As the largest animals are best known, and liable to the fewest uncertainties, we shall, in this enumeration, trace them nearly in the order of their magnitude.
Elephants are peculiar to the Old World; the largest are produced in Asia, and the smallest in Africa. They are natives of the warmest regions; and though they are capable of existing, yet they cannot multiply, in temperate climates. Even in their native country, they propagate not, after being deprived of their liberty. Though entirely confined to the warm regions of the Old Continent, their numbers are considerable. In America, there is not an animal that can be compared to the elephant, either for figure or magnitude.
The same remark applies to the rhinoceros, whose species is much less numerous than that of the elephant. He is peculiar to the deserts of [90] Africa and to the forests of the southern regions of Asia; and no American animal has the smallest resemblance to him.
The hippopotamus inhabits the banks of the large rivers of India and Africa. His species is perhaps still less numerous than that of the rhinoceros; and he is not to be found in America, nor in the temperate climates of the Old World.
The camel and dromedary, who are so common in Asia, in Arabia, and in all the eastern regions of the old Continent, were equally unknown in America as the elephant, the rhinoceros, and the hippopotamus. The appellation of camel has been given to the Lama* and Pacos+ of Peru, though those animals are so different from the camel, that, by some, they have been called sheep, and by others camels of Peru, and though the pacos has nothing in common with our sheep, but the wool, and the lama resembles the camel only by the length of its neck. The Spaniards formerly transported real camels to Peru:3 But the climate of this New World was not favourable to these animals; for, al- [91] though they produced, their numbers never became considerable.
The giraffe,* or camelopard, an animal remarkable for the height of its stature, and the length of its neck and fore-legs, is not to be found in America. It is a native of Africa, particularly Ethiopia, and has never spread beyond the Tropics into the temperate regions of the Old World.
We have seen, in the preceding article, that the lion exists not in America, and that the puma of Peru is an animal of a different species. We shall likewise find, that the tiger and panther are peculiar to the Antient Continent, and that the animals of South America, who have received these names, are different species. The true tiger is a terrible animal, and perhaps more to be dreaded than the lion himself. His ferocity is tremendous; and we may judge of his strength by his size, which is commonly from four to five feet high, by nine, ten, thirteen or fourteen feet long, without comprehending the tail. His skin is not variegated with round spots, but with black bands on a yellow ground, which extend transversely over the whole body, and form rings on his tail from one end to the other. These characters are sufficient to distinguish the tiger from all the carnivorous animals of the New World, the largest of which scarcely exceed the size of our mastiffs or grey-hounds. The leopard and [92] panther of Africa and Asia, are not nearly so large as the tiger, and yet they are much larger than the rapacious animals of South America. Pliny, whose testimony cannot be questioned, as panthers were in his time exposed in great numbers at the public shews of Rome, points out the essential characters of this animal, by telling us, that his hair is whitish, and every where variegated with black spots, resembling eyes:* He adds, that the female differs from the male in nothing but the superior whiteness of her hair. The American animals who have been called tigers, have a greater similarity to the panther: From the latter, however, they differ so much, that it is easy to perceive they belong not to the same species.
