The influence of climate, in the human species, is only marked by
slight varieties; because this species is single, and extremely
distinct from every other. Man, white in Europe, black in Africa,
yellow in Asia, and red in America, is the same animal, tinctured
with the colour peculiar to the climate. As he is formed to exercise
dominion over the earth, and, as he has the whole globe for his
habitation, his nature seems to be accommodated [sic] to
every situation. Under the fervours of the south, or the frozen
regions of the north, he lives, multiplies, and is so universally and
so antiently diffused over every country, that he appears to have no
peculiar climate. [64] Among the other
animals, on the contary, the influence of climate is stronger, and
marked by sensible characters; because they differ in species, and
their nature is less perfect, and less diffused than that of man. The
varieties of each species are not only more numerous, and more
strongly marked, but even the differences of species themselves seem
to depend upon the differences of climate. Some are unable to
propagate but in warm, and others cannot subsist but in cold
countries. The lion never inhabited the northern regions; the
rein-deer was never found in the south; and perhaps no other species
but that of man is generally diffused over the whole surface of the
globe. Each has its peculiar country, to which it is confined by a
physical necessity; each is a genuine son of the country it inhabits;
and it is in this sense alone, that particular animals ought to be
called natives of a particular climate.
In warm countries, the land-animals are larger and stronger than in
the frozen or temperate regions. They are likewise more hardy and
ferocious. All their natural qualities seem to originate from the
ardour of the climate. Lions, born under the scorching heats of
Africa or the Indies, are the strongest, the firercest, and the most
formidable. Our wolves, and other carnivorous animals, would hardly
have the merit of being his providers.* The lions
of America, if they deserve that name, are, like the climate,
infinitely [65] more mild than those of
Africa; and, what proves that the excess of their ferocity originates
from the excess of heat, is, that, in the same country, those who
inhabit the high mountains, where the air is temperate, differ in
disposition from those who live in the plains, where the heat is
extreme. The lions of Mount Atlas, the summit of which is sometimes
covered with snow, have neither the courage, the strength, nor the
ferocity of the lions of Biledulgerid or of Zaara, whose plains are
covered with burning sands. It is chiefly in these fervid deserts
that we meet with those terrible lions, who are the dread of
travellers, and the scourge of the neighbouring provinces. Happily
the species is not numerous: It even appears to diminish daily; for,
from the testimony of those who have traversed this part of Africa,
the number of lions is not nearly so great as formerly. The Romans,
says Mr Shaw,* drew from Lybia [sic], for
their public spectacles, fifty times more lions than could now be
found in that country. It has likewise been remarked, that, in
Turkey, Persia, and India, lions are much less frequent than they
were in antient times: And, as the bold and powerful creature preys
on every other animal, and is himself a prey to none, the diminution
of the species can only be attributed to the increase of the numbers
of mankind; for, it must be allowed, that the strength of the king of
animals is not match against the address of a [66] Hottentot
or a Negro, who often attack him, face to face, with very light
weapons. The lion, having no enemy but man, and his species being
reduced to a fiftieth, or, if you will, to a tenth part of its former
standard, it follows, that the human species, instead of having
suffered any considerable diminution since the time of the Romans,
(as has been often alledged), is, on the contrary, increased, even in
such countries as Lybia, where the power of man appeared to have been
greater during the aera of Carthage, than it is now under that of
Tunis and Algiers.
Man’s industry augments in proprotion to his numbers; but that
of the other animals remains always the same. All the destructive
species, as that of the lion, seem to be banished to distant regions,
or reduced to a small number, not only because mankind have
increased, but because they have also become more powerful, and have
invented formidable arms which nothing can resist. Would to God man
had never combined the operations of steel and fire for other
purposes than those of destroying lions and tigers!
This superiority of man in numbers, and in industry, which has
impaired the force of the lion, has likewise enervated his courage.
