again, from distinct genera; and, what is singular, the female progeny
resembles the motherland the male the father. Another fact to show
the absurdity of querulous arguments drawn by the misinformed from
“ analogy.”
The old and standard authority of Molina, in his Natural Histoiy
of Chili, sustains the recent assertion of Chevreul,40* in the Journal
des Savans, as to the fact that the inhabitants of Chili, for a long time
have been in the habit of crossing goats and sheep expressly with the
view of improving their fleece in a hybrid progeny, whose prolificacy
knows no limits.
C am e l l in e H y b r id s .
Linnaeus, Fischer, Ranzani, H. Smith, Lesson, Dumeril, Desmarest, Desmoulins,
Quatrefages, Bory, Fleming, Cuvier, and all well-read naturalists of the present generation,
regard the camel and dromedary as distinct species, and admit their prolificacy
inter se.v Buffon, in whose day Oriental matters were little known, denied that they
are distinct species, simply on the ground that they are prolific. The Arabian camel
and dromedary, no less than the eamelus bactrianus, are figured on the monuments of
Nineveh, at least 2500 years ago, precisely as we see them now. Our Fig. 15 (supra,
p. 126) exhibits the single-humped species; and the rest are easily verified in the folio
plates of Botta and Flandin, and Layard.
The following is extracted from one of many communications
obligingly made to the authors by their honored friend Col. W. W.
S. B l is s , IT. S. A .; in whose person knowledge the most diversified
and accomplishments of the highest order were combined with that
military science and cool bravery which won universal admiration on
the blood-stained field of Buena, Vista. Alas! his eyes were closed
by the writer’s hands on the 5th of August, 1853.
“ Eversmann, who is known as an investigator of Natural History .in Bochara, remarks
that three different species of camel are found there, all of which copulate together and bring
forth prolific young. *
“ 1- -A-12- is the two-humped bactrian (eamelus bactrianus), with long wool.
“ 2. Nab, is the one-humped camel, which Eversmann calls eamelus dromedarius, hut which is
eamelus vulgarus, the common Arabian camel; for the,dromedary is only a particular breed’
not a particular species.
1 3. Luk is the name given to a camel with one hump, larger than the above, and having
quite crisp, short, dark-brown wool.
“ The copulation of camels, says the above-named naturalist and traveller (Eversmann),
takes place in Bucharei in March and April, and between camels and bactrians, as well as
the third race: its products are again prolific, self-propagating, foals. We might from
this, as Buffon and Zimmermann have already done, infer the unity of genus and mere
varieties of species; but apart from this, the number of humps at least seems to be no
essential indication of species; for, says Eversmann, it cannot be determined beforehand
whether the progeny of such ci-ossing of races will have one or two humps : they are always
bastards, and not of a pure species.” 405
S h r in e H y b r id s .
We dismiss this somewhat obscure theme by merely stating that, according to the
best naturalists, sustained by Dr. Morton’s critical essays, the weight of authority in
favor of plurality of species predominates here also. So it does again, in respect to
Feline Hybrids.
Ca n in e H y b r id s .
No question, perhaps, in natural history has caused more controversy
than that of the origin of domestic dogs. Our highest authorities
have expressed most opposite opinions, and many are the important
points yet at issue. Nevertheless, the last three years have
aceomplished much towards settling sundry pugnacious dilettanti, if
not all scientific disputes. | Some writers have derived all our dogs
from the wolf: thus assigning to Noah’s unaccountable predilections
in behalf of a tame lupine pair (“ species” unrecorded) the present
existence of hyenas, ja,ckals, foxes—laughing, or round-backed; big,
or little; white, black, red, gray, or blue — as well as every kind and
size of dog, from a Muscovite “ muff-dog” to the colossal St. Bernard;
now eaten by Chinamen and Sandwich Islanders; driven by
Esquimaux; kicked by Muslim orthodoxy; whipped in English hunts;
fondled by Parisian dames; abhorred by thieves and vagrants, if loved
by shepherds, sportsmen, wagoners, and hostlers, besides all other
honest men with their prattling children, universally since the Elood.
Others assert that dogs are animals absolutely not descended from
the wolf, and also that they comprise many distinct species, created
in many different zoological regions; whilst others, again, believe
that all living dogs proceed from intermixtures of wolf, fox, jackal,
and hyena — in short, from any canidse, except from c a n e s .
As facts now stand, the opinion of Dr. Morton may probably be
deemed the most correct. His convictions are, that the origin of
domestic dogs is at least threefold: viz. —
1st. From several species of lupine and vulpine animals.
2d. From various species of wild dogs.
3d. From the blending of these together, with perhaps occasional admixture ofj
jackal, under the influence of domestication.
A subject so replete with scientific interest in its general connections with other
departments of natural history, and especially on account of its bearings on the physical
history of man, renders it imperative that facts should here be presented somewhat in
detail; and I shall again interweave without reserve the language of Dr. Morton.
Martin, in his History of the Dog, justly remarked that “ the name wolf is a vague
one, because there are various species of wolves in Europe, Asia, and America; and
further, if each of