The first is the jaguar, jaguara, or janowara, and is a native of Guiana, Brasil, and other regions of South America. Ray, with some plausibility, named this animal the pard,+ or lynx of Brasil. The Portuguese called him once or ança, because they had given that name improperly, first to the lynx, and afterwards to the small panther of India. The French, without reason, have called it a tiger;3 for it has no affinity to that [93] animal. It differs from the panther also in the size of its body, the figure and situation of its spots, the colour and length of its hair, which is crisped when young, and is always rougher than that of the panther. Neither does it resemble this animal in its dispositions and manners; it is more savage, and cannot be tamed. These differences, however, hinder not the jaguar of Brasil from resembling the panther, more than any other animal of the Old World. The second we shall call couguar, by contracting the Brasilian name cuguacu-ara,* pronounced by the natives cougouacou-ara. The French have, with still more impropriety, called this animal the red tiger. It resembles the true tiger in nothing, and differs very much from the panther, having its hair of a red colour, without spots. The form of the head is likewise different, and the muzzle is longer than that of the tiger or panther. A third species, which has also obtained the name of tiger, and is equally removed from that species with the preceding animals, is the jaguarete.+ This animal is nearly of the same size with the jaguar, and resembles him in natural dispositions; but differs from him in some external characters. He has been called the black tiger, because his hair is blackish, intersper- [94] sed with spots still blacker than those of the jaguar. Beside these three species, and perhaps a fourth, commonly called tigers, there is another American animal that has a greater resemblance to the tiger, namely the mountain cat, related both to the cat and panther, and which is more properly marked by this compound appellation, than by its Mexican name, tlacoosclotl.* It is smaller than the jaguar, jaguarete, or couguar, but larger than the wild cat, which it resembles in figure, though its tail is much shorter, and its hair variegated with black spots, which are oblong on the back, and circular on the belly. The jaguar, jaguarete, couguar, and mountain cat, are therefore American animals, which have improperly been named tigers. We have seen the couguar and mountain cat alive, and know them to be very different in species; but they are still more different from that of the tiger and panther. With regard to the puma and jaguar, it is evident, from the descriptions of those who have seen these animals, that he puma is not a lion, nor the jaguar a tiger. Thus we may pronounce with confidence, that the lion, the tiger, and even the panther, are no more to be found in America, than the elephant, the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus, the giraffe, and the camel. All these species require a warm climate for the purposes of propagation; and, having never inhabited nor- [95] thern regions, could not convey themselves into America. This general fact is too important not to be supported by every proof that can be produced: We shall, therefore, continue our comparison of the animals of the Old World with those of the New.
Every body knows that horses, when first transported to America, struck the natives not only with surprise, but with terror; and that these animals have thriven and multiplied as fast in America as in Europe.* The same remark applies to the ass, from which mules have been produced, that are more useful for every kind of carriage than the Lama, particularly in the mountainous parts of Chili [sic] and Peru.
The zebra+ is an animal peculiar to the Old World, and which, perhaps, has never been seen in the New. It seems to be confined to a particular climate, and is found no where but in that part of Africa which extends from the Equator to the Cape of Good Hope.
Horned cattle were found neither in the islands nor on the continent of South America. Soon after the discovery of these countries, bulls and cows were transported from Europe by the Spaniards. In 1550, they, for the first time laboured the ground with oxen in the valley of Cusco.3 These animals multiplied prodigiously on the [96] Continent, as well as in the islands of St Domingo, Cuba, &c.; and even became wild in several places. The species of horned cattle, which we call Bison, found in Mexico, Louisiana,* &c. belongs not to the European race. The bison existed in America before our horned cattle were transported thither. He is so different from the latter, that he may be regarded as constituting a separate species. He has a fleshy protuberance between his shoulders; his hair is softer than wool, longer on the fore-part of his body than the hind, and curled upon the neck and along the spine of the back. It is of a brown colour, obscurely marked with some whitish spots. The bison has, besides, short legs, which, like the head and neck, are covered with long hair. The male has a long tail, terminating in a bush of hair, like that of the lion. Though these distinctions have appeared to me, as well as to all other naturalist, sufficient to constitute the bison and our horned cattle of different species, yet I will not presume to determine this point; because the essential characteristic of animals being of the same species, is the faculty of a regular and uninterrupted propagation of their kinds; and this fact, with regard to the bison and our horned cattle, has never hitherto been subjected to the test of experiment. Mons. De la Nux, counselor of the royal council of the island of Bourbon, has favoured me with a letter, dated 9th October 1759, in which he informs me, that the bison propagates [97] with the common horned cattle; and, it wee to be wished, that persons living in these countries would imitate the example of this gentleman, in making experiments upon animals. It would be easy for the inhabitants of Louisiana to try to make the American bison copulate with the European cow, or the European bull with the female bison. Such commixtures might, perhaps, be fruitful; and, in that case, we would be assured that the European horned cattle, the bunch-backed species of the island of Bourbon, the East-India bull, and American bison, constitute but one species. From the experiments of Mons. De la Nux, it is apparent, that the bunch is not an essential character, because, after some generations, it entirely vanishes. Besides, I have discovered that this bunch or protuberance, which appears on the camel as well as the bison, is a common, but not a permanent character, and ought to be regarded as an accidental variety, depending, perhaps, on the constitution of the body; for I have seen a meager sickly camel which had no vestige of a bunch. The other character of the American bison, namely, long soft hair, appears to be only a difference arising from the influence of climate, in the same manner as we observe its effect on our goats, cats, and rabbits, when compared to those of Angora, which, though very different in regard of their hair, are nevertheless of the same species. Hence it is probable, (especially if the American bison produces with European cows) that our horned cat- [98] tle must formerly have passed from the northern regions contiguous to those of North America, and that, having afterwards spread into the temperate regions of the New World, they assumed with time the impressions of the climate, and became real bisons. But, till this essential character of generation be fully established, we must still conclude, that our cow and bull is a species peculiar to the Antient Continent, and existed not in America till they were transported thither.