Among animals, this latter quality, though natural, rises or falls
according as the exertions of their strength are successful or
abortive. In the vast deserts of Zaara, in those which seem to
separate two very different races of men, the Negroes and
[67] the Moors, in the unpeopled regions that
lie about the territories of the Hottentos, and, in general, in all
those southern parts of Africa and Asia, which man has disdained to
inhabit, the lions are still very numerous, and continue in their
natural state. Accustomed to measure their strength with that of
every animal they meet, the habit of conquering renders them terrible
and intrepid. Being ignorant of the power of man, they are not afraid
to encounter him. Having never experienced the force of his arms,
they hold them in defiance. Wounds enrage, without terrifying them.
They are not disconcerted even by the appearance of numbers. A single
lion of the desert often attacks a whole caravan; and if, after a
violent and obstinate engagement, he finds himself fatigued, instead
of flying, he retreats fighting, always opposing his face to the
enemy. Those lions, on the other hand, who dwell in the neighbourhood
of the towns or villages of India or Barbary,*
being acquainted with man, and the power of his arms, have lost their
native fortitude to such a degree, that they fly from the
threatenings of his voice, and dare not attack him. They content
themsleves with seizing small cattle, and even fly before the women
and children+, who make them indignantly quit their prey, by striking
them with clubs. [68]
This change, this softening in the temper of the lion, indicates that
he is susceptible of the impressions he receives, and that he must
possess a docility sufficient to render him tameable to a certain
degree, and to admit of a species of education: And history informs
us, that lions have been yoked in triumphal cars, and conducted to
the battle or the chace [sic]; and that, faithful to their
masters, they never exerted their strength or their courage but in
opposition to the common enemy. This much is certain, that the lion,
when taken young, and brought up among domestic animals, is easily
accustomed to live, and even to sport innocently with them; that he
is gentle and caressing to his master; and that, if he sometimes
resumes his natural ferocity, he seldom turns his rage against his
benefactors. As his movements are impetuous, and his appetites
vehement, we ought not to presume that they can always be balanced by
the impressions of education. It is dangerous, therefore, to allow
him to want food too long, or to irritate him unnecessarily. Bad
treatment not only enrages him, but he remembers it, and seems to
meditate revenge, in the same manner as he remembers and requires
benefits received. Here I might quote a great number of particular
facts, some of which appear to be exaggerated; but the whole, when
combined, are sufficient to prove, that the anger of the lion is
noble, his courage magnanimous, and his temper susceptible of
impressions. He has often been [69] known to disdain the
insults, and to pardon the offensive liberties of weak enemies. When
led into captivity, he discovered symptoms of uneasiness, without
anger or peevishness; on the contrary, he assumes habits of
gentleness, obeys his master, caresses the hand that feeds him, and
sometimes pardons the animals which are thrown to him for prey. By
this act of generosity, he seems to consider himself as forever bound
to protect them; he lives peaceably with them, allows them a part,
and sometimes the whole of his food, and will rather submit to the
gnawings of hunger than destroy the fruit of his beneficence.
The lion cannot justly be branded with cruetly, since he acts from
necessity, and kills no more than he consumes; with the tiger, the
wolf, the hyaena, and many other inferior species, such as the fox,
the martin, the polecat, the ferret, &c. delight in slaughter,
and seem rather to gratify their rage than their hunger.
The external appearance of the lion detracts not from the noble and
generous qualities of his mind. His figure is respectable, his looks
firm and determined, his gait stately, and his voice tremendous. His
bulk is not excessive, like that of the elephant or rhinoceros. He is
not gross and unwieldy, like the hippopotamus or the ox, nor too
contracted, like the hyaena or the bear, nor lengthened to deformity,
like the camel. The body of the lion, on the contrary, is so well
poised and proportioned, that it may be regarded as a [70]
perfect model of strength combined with agility: Equally solid and
springy, neither surcharged with fat nor with flesh, and containing
nothing superfluous, he seems to be constituted entirely of nerves
and of muscles. This great muscular force is manifested by the
prodigious leaps and bounds which he performs with ease; by the brisk
movements of his tail, a single sweep of which is sufficient to throw
a man to the ground; by the facility with which he moves the skin of
his face, and especially that of his front, which heightens greatly
the expression of fury; and, lastly, by the power of moving the hair
of his mane, which he not only erects, but agitates on all sides,
when he is enraged.
