The animals of the New World were equally unknown to the Europeans, as ours were to the natives of America.  In the New Continent, the only half-civilized people were the Peruvians and Mexicans.  The latter had no domestic animals; but the former had reduced to slavery the lama, the pacos, and the alco, a small creature resembling a little dog.  The pacos and the lama, to which Fernandes gives the name of peruich-catl,* or Peruvian cattle, like the chamois goat, [112] frequent only the highest mountains, as those of Peru, Chili [sic], and New Spain. Though they had become domestic in Peru, and, of course, had been spread over the adjacent countries; yet, instead of multiplying in the place of the nativity, their number has diminished since the European cattle, which have succeeded wonderfully in all the southern regions of America, were transported thither.

            It is singular, that, in a world almost totally occupied by savages, whose manners approached to those of the brute creation, there should have been no society or correspondence between these savage men and the animals which surrounded them; for no domestic animals appear, without some degree of civilization.  Does it not follow, that man, in the savage state, is only a species of animal, incapable of governing others, and, possessing only his individual faculties, employs them for procuring subsistence, and providing for his safety, by attacking the weak, and avoiding the strong animals, without any desire of reducing them to subordination?  In every nation, though only half-civilized, we meet with domestic animals.  In France, the horse, the ass, the ox, the sheep, the goat, the hog, the dog, and the cat; in Italy, the buffalo; in Lapland, the rain-deer [sic]; in Peru, the lama, the pacos, and the alco; in the eastern countries, the dromedary, the camel, other species of the ox, the sheep, and the goat; in the southern regions, the [113] elephant; all these have been reduced to servitude, or rather admitted into society; while the savage, who hardly wishes for the society of his female, either fears or disdains that of other animals.  It is true, none of the species we have rendered domestic, existed in America.  But, if the savages with whom it was peopled had antiently united, and diffused the mutual knowledge and resources of society, they would have subjugated almost all the animals of that country, most of them being of gentle, tractable, and timid dispositions, very few ferocious, and none formidable.  Hence these animals have avoided the slavery of a domestic state neither  by the fierceness of their nature, nor the indocility of their tempers.  Their liberty has resulted solely from the weakness of man, whose powers are extremely circumscribed without the aid of society, upon which even the multiplication of his species depends.  The immense territories of the New World contained not, upon its first discovery, a greater number of inhabitants than what are to be found in one half of Europe.  This scarcity of the human species allowed the other animals to multiply prodigiously.  They had fewer enemies and more space:  Every circumstance was favourable to their increase; and each species, accordingly, consisted of a vast number of individuals.  But the number of the species, when compared with those of the Old Continent, was not above one fourth, or one third.  [114]  If we reckon that 200 species of quadrupeds exist in the whole known quarters of the globe,* we shall find above 130 of them in the Old Continent, and less than 70 in the New; and, if we subtract the species common to both Continents, or those which, by their constitution, were able to endure the rigours of the North, and passed by land from the one Continent to the other, the New World cannot claim above 40 native species.  In America, therefore, animated Nature is weaker, less active, and more circumscribed in the variety of her productions; for we perceive, from the enumeration of the American animals, that the numbers of species is not only fewer, but that, in general, all the animals are much smaller than those of the Old Continent.  No American animal can be compared with the elephant, the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus, the dromedary, the camelopard, the buffalo, the lion, the tiger, &c.  The tapir or tapiierette⁺ of Brasil, is the largest quadruped of South America.  This animal, the elephant of the New World, exceeds not the size of a calf of six months old, or of a very small mule; for he has been compared to both of these animals, though he has [115] no resemblance to them, having neither a whole nor a cloven hoof, but feet irregularly digitated, namely, four toes on the fore-feet, and three on the hind-feet.  His body is shaped nearly like that of the hog.  His head, however, is proportionally larger:  He has no tusks or canine teeth; and the upper lip is very long and moveable at pleasure.  The lama is not so large as the tapir, and he only appears to be large by length of his neck and legs.  The pacos is still a much smaller animal.