America has still less pretensions to the sheep.* These animals were transported from Europe, and have succeeded both in the warm and temperate climates. But, though equally prolific, they are commonly more meagre,+ and their flesh less succulent and tender than that of the European sheep. The climate of Brasil seems to be most favourable to them; for that is the only region of the New World where they become excessively fat.3 Both European and African sheep have been transported to Jamaica,4 and have equally succeeded. These two species belong entirely to the Old Continent.
Neither is the goat a native of America. The numerous flocks now found there have all proceeded from those which were transported. At Brasil, the goat has not multiplied so fast as the sheep.5 When first carried to Peru by the Spa- [99] niards, goats were so rare, that they were sold for 110 ducats a-piece;* but they afterwards became so numerous, that they were sold for little more than the value of the skin. In that country, they produce three, four, and sometimes five kids at a time, while, in Europe, they produce only one or two. The large and small American islands are equally replenished with goats as the Continent. They have even been carried by the Spaniards to the islands of the South Sea; and in the island of Juan Fernandez,+ particularly, they have been extremely fertile. But, as they furnished provisions to the pirates who afterwards infested these seas, the Spaniards resolved to extirpate them from the island; and, for this purpose, left a number of dogs, which having likewise multiplied in their turn, destroyed the goats in every accessible part of the island, and became so ferocious, that they actually attacked men.
The wild boar, the domestic hog, and that of China, which constitute but one species, and multiply so plentifully in Europe and Asia, are not natives of America. The Mexican hog, which has an aperture in its3 back, is the animal in America that approaches nearest to the common species. I have seen it alive, and have attempted, in vain, to make it produce with the [100] European sow. Their characters, besides, are so different, that there is good reason to pronounce them of a different species. The hogs transported from Europe to America have succeeded better, and multiplied faster, than the sheep or goat. The first swine, says Garcilasso,* sold at Peru still dearer than the goats. The flesh of the ox and sheep, according to Piso,+ is not so good at Brasil as in Europe; but the hogs are better, and multiply faster; and Laet remarks,3 that those of St Domingo have also improved so as to exceed those of Europe. In general, it is allowed, that, of all domestic animals transported from Europe to America, the hog has most universally succeeded. In Canada, as well as in Brasil, which includes the coldest and warmest climates of the New World, they produce and multiply, and their flesh is equally good. The goat, on the contrary, has multiplied in the warm or temperate countries only, and cannot support the species in Canada: It is for this reason, that, though numbers of them are brought from Europe, they still continue to be rare in that country. The ass, which multiplies in Brasil, Peru, &c. is unable to multiply in Canada, where neither mules nor asses, though many couples of the latter have been from time to time transported thither, are to be seen. The cold seems to deprive them of that vigour of constitution, that [101] natural ardour, by which, in warm climates, they are so much distinguished from other animals. Horses have multiplied nearly in an equal manner over all the regions of America. They appear to have only diminished in size.* But that is common to them with all the other animals brought from Europe to America; for, in Canada, the ox, the goat, the sheep, the hog, the dog, are smaller than in France; and, what is still more singular, all the native American animals are, in general, much smaller than those of the Old Continent. In this New World, Nature seems to have operated upon a smaller scale: Man alone has been copied after the same model. But, before mentioning the facts which support this observation, we must finish our enumeration.