To all these splended individual qualities of the lion, we may add
the nobleness of his species. By noble species in nature, I mean
those which are constant, invariable, and liable to no suspicion of
degradation. These species are commonly singular, and of themselves
constitute a genus. They are distinguished by characters so deeply
marked, that they can neither be mistaken, nor confounded with any
other. To begin with man, who is the noblest being of the creation,
his species is single, since men of all races, of all climates, and
of all colours, can mix and propagate together; and, at the same
time, no animal can be said to make any approaches to the human
species by natural relation. In the horse, the species is not so
noble as the individual; because he is so nearly [71]
approached by the ass, that a junction of the two produces
individuals, whom Nature treats as bastards, unworthy of the genuine
race, and renders incapable of perpetuating either species of which
they are the issue; but, as the proceeding from a mixture of the two,
they fail not to demonstrate the great affinity between them. In the
dog, the species is, perhaps, still less noble, beacuse it seems to
be allied to those of the wolf, the fox, and jackall, who may all be
regarded as degenerated branches of the same family. In descending
gradually to the inferior species, as those of the rabbit, weasel,
rat, &c. we shall find, that each particular speices has a number
of collateral branches, of which we are unable to discover the
genuine root. Lastly, in the insects, which ought to be regarded as
the lowest species in Nature, each kind is accompanied with so many
neighbouring species, that we are obliged to denominate them by
genera only. This is the chief use of methodical distributions, which
ought not to be employed, excepting in difficult enumerations of the
smallest objects in nature, but which become totally useless, and
even ridiculous, in treating of the superior tribes. To class man
with the monkey, or to say, that the lion is a cat with a long
mane and tail, is to degrade and disfigure, instead of describing
or denominating the objects of nature.
The species of the lion, therefore, is one of the most noble, because
it is single, and cannot be [72] confounded
with those of the tiger, leopard, ounce, &c. These species which
seem to be the least removed from the lion, are so little
distinguished from each other, that they have often been confounded
by travellers and methodists.*
The largest lions are about eight or nine feet long, by four or five
feet high, and the tail is about four feet long.+
The small sized lions are about five and a half feet long, by three
and a half feet high, and the tail is about three and a half feet in
length. The lioness, in all dimensions, is about one fourth part less
than the lion.
Aristotleý distinguishes lions
into the greater and the smaller; the latter, he remarks, are
proportionally shorter in the body, have their hair more crisped, and
are less courageous than the former. He adds, that, in general, all
lions are of a yellow colour. The first of these facts seems to be
doubtful; for no traveller mentions lions with crisped hair: Some
authors, who, in other respects, appear not to merit entire
confidence, talk of a tiger with crisped hair, which is found at the
Cape of Good Hope.|| But almost all
authors agree as to the colour of the lion,
[73] which is yellow on the back, and whitish
on the sides and belly. Ælian and Oppian, however, affirm, that
the Ethiopian lions are as black as the men; that, in India, there
are lions entirely white, and others spotted with different colours,
as red, black, and blue. But this seems not to be supported by any
authentic evidence; for Marc-Paul, the Venetian, speaks not of these
spotted lions as if he had seen them; and Gesner*
properly remarks, that he only followed Ælian. It appears, on
the contrary, that there are little or no varieties in this species;
that the lions of Africa and of Asia are perfectly similar; and that
the lions of the mountains differ from those of the plains in stature
only, and not in colour.