            The cabiai,* which, next to the tapir, is the largest animal of south America, exceeds not the size of an ordinary hog.  He differs as much as any of the former from all the animals of the Old Continent; for, though he has been called the marsh or river hog,⁺ he differs from that animal by conspicuous and essential characters.  He is digitated, having, like the tapir, four toes on the fore-feet and three on the hind-feet.  His eyes are large, his muzzle gross and obtuse, his ears small, his hair short, and he has no tail.

            The tajacou³ is smaller than the cabiai, and has a greater resemblance to the hog, from which he differs much in the structure of his internal parts, as in the form of the stomach and lungs, [116] &c.  He has also an open gland on the lower part of his back, which discharges a fetid liquor.  He is, therefore, a different species from that of the hog; and neither the tajacou, the cabiai, nor the tapir, are fount in any part of the Old Continent.  The same thing may be said of the tamandua-guacu or ouariri,* and of the auatiriou,⁺ which we have called ant-eaters.  These animals, the largest of which is below mediocrity, seem to be peculiar to South America.  Their structure is very singular:  They have no teeth; their tongue is long and cylindrical, like that of the birds called woodpeckers; the opening of the mouth is so small, that they can neither bite nor hardly lay hold of any thing; but extend their long tongue, and, putting it in the way of the ants, retract it when loaded with these insects, which is the only method they have of procuring nourishment.

            The sloth,³ which the natives of Brasil call ai or hai, on account of the plaintive cry ai, which it perpetually utters, seems likewise to be peculiar to the New Continent.  He is still smaller than any of the former, being only about two feet long.  He is remarkable for walking slower than the turtle, for having three toes both [117] on the fore and hind-feet, the fore-legs much longer than the hind ones, a very short tail, and no external ears.  Besides, the sloth and the armadillo are the only quadrupeds which have no cutting or canine teeth, but only cylindrical grinders rounded at the extremities, nearly like those of some of the cetaceous animals.

            The cariacou of Guiana is an animal of the nature and size of our largest roebucks.  The male has horns which fall off annually, and the female has none.  At Cayenne, he is called the wood-hind.  There is another species, called the little cariacou, or marsh-hind, which is considerably smaller than the former, and the male has no horns.  From the resemblance of the name, I suspected that the cariacou of Cayenne might be the cuguacu,* or cougouacou-apara of Brasil; and, having compared the descriptions given by Piso and Marcgrave of the cougouacou, with the characters of the cariacou, which I had alive, it appeared to be the same animal, but, at the same time, so different from our roebuck, that it ought to be regarded as a distinct species.

            The tapir, the cabiai, the tajacou, the anteater, the sloth, the cariacou, the lama, the pacos, the bison, the puma, the jaguar, the couguar, the jaguarète, the mountain-cat, &c. are the largest animals of the New Continent.  The [118] middle sized and smaller kinds are the gouandous,* or cuandus, the agoutis, the coatis, the pacos,⁺ the opossum,³ the Indian hogs, the cavies,⁴ and the armadillos,⁵ which, I believe, are all peculiar to America, though our latest nomenclators mention a species of armadillo in the East-Indies, and another in Africa.  For the existence of these, we have only the testimony of the describer of the cabinet of Seba, which is not an authority that merits credit; for errors arising from the names of countries are very common in collections of natural objects.  An animal is purchased under the name of the Ternate, or American bat, another under that of the East-India armadillo.  They are immediately announced under these appellations in the description of this collection, and are adopted into the lists of our nomenclators.  But, when examined more closely, these Ternate, or American bats, are found to be [119] French bats,* and the Indian or African armadillos may likewise belong to America.

            We have not hitherto mentioned the ape tribes, because their history demands a particular discussion.  The word ape is a generic name applied to a great number of species; it is not, therefore, surprising, that many of them are said to be found in the southern regions of both Continents.  But, we must now inquire whether the apes of Asia and Africa, are the same with the American animals to which that name has been applied, and whether, out of more than thirty species, which we have examined alive, there be a single one of them common to both Continents.