The hog, as we have seen, is not a native of America, but was transported thither; and he has not only multiplied there in a domestic sate, but has become wild in many places, where he multiplies in the woods, like our wild boars,+ without the aid of man. A species of hogs, different from those of Europe, have likewise been transported from Guiney to Brasil,3 where they have increased. This Guiney hog, which is smaller than the European kind, has long pointed ears, and a tail that almost trails on the ground. It is not covered with bristles, but with short hair, [102] and appears to be a distinct species from that of Europe; for we have never learned from Brasil, where the ardour of the climate favours every kind of propagation, that the two species have intermixed, or even produced mules.
The dog, whose races are so various, and so universally diffused, appear not in America but by a kind of specimens, which it is difficult to compare with the whole species. At St Domingo, there were small animals called gosques, which resembled little dogs. But Garcilasso affirms, that they had no dogs similar to those of Europe. He adds,* that the European dogs, which had been transported to Cuba and St Domingo, and become wild, had diminished the number of cattle, which had also become wild; and that these dogs hunt in packs of ten or twelve, and are equally destructive as the wolves. There are no genuine dogs, says Joseph Acosta,+ in the west Indies, but only animals resembling small dogs, called alcos in Peru, and which attached themselves to their masters, and had nearly the same dispositions with the dog. If Father Charlevoix3 merits credit, who quotes no authority, “the goschis of St Domingo were small dumb dogs, which served for the amusement of the ladies.4 They [103] were also used for hunting other animals by the scent. They made excellent eating,* and were a great supply to the Spaniards when the first famines happened; so that, if great numbers had not afterwards been brought from the continent, the species would have been exhausted. There were several kinds of them; the hair of some was smooth and shining; others had their bodies covered with very soft wool; and the greatest number had only a kind of tender, thin down. The varieties in their colour surpassed even those of our dogs.”
If ever this species of goschis existed, with the qualities ascribed to it by Father Charlevoix, why has it been passed over in silence by other authors? And why do not these animals, which, according to him, were not only spread over the island of St Domingo, but several places of the Continent, no longer subsist? Or, if they do subsist, why have they lost all their beautiful peculiarities? It is probable, that the goschis of Charlevoix, whose name he never met with but in the writings of Father Pers, is the gosques of Garcilasso. Perhaps, likewise, the gosques of St Domingo, and the alco of Peru, are the same animal; and it seems to be certain, that this animal is more allied to the European dog, than any other American quadruped. Some authors have regarded it as the genuine dog. Jean Laet+ says, [104] in express terms, that, upon the discovery of the West Indies, they employed for hunting a kind of small dogs, which were absolutely mute. It was remarked, in the history of the dog,* that, in warm climates, he loses the faculty of barking. But this loss is supplied by a sort of howling; and they are never, like these American animals, perfectly mute. Dogs transported from Europe have thriven almost equally well in the hottest and coldest climates of America, and they are more esteemed by the savages, than any other animal.+ In warm countries, they have lost their voice; in cold regions, their size is diminished; and, almost every where, their ears have become erect. Hence they have degenerated, or rather mounted up to their primitive race, which is that of the shepherd’s dog, which has erect ears, and barks less than any other kind. Dogs may, therefore, be regarded as belonging solely to the Old Continent, where their nature and talents are unfolded only in the temperate regions, and where they seem to have been variegated and brought to perfection by the care of man; for, in all uncivilized and very hot, or very cold countries, they are equally small, ugly, and almost mute.
The Hyaena,+ which is of the size of the wolf, was known to the antients. It is remark- [105] able for an orifice and glands, situated as in the badger, between the anus and tail, from which proceeds a strong fetid odour. He is likewise remarkable for his strong mane, which runs along the neck and shoulders, for an enormous voracity, which incites him to dig up bodies from the graves, and devour the most putrid flesh, &c. This horrible creature is found only in Arabia, and other southern provinces of Asia. It exists not either in Europe or in the New World.