The lion has a mane, or rather long hair which covers almost all the
anterior parts of his body+, and grows
always longer as he advances in age. But the lioness, however old,
has no mane. The American animal, called a Lion by the
Europeans, and Puma by the natives of Peru, has no mane, and
is also smaller, weaker, and less courageous than the true lion. It
is not impossible, that the mildness of this region of south America
should have had such influence on the nature of the lion, as to
deprive him of his mane, and diminish both his courage and his
stature. But it seems to be an absolute impossibility, that
[74] this animal, who inhabits the countries within the
tropics only, and against whom nature appears to have shut up every
avenue to the north, should have passed from the southern regions of
Asia or Africa into America, these continents being divided from each
other, towards the south, by immense oceans. Hence we are led to
conclude, that the Puma is not a lion sprung from those of the old
world, and degenerated by the influence of the climate of America,
like most animals of the new Continent. When the Europeans first
discovered America, they found the quadrupeds, birds, fishes,
insects, plants, and almost every thing, perfectly different from
those of Europe. It was, therefore, necessary to denominate the
principal objects of this new world. The names given them by the
natives were mostly barbarous, and very difficult to pronounce or to
remember. The names of objects were, of course, borrowed from those
of the European languages, and especially from the Spanish and
Portuguese. In this penury of denomination, the smallest analogy in
external figure or in stature is sufficient to make us attribute to
unknown objects, the names of those with which we were acquainted.
This gives rise to endless uncertainties and confusion, which are
still farther augmented, not only by giving to the productions of the
new world the denominations of those of the old, but by the contiual
transportation of European plants and animals [75]
into America. To obviate these difficulties, we ought
carefully to distinguish what belongs to the one continent, from what
belongs to the other, and to avoid the deceptions originating from
improper denominations. We shall perceive the necessity of this
discrimination in the subsequent article, where an enumeration of the
animals peculiar to both continents shall be given.
M. de la Condamine, whose evidence merits the highest credit, says
expressly, that he knows not whether the American animal called a
Lion by the Spaniards, and Puma by the natives of Quito,
deserves the name of a lion: He adds, that it is much smaller than
the African lion, and that the male has no mane.*
Fresier likewise informs us, that the animals called Lions in
Peru, are very different from those of Africa; that they fly upon the
approach of man; and that they are dreadful only to the flocks: He
farther remarks, that their head somewhat resembles both the head of
the wolf and of the tiger; and that their tail is less than the tail
of either of these animals.+ We learn,
from more antient relationsý,
that the American lions have no resemblance to those of Africa; that
they have neither the stature, nor the boldness of the true lion;
that they are neither red nor yellow, but of a gray [76]
colour; that they have no manes, and are accustomed to
climb trees. Hence these animals differ from the lion in stature, in
colour, in the form of the head, in the length of the tail, in the
want of manes, and in their manner and dispositions. Characters so
numerous and so essential ought forever to prevent us from
confounding the Puma of America with the genuine lion of Africa or of
Asia.
Though this noble animal inhabits the warmest climates only, he can
subsist for a great length of time in temperate countries, and,
perhaps, with some attention, might even be enabled to propagate.
Gesner relates, that lions were brought forth in the menagerie of
Florence; and Willoughby tells us, that, in Naples, a lioness that
had been impregnanted by a lion in the same den, brought forth five
whelps at one litter. These examples are rare; but, if true, they
prove that lions are not absolute strangers to a temperate climate.
None of them, however, exist in the southern parts of Europe: In the
age of Homer, there were no lions in the Peloponnesus, although they
were then, and even in the days of Aristotle, in Thrace, in
Macedonia, and in Thessaly. It is apparent, therefore, that, in all
ages, they preferred the hot climates; that they seldom lived in
temperate countries; and that they never inhabited the more northern
regions. The naturalists above quoted, who speak of lions brought
forth at Florence and Naples, are silent as to the [77]
time of the female’s gestation, the size of the
newborn whelps, and the quickness or slowness of their growth.
Æelian* limits the time of gestation to two
months; but Philostratus and Edward Wotton+
extend it to six. I am inclined to be of the latter opinion; for the
lion is an animal of great magnitude; and we know, that, in general,
among large animals, the time of gestation is longer than among the
smaller species. The same thing takes place with regard to the growth
of the body. Both antients and moderns agree, that new-born lions are
very small, being about the size of a weasel,ý
that is, six or even inches in length. They must, therefore, require
several years before they can grow eight or nine feet long. The young
lions are likewise said to be two months old before they can walk.