            The satyr,⁺ or man of the wood, whose figure differs less from that of a man than of an ape, is peculiar to Africa and the South of Asia, and exists not in America.

            The gibbon,³ whose fore-legs, or hands, are as long as the whole body, including the hind-legs, is found in the East-Indies, but not in America.  These two apes have no tales [sic].  [120]

            The ape,* properly so called, whose hair is of a greenish colour, mixed with a little yellow, and has no tail, is a native of Africa, and some other parts of the Old Continent, but not of the New.  The same thing may be said of the cynocephali, or dog-headed apes, of which there are two or three species.  Their muzzle is not so short as that of the former; but they have no tail, or it is so short as scarcely to be visible.  All the apes which have no tail, particularly those with short muzzles, and whose face, of course, greatly resembles that of man, are the genuine apes; and the five or six species we have mentioned are all natives of the warm climates of the Old Continent, and are found in no part of the New.  Hence we are authorised to affirm, that there are no true apes in America. 

            The baboon,⁺ an animal larger than a dog, and whose body is contracted like that of the hyaena, is very different from the apes formerly mentioned.  His tail is very short, and always erect; his muzzle is long, and broad at the extremity; his buttocks are naked, and of a blood colour; his legs are very short, and his nails strong and sharp.  This animal, which has great strength, and is very mischievous, is found only [121] in the southern deserts of the Old Continent, and not in America.

            Hence all the apes which have no tails, and all those whose tails are remarkably short, belong solely to the Old Continent; and, of those with long tails, almost all the large kinds are found in Africa.  There are a few middle size in America; but the animals, called little monkeys with long tails, are very numerous in the New World.  These little monkeys are the sapajous,* the sagouins,⁺ the tamarins, &c. When we give the particular history of these animals, it shall be shown that all the American monkeys are different from those of Africa and Asia.   

            The makis,³ of which we know three or four species, or varieties, make a near approach to the monkeys with long tails, having, like them, hands, but longer and sharper muzzles, and are also peculiar to the Old Continent.  Thus all the animals of Africa and the south of Asia, which have received the names of apes or monkeys, are no more to be found in America than the elephant, rhinoceros, or tiger.

            The more minutely we inquire into this subject, we will be the more convinced that the animals of the southern regions of the one Continent existed not in the other, and that the few [122] which are now found there, were transported by man, as the Guiney sheep, which has been carried to Brasil; the Guiney-pig, which was brought from Brasil into Guiney, and perhaps, some other small animals, the transportation of which was facilitated by the commerce and small distance of these two parts of the globe.  Between the coast of Guiney and that of Brasil, there are about 500 leagues of sea; and there are more than 2000 between the coast of Peru and the East-Indies.  All those animals which, from their nature, cannot endure cold climates, and even those which, though they could subsist, cannot produce in such climates, are confined, on two or three sides, by seas, which they are unable to traverse, and, on the other, by countries so cold, that they cannot live in them.  Hence we ought not to wonder at this general fact, which at first appeared singular, and was never before so much as suspected, namely, that none of the animals which are natives of the Torrid Zone of the one Continent, are to be found in the other. [123] 

[Note:  The text for “Animals common to both continents” continues immediately after this paragraph.  I separated the articles to make the file sizes a bit more manageable].

*  Peruich-catl; Fernandes, Hist. Nov. Hisp. p. 11.  Camelus Peruanus glama dictus; Ray, Synops. quad. p. 145.  Camelus, feu camelo-congerer Peruvianum, langierum, pacos dictum; Id. ibid p. 147 [back to page 112].

*  Linnaeus, in his last edition, enumerates only 179, and Brisson 260:  But more than 60 of these should be retrenched, being only varieties, and not distinct species.