The Jackall, which, of all animals, makes the nearest approach to the dog, though he differs in essential characters, is very common in Armenia and Turkey, and is likewise found in several other provinces of Asia and Africa:* But he is an absolute stranger in America. He is remarkable for the colour of his hair, which is a brilliant yellow: He is about the size of a fox; and, though the species is very numerous, it has never reached Europe, nor even the north of Asia.
The Genet,+ which is a native of Spain, would never have passed undiscovered, if it had existed in the New World. But, as no American historians or travellers make any mention of him, he must be considered as peculiar to the Old Continent. He inhabits the southern parts of Europe, and those of Asia under the same latitude. [106] [PLATE CVII here] [PLATE CVIII here]
Though the civet has been said to be found in New Spain; yet it seems not to be the civet of Africa and the Indies; from which we derive the musk, and which is mixed and prepared with that of the animal called hiam in China; for we consider the true civet to be an animal peculiar to the southern regions of the Old Continent, which has never reached the northern provinces, and could not pass over to the New.
Cats as well as dogs were entire strangers to America; and, though I have quoted a passage, from which it appears that a person in the train of Christopher Columbus killed a wild cat in those new regions;* yet I am persuaded that these animals had then no existence there. I was not, at that time, equally skilled in the many abuses made of names; and I acknowledge, that I am not yet so well acquainted with animals, as to distinguish them clearly in the false or misapplied appellations given them by travellers. Neither is this surprising, since our nomenclators, whose researches have been entoirely directed to this point of view, instead have increased the confusion, by other names and phrases adapted to their arbitrary arrangements, which are always more deceitful than actual inspection. The natural propensity of comparing objects, which we see for the first time, to those already known, [107] joined to the almost insuperable difficulty of pronouncing American names, are the two causes of this misapplication of terms, which has been productive of so many errors. It is easier, for example, to call a new animal a wild boar,* or a black hog, than to pronounce his American name, quauh-coyamelt; to call another an American fox,+ than to preserve his Brasilian name tamandua-guaca; to call those animals Peruvian sheep or camels, which, in the language of the natives, are denominated pelou jehialt-oquitli.3 In the same manner, the cabiai, cabionara, or capybara, is called the water-hog,4 though it be an animal very different from the hog; and the cariguebeju is called an otter. The same confusion has been introduced into almost all the animals of the New World, whose names were so strange and barbarous to the Europeans, that they endeavoured to bestow others upon them derived from resemblances, sometimes happily imagined, with the animals of the Old Continent, but often borrowed from relations too remote to justify such denominations. Five or six species of small animals were regarded as hares, for no other [108] reason, but because, like the latter, their flesh was very good. An animal without horns, was called a cow, or an elk, which the Americans denominated tapiierete at Brasil, manipouris at Guiana, and it was called anta by the Portuguese, though it had no other relation to the cow or elk than a slight resemblance in the form of the body. Some others compared the pak or paca to the rabbit, and others to a hog of two months old:* Some considered the opossum as a rat, and called it the wood-rat; and others took it for a small fox.+ But it is unnecessary here to expose, at greater length, the false denominations bestowed by travellers, historians, and nomenclators, upon the American animals; because I shall endeavour, in a subsequent part of this discourse, to point them out and correct them.
We have seen, that all our domestic animals, and the largest species of the wild animals of Africa and Asia, had no original existence in the New World. Several species likewise, of less consideration, belong not to America, which we shall enumerate as succinctly as possible.
The antelopes, whose species are numerous, and of which some inhabit Arabia, others Africa, and others the East Indies, require a warm climate for subsisting and multiplying. They [109] never stretched into the northern parts of Europe, so as to enable them to pass over to America. Hence these African and Asiatic species were not found in the New World. The Barbary antelope seems indeed to have been transported thither, and Hernandes calls it algazel* ex Aphrica. The animal of New Spain, called by the same author temamaçame, by Seba cervus, by Klein tragulus, and by Brisson, the antelope of New Spain, appears to be a different species from all the antelopes of the Old Continent.