Without giving implicit faith to these facts, we may, with
probability, presume, that the lion, from the largeness of his body,
must require three or four years for acquiring his full growth, and
that he ought to live about seven times three or four years, or
nearly to the age of twenty-five. The Sieur de St Martin, master of
the bull-fights at Paris, assures me, that he has kept lions sixteen
or seventeen years; and he imagines that they live not above the age
of twenty or twenty-two. He has kept others twelve or fifteen years;
and it is [78] well known that their lives
must be abridged, and their constitution weakened by the want of
exercise, confinement, and chagrin.
Aristotle affirms, in two different parts of his works,*
that the lioness produces five or six whelps at the first litter,
four or five at the second, three or four at the third, and two or
three at the fourth; and that, after this last litter, which is
always the least numerous, she becomes barren. This assertion merits
no credit; for, in all animals, the first and last litters are less
numerous than the intermediate ones. This philosopher erred, as well
as all the naturalists who came after him, when he maintained that
the lioness had only two paps; for it is now certain that she has
four. He likewise affirms,+ that the
lion, the bear, and the fox, are brought forth in an unformed state:
But it is now past a doubt, that these creatures are as well formed
at their birth as any other animals, and that all their members are
distinctly unfolded. Lastly, he affirms, that the lions copulate in a
reversed manner;ý but, from a
bare inspection of the parts of the male, it is evident, that the
lion must copulate in the ordinary way of other quadrupeds. I have
mentioned these slight errors of Aristotle, because the authority of
this great man has deceived all the [79]
writers on natural history since his time. What he
remarks of the lion’s neck being composed of one rigid and
inflexible bone, has also been contradicted by experience; for, in
every quadruped without exception, and even in man, the neck consists
precisely of seven vertebrae. It is another general fact, that the
necks of carnivorous animals are shorter than those of the
frugivorous, and particularly of the ruminating species. But this
difference in the length of the neck depends on the largeness of each
vertebra, and not on their number, which is always the same, from the
elephant to the mole. With regard to the solidity of the lion’s
bones, which Aristotle affirms to have neither marrow nor cavity; to
their hardness, which he compares to that of flint; and to their
property of striking fire with steel; these blunders ought not to
have been repeated by Kolbe;* nor should they have
come down to our time; since, even in the days of Aristotle, they
were ridiculed by Epicurus.
The lions are exceedingly ardent in their armours. When the female is
in season, she is sometimes followed by eight or teen males,+
who incessantly roar around her, and engage in the most furious
combats, till one of them conquers all the rest, and retires in
peaceable possession of his mate. The lioness brings forth in the
spring,ý and produces but once
in the year; which shows [80] that she is
occupied for some months in suckling and taking care of her young;
and, consequently, that the time of their growing, during which they
need the assistance of the mother, is at least several months.
In these animals, all the passions, even those of the softest kind,
are excessive. The maternal affections of the lioness is extreme.
Though naturally weaker, and less courageous than the lion, whenever
she has the young, she becomes dreadfully ferocious. She then exposes
herself with more boldness than the lion; she knows no danger; she
attacks, indiscriminately, men and every other animal; and, after
slaying them, carries them home to her whelps, whom she soon
accustoms to suck the blood and tear the flesh. She commonly brings
forth in places the most sequestrate and inaccessible; and, when
afraid of being discovered, she conceals the tracks of her feet, by
returning several times on her steps, or effaces them with her tail.
When her anxiety is great, she sometimes transports her young to a
different place; and, if the hunters attempt to force them from her,
she becomes perfectly furious, and defends them to the last
extremity.
The lion, it is alledged, has niether the senses of smelling nor of
seeing so acute as most animals of prey. The light of the sun seems
to incommode him; he seldom goes abroad in the middle of the day, but
makes all his excusions [81] during the night:
When he sees the fires burning around the flocks, he never approaches
them. It has also been remarked, that he perceives not the odour of
other animals at a distance; that he hunts only by the eye, and not
by the scent, like the dog and the wolf, whose sense of smelling is
finer. Even the name of Guide, Lion’s Provider,
has been given to a species of lynx, which is supposed to have a
piercing eye and exquisite scent; and, it is said, that this lynx
always follows or precedes the lion, to point out his prey. We are
acquainted with this animal, who, like the lion, inhabits Arabia,
Lybia, &c. and who sometimes follows the lion with a view to pick
up what he leaves; for, being smaller, and much weaker, he should
rather fly from the lion than serve him.
