others which we do not now know,--that we act rashly in considering these animals as fabulous,--that we ought to search for them before concluding that we have exhausted the history of the present animal creation,--and, in fine, that among those animals which we presume to be fabulous, we may, perhaps, discover, when we become better acquainted with them, the originals of those bones of unknown animals which we discover buried in the earth. Some may even conceive, that those various monsters, which constitute the essential ornaments of the history of the heroic ages of almost all countries, are precisely those very species which it was necessary to destroy, in order to allow the establishment of civilization. Thus the Theseuses and Bellerophons of ancient times had been more fortunate than all the nations of our days, which have only been able to drive back the noxious animals, but have never yet succeeded in exterminating a single species.

_Inquiry respecting the Fabulous Animals of the Ancients._

It is easy to reply to the foregoing objection, by examining the descriptions of these unknown beings, and by inquiring into their origins. The greater number of them have an origin purely mythological, and of this origin their descriptions bear unequivocal marks; for in almost all of them we see merely parts of known animals united by an unbridled imagination, and in contradiction to all the laws of nature.

Those which were invented or arranged by the Greeks, have at least the merit of possessing elegance in their composition. Like those arabesques which decorate the remains of some ancient buildings, and which have been multiplied by the fertile pencil of Raphael, the forms which they combine, however repugnant to reason they may be, present agreeable contours. They are the fantastic productions of playful genius; perhaps emblematic representations in the oriental taste, in which were supposed to be concealed under mystical images certain propositions in metaphysics or in morals. We may excuse those who employ their time in attempts to discover the wisdom concealed in the sphinx of Thebes, the pegasus of Thessaly, the minotaur of Crete, or the chimera of Epirus; but it would be absurd to expect seriously to find such productions in nature. As well might we search for the animals described in the Book of Daniel, or for the beast of the Apocalypse.

Neither may we look for the mythological animals of the Persians, creatures of a still bolder imagination: the _martichore_, or man-destroyer, bearing a human head on the body of a lion, terminated by the tail of a scorpion[62]; the _griffon_, guardian of treasures, half eagle, half lion[63]; the _cartazonon_, or wild ass, armed with a long horn on its forehead[64].

Ctesias, who has described these as real animals, has been looked upon by many authors as an inventor of fables; whereas he has merely attributed an actual existence to emblematical figures. These imaginary compositions have been seen in modern times sculptured upon the ruins of Persepolis[65]. What they were intended to signify we shall probably never know; but of this much we are certain, that they do not represent actual beings.

Agatharchidas, another fabricator of animals, drew his information in all probability from a similar source. The ancient Egyptian monuments still furnish us with numerous fantastic representations, in which the parts of different species are combined: gods are often figured with a human body and the head of an animal, and animals are seen with human heads; thus giving rise to the cynocephali, sphinxes, and satyrs of ancient naturalists. The custom of representing in the same painting men of very different sizes, of making the king or the conqueror gigantic, the subjects or the conquered three or four times smaller, must have given rise to the fable of the pigmies. It was in some corner of one of these monuments that Agatharchidas must have seen his carnivorous bull, which, with mouth extending from ear to ear, devoured every other animal[66]. Certainly no naturalist would admit the existence of such an animal; for nature never combines either cloven hoofs or horns with teeth adapted for devouring animal food.

There may perhaps have been many other figures equally strange, either among such of these monuments as have not been able to resist the ravages of time, or in the temples of Ethiopia and Arabia, which have been destroyed by the religious zeal of the Mahometans and Abyssinians. The monuments of India teem with such figures; but the combinations in these are too extravagant to have deceived any one. Monsters with a hundred arms, and twenty heads all different from one another, are far too absurd to be believed. Nay, the inhabitants of Japan and China also have their imaginary animals, which they represent as real, and which figure even in their religious books. The Mexicans had them. In short, they are the fashion among all nations, whether at the periods when their idolatry has not yet been refined, or when the import of these emblematical combinations has been lost. But who would dare to affirm that he had found those productions of ignorance and superstition in nature? And yet it may have happened that travellers, influenced by a desire of making themselves famous, might pretend that they had seen those strange beings, or that, deceived by a slight resemblance, into which they were too careless to enquire, they may have taken real animals for them. In the eyes of such people, large baboons or monkeys may have appeared true cynocephali, sphinxes, or men with tails. It is thus that St Augustin may have imagined he had seen a satyr.

Some real animals, inaccurately observed and described, may have given rise to monstrous ideas, which, however, have had their foundation in some reality. Thus, we can have no doubt of the existence of the hyena, although that animal has not its neck supported by a single bone[67], and although it does not change its sex every year, as Pliny alleges[68]. Thus, also, the carnivorous bull is perhaps nothing else than a two-horned rhinoceros erroneously described. M. de Weltheim affirms with probability, that the auriferous ants of Herodotus are _corsacs_.