It is natural to imagine, that the chamois goat, which delights in the Alpine snows, would not avoid the frozen regions of the north, and might, therefore, have passed over to America; yet it is not to be found there. This animal seems not to affect a peculiar climate, but a particular situation. He is fond of the summits of the Alps, Pyrennees [sic], &c.; and, instead of spreading farther, has never descended to the plains at the foot of those mountains. This is not the only animal which dwells perpetually in the same climate and situation. The marmot, the wild goat, the bear, and the lynx, are also mountain animals, and rarely appear in the plains.
The buffalo, which is a native of warm climates, has been rendered domestic in Italy, resembles the American bison less than the ox, and is not found in the New Continent. [110]
The wild goat inhabits the tops of the highest mountains of Europe and Asia; but was never seen on the Corderliers.
The musk animal,* which is nearly of the size of a fallow deer, inhabits only particular provinces of China, and of the eastern parts of Tartary. The royal antelope, known by the name of the small stag of Guiney,+ appears to be confined to certain provinces of Africa, the East Indies, &c.
The rabbit, which came originally from Spain, and is now diffused over all the temperate climates of Europe, existed not in America; for the animals called by that name belong to a different species; and all the genuine rabbits in America were transported thither from Europe.3
The ferrets, which were brought from Africa into Europe, where they cannot subsist without the care of man, were not found in America. Even our rats and mice were unknown in that continent. But they were transported in our ships,4 and are now prodigiously numerous in all the cultivated countries of the New World.
The following is a pretty exact list of the animals peculiar to the Old Continent, and which had no existence in America previous to its intercourse with Europe: The elephant, the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus, the camelopard, the [111] camel, the dromedary, the lion, the tiger, the panther, the horse, the ass, the zebra, the ox, the buffalo, the sheep, the goat, the hog, the dog, the hyaena, the jackal, the genet, the civet, the cat, the antelope, the chamois goat, the wild goat, the small Guiney stag, the rabbit, the ferret, the rat, the mouse, the fat squirrel, the garden squirrel, the marmot, the ichneumon, the badger, the sable, the stoat or ermine, the jerboa, the maki, and several species of monkeys, &c. All these animals are peculiar to the Old Continent, as shall be shown, when we give the history of each. [112]
[Note: The text for “Animals Peculiar to the New World” continues immediately after this paragraph. I separated the articles to make the file sizes a bit more manageable].
* Camelus glama, corpore laevi, topho pectorali; Linn. Syst. p. 91. Camelus pilis brevissimus vesticus; Brisson. Regn. anim. p. 56. Ovis Peruana; Marcg. Hist. Brasil. p. 243.
+Camelus Pacos, tophis nullis, corpore lanato; Linn. Syst. p. 91. Camelus pilis prolixis toto corpore vestitus; Brisson. regn. anim. p. 57. Ovis Peruana pacos dicta; Marcg. Hist. Brasil. p. 244.
3. See Hist. nat. des Indes par Jos. Acosta, p. 44-208. l’Hist. des Incas tom. 2. p. 266 [back to page 91].
*Giraffa quam Arabes Zurnapa, Graeci et Latini Camelopardalin nominant; Bellon, Obs. p. 118 [back to page 92].
*Pantheris in candido breves macularum oculi varias... et pardos, qui mares sunt appellant in eo omni genere creberrimo in Africa Syriaque, quidam ab iis Pantheras candore solo discernunt, nec adhuc aliam differentiam inveni; Plin. Hist. Nat. lib. 8. cap. 17.
+Pardus an Lynx Brasiliensis, jaguara dicta; Maregrav. Ray. Synops. quad. p. 166.
3. Gros tigre de la Guiane; Desmarchais, tom. 3. p. 299. Le Tigre d’Amerique; Brisson. Regn. anim. p. 270 [back to page 93].
*Cuguacu-ara; Pison. Hist. Nat. Ind. p. 104. Le Tigre rouge; Barrere. hist. Fr. equin. p. 165; Brisson, Regn. anim. p. 272.