The lion, when pressed with hunger, boldly attacks every animal that
comes in his way. But, as he is extremely formidable, and is
anxiously avoided by every beast of the forest, he is often obliged
to lie concealed in the ways where animals commonly pass. He lies
squat on his belly among brush-wood, from which he darts with such
force, that he often seizes his prey at the first bound. In the
deserts and forests, antelopes and monkeys are his common food,
though he only takes the latter when upon the ground; for he climbs
not trees like the tiger or the Puma.* He devours
as much as a time [82] as will serve him two
or three days. His teeth are so strong, that he breaks bones with
ease, and swallows them along with the flesh. He is said to support
hunger very long. As his temperament is exceedingly hot, he is
impatient of thirst, and drinks as often as finds water, which he
laps like a dog. The tongue of the dog, when lapping, is bended
upwards; but that of the lion is bended downward, which occasions him
to drink long, and to lose much water. He requires about fifteen
pounds of raw flesh every day. He prefers the flesh of living
animals, especially of those whom he slays himself. He does not
willingly eat putrid carcasses, and chooses rather to hunt for a
fresh prey than to use the remains of a former. Though he commonly
feeds upon fresh meet [sic], his breath is very rank, and the
odour of his urine is insupportable.
The roaring of the lion is so strong, that, when uttered during the
night in the deserts, it resembles, by the repetition of ecchos
[sic], the noise of thunder.+
This roaring is the ordinary voice of the lion; for, when enraged, he
utters a short, and suddnely repeated cry. But the roaring is a
prolonged cry, a kind of a deep-toned grumbling, mixed with a shart
vibrating noise. He roars five or six times in the day, and oftener
before rain.ý When enraged, his
[83] cry is still more terrible than his roaring. He then
beats his sides and the earth with his tail, agitates his mane, moves
the skin of his face and his large eye-brows, shows his dreadful
tusks, and thrusts out his tongue, which is armed with prickles so
hard, that it alone is sufficient to tear the skin and the flesh,
without the assistance of either teeth or claws. His strength lies
more in the head, jaws, and fore-legs, than in the posterior parts of
his body. He sees in the night, like the cats. His sleep is short,
and he is easily awaked. But it is a mistake to say that he sleeps
with his eyes open.
The ordinary pace of the lion is bold, grave, and slow, though always
oblique. His course consists not of equal movements; but is performed
by leaps and bounds; and his motions are so brisk, that he cannot
instantly stop, but generally surpasses his aim. When he leaps on his
prey, he makes a spring of twelve or fifteen feet, falls above the
victim, seizes it with his fore-feet, tears it in pieces with his
claws, and then devours it with his teeth. While young and nimble, he
lives by hunting, and seldom quits the deserts or the forests, where
he finds plenty of wild animals for his subsistence. But, when he
grows old, heavy, and less fit for the exercise of hunting, he
approaches frequented places, and becomes more dangerous to man and
the domestic animals. It has, indeed, been remarked, that,
[84] when he sees men and animals together, he attacks the
latter, and never the former, unless any man strikes him; for, in
this case, he is wonderfully alert in distinguishing the person who
hurts him; and he instantly quits his prety to take vengeance on the
offender. It is alledged, that he prefers the flesh of the camel to
that of all other animals. He is likewise very fond of young
elephants. As they are unable to resist him till their tusks are
grown, he accomplishes his purpose with ease, unless the mother comes
to their assistance. The elephant, the rhinocerros, the tiger, and
the hippopotamus, are the only animals which can resist the fury of
the lion.
This animal, however formidable, is hunted with large dogs, supported
by men on horseback, who dislodge him, and make him retire. But both
the dogs and the horses require to be previously trained; for most
animals tremble and fly from the odour of the lion. His skin, though
of a close and firm texture, resists neither a ball nor a javeline.