*  Tapiierete Brasiliensibus; Pison. Hist. Nat. p. 101.  Marcgravii Hist. Brasil, p. 229.  Maypoury, Maniporuis; Barrere.  Hist. Franc. Equin. p. 161.  Le Tapir ou Manipouris; Brisson. Regn. anim. p. 119.—It is named anta by the Portuguese [Note, in the body of the text, the printer uses the normal “+” sign to designate this note, but the note itself as it appears on the bottom of the page is marked using the asterisk sign.  Back to page 115].

*  Capybara Brasiliensibus; Marcgravii Hist. Brasil, p. 230.

+  Sus maximus palustris; Barrere, Hist. Fr. equin. p. 160.  Cochon d’eau; Voyages de Desmarchias, tom. 3. p. 314.

3.  Tajacu; Pison. Hist. Nat. p. 98.  Tajacu, Caaigoara Brasiliensibus; Marcgr. Hist. Brasil p. 229.  Coyametl; Fernandes, Hist. Nov. Hips. p. 8 [back to page 116].

*  Tamandua-guacu, sive major; Pison. Hist. Nat. p. 320.  Le Fourmiller-tamanoir; Brisson, Regn. animal. p. 24.

+  Tamandua minor flavescens, ouatiriouaou; Barrere, Hist. Fr. equin. p. 163.

3.  Ai ou pareffeux; Desmarchias, tom .3. p. 300.  Ouaikaré; Barrere, Hist. Fr. equin. p. 154 [back to page 117].

*  Cuguacu-ete, Cuguacu-apara; Pison. hist. nat. p. 97.  Marcgrav. hist. Brasil. p. 235.  Biche des Paletuviers, Biche des bois; Barr. Hist. Fr. équin. p. 151 [back to page 118].

*  Cuandu Brasiliensibus; Pison. hist. nat. p. 99.  Marcgrav. hist. Brasil. p. 233.  Gouandou; Barr. Hist. Fr. équin. p. 153.  Chat epineux; Desmarchias, tom. 3. p. 303.  Le porc-epic d’Amerique; Brisson. Regn. anim. p. 129.

+  Paca; Pison. hist. nat. p. 101.  Paca Brasiliensibus; Marcgr. hist. Brasil. p. 224.  Ourana, Pak; Barrére, hist. Fr. équin. p. 152.

3.  Carigueya Brasiliensibu; Marcgrav. hist. Brasil. p. 222.  Opossum; Jean Laet, p. 82.  Le philandre; Brisson. Regn. anim. p. 286.

4.  Aperea Brasiliensibus; Marcgrav. hist. Brasil. p. 223.  Le lapin du Brasil; Brisson. regn. anim. p. 149.

5.  Tatou, Armadillo, Ayotochtli; Hernandes, hist. Mex. p. 314 [back to page 119]. 

*  See vol. 4. of this history, art. BAT.  Seba, vol. 1. p. 47. where the figure of the African armadillo is represented, and p. 62. where that of the Indian armadillo is given.

+  Satyrus Indicus, Ourang-outang Indis, et Homo sylvestris dictus; Charleton, Exer. p. 16.  L’homme de bois; Brisson, Regn. animal. p. 189.

3.  This ape, which we have seen alive, and which was brought from Pondicherry to M. Dupleix, is not mentioned by any nomenclator [back to page 120].

*  Simia Simpliciter dicta; Ray, synops. quad. p. 149.

+  Papio; Ray, synops. quad. p. 158.  Babio; Charleton, Exer. p. 16. Cebus-papio, Baboon, Hyaena Gesneri; Klein. quad. p. 89.  Babuin; Mem. de Klobe, tom. 3. p. 55.  Brisson. Regn. anim. p. 192 [back to page 121].

*  Monkeys with prehensile tails.

+  Monkeys with straight, but not prehensile tails.

3.  Maucauco’s.  Simioa sciurus lanuginosus, fuscus, &c. Gazophil. Petiver. tab. 17. fig. 5.  Prosimia fusca, le maki; Brisson, Regn. anim. quad. p. 220 [back to page 122]