+Jaguarete; Pison. Hist. Nat. Ind. p. 103. Once, a species of tiger; Desmarchais, tom. 3. p. 300. The black tiger; Brisson, Regn. anim. p. 271 [back to page 94].
* Hernandez Hist. Mex. P. 512. Chat-pard; Hist. l’Acad. des sciences, tom. 3. part. 1. p. 109; Brisson, Regn. anim. p. 273 [back to page 95].
* Hist. gen. des Antoilles, par Tertre, tom. 2. p. 289.
+ Zebra; Ray, Synops. quad. p. 69. Edwards, p. 27. Brisson. Regn. anim. p. 101. Asne Sauvage; Kolbe, tom. 3. p. 22.
3. Hist. des Incas, tom. 2. p. 266 [back to page 96].
* Hist. de Nouoveau Monde, par Jean Laet, liv. 10. ch. 4 [back to page 97].
* Hist. des Incas, tom .2. p. 322.
+ Pison. Marcgrav.
3. Hist. de Nouv. Monde, par Jean Laet, liv. 15. chapt. 15.
4. Ovis Guineesis sue Angolensis; Marcgrav. lib. 6. cap. 10. Ray. Synops. quad. p. 75. Sloane’s hist. of Jamaica.
5. Hist. de Nouv. Monde, lib. 15. chap. 15 [back to page 99].
* Hist. des Incas, tom. 2. p. 322.
+ Anson’s voyage.
3. Tajacu; Pison. Ind. p. 98.—Tajacu, aper Mexicanus moschiferus; Ray, Synops. quad. p. 97.—Le Sanglier du Mexique; Brisson, Regn. anim. p. 111 [back to page 100].
* Hist. des Incas, tom. 2. p. 266.
+ Pison. hist. nat. Brasil.
3. L’Hist de nouveau monde, par Jean Laet, chap. 4. p. 5 [back to page 101].
* Sir Hans Sloane’s hist. of Jamaica.
+ L’Hist. nat. des Indes, par Joseph Acosta, p. 44.
3. Pison. hist. nat. Brasil [back to page 102].
* L’Hist. des Incas, tom. 2. p. 322.
+ L’Hist. nat. des Indes, p. 46. l’Hist. du Nouveau Monde, par Jean Laet, lib. 10. chap. 5.
3. L’Hist. de l’isle Saint Domingue, par le Pere Charlevoix, tom.1. p. 35.
4. Were there any ladies in St Domingo when it was discovered? [back to page 103].
* The flesh of the dog is by no means good for eating.
+ L’Hist. du Nouveau Monde, par Jean Laet, lib. 15. chap. 15 [back to page 104].
* See vol. 4. art. Dog.
+ L’Hist. du Noveau Monde, par Jean Laet, liv. 15. chap. 15. p. 513.
3. Hyaena Aristotelis; Hist. anim.—Dabuch Arabum; Charleton Exer. p. 15 [back to page 105].
* See the art. Jackal.
+ See the art. Genet [back to page 106].
* See vol. 4. art. Cat [back to page 107].
* See le voyage de Desmarchias, tom. 3. p. 112.; l’Essai sur l’hist. nat. de la France equionoctiale, par Barrer; l’hist. de Mexique par Hernandes, p. 637.; l’hist. de la Nouvelle Espangne, par Fernandes, p. 8.
+ Desmarchais, tom. 3. p. 307.
3. Hernandex, hist. du Mexique, p. 660.
4. Desmarchias, tom .3. p. 314 [back to page 108].
* L’Hist. du Nouveau Monde, par Jean Laet, p. 484.
+ Klein de quad. p. 59. Barrere, hist. de la France equinoxiale, p. 166 [back to page 109].
* Hernandes, hist. du Mexique, p. 512 [back to page 110].
* Hiam, animal musci; Boym. Flor. Sinen.—Animal moschiferum; Ray, Synops. quad. p. 127.
+ Chevrotain; Brisson. Regn. animal. p. 95.
3. L’Hist. des Incas, tom. 2. p. 322.
4. Id. ibid. [back to page 111].