He is seldom, however, killed with a single blow. He is often taken,
as we take wolves, by making him fall into a deep pit, covered with
limber materials, and upon which a live animal is tied. The lion
becomes gentle as soon as he is seized; and, if advantage be taken of
the first emotions of his surprise and shame, he may be chained,
muzzled, and conducted at pleasure. [85]
The flesh of the lion has a strong and disagreeable flabour; yet it
is frequently eaten by the Indians and Negroes. The skin, whch was
formerly the robe of heroes, serves those people for a mantle or a
bed. They also preserve the grease, which is of a penetrating nature,
and even of some use in medicine.*[86]
*Cat with a large head; short rounded ears; face
covered with short hairs; upper part of the head, chin, whole neck
and shoulders, with long shaggy hairs, like a mane; hair on the body,
and limbs short and smooth [sic]; along the bottom of the
belly long; limbs of vast strength; tail long, with a tuft of long
hairs at the end; colour twny, but o the belly inclines to white;
length of the largest lion, from nose to tail, above eight feet; the
tail four feet: The lioness or female is less, and wants the mane;
Pennant’s Synops of quad. p. 164.
In Greek, [the word is written in Greek letters that my current
keyboard configuration won’t allow me to display]; in Latin,
Leo; in Italian, Leone; in Spanish, Leon; in
German, Lew; in Swedish Leyon; in French Le
Lion.
Leo; Gesner quad. p. 572. Icon. quad. p. 66.
Ray, Synops. quad. p. 162. Klein. Quad. p. 81
Felis leo, cauda elongata, corpore helvolo; Linn. Syst. p.
60.
Felis cauda in sloccum desinente; Brisson. Regn. anim. p. 267
[back to page 64]
*There is a species of Lynx called the Lion’s
Provider [back to page 65]
*Shaw’s travels [back to page
66]
*L’Afrique de Marmol, tom. 2. p. 213 & la
relation du Voyage de Thevenot, tom. 2. p. 112 [back
to page 68]
+L’Afrique de Marmol, tom. 1. p. 54 [back to
page 68]
*See the article Tiger, where we have metnioned some
animals, to which this name has been improperly applied
[back to page 73]
+A very young lion, dissected by the gentlemen of the Academy, was
seven and a half feet long, from the extremity of the muzzle to the
origin of the tail, and four and a half feet high [back
to page 73].
ýHist anim. ap. 44 [back to page
73].
| Les Mem. de Kolbe, in which he calls this animal the Wolf-tiger
[back to page 73].
*Gesner, hist anim. quad. p. 574 [back
to page 74].
+This mane consists of hair equally soft and smooth as that of the
rest of the body [back to page 74].
*Voyage d l’Amerique Meridionale, p. 24
[back to page 76].
+Le voyage de Fresier a lar mer du sud, p. 132 [back
to page 76].
ýJoseph Acosta, nat. hist. of the Indies [back
to page 76].
*Gesner, hist. quad. p. 575 [back
to page 78].
+Lib. de differ. anim. cap. 80 [back to page
78].
ýIbid. cap. 80 [back to page
78].
*Arist. de Generatione, lib. 3. cap. 3 et 10
[back to page 79].
+Ibid. lib. 4. cap. 6 [back to page
79].
ýHist. Anim. lib. 5. cap. 2. Linn. Syst. p. 60, Leo retro
mingit et coit [back to page 79].
*Mem de Kolbe, tom 3. p. 4 [back to
page 80].
+Gesner, Hist. quad. p. 575 [back to page
80].
ýId. ibid [back to page 80].
*Klein de Quad. p. 82 [back to page
81].
+Voyages de la Boulaye-le Gouz, p. 320 [back
to page 82].
ýThese facts I learned from the Sieur Saint-Martin, master of
the bull-fights, who has kept several lions [back
to page 82].
*See L’ist. Nat. des Animaux, par. Mess. Arnaud
de Nobleville et Salerne, tom. 5. part 2. p. 112 [back
to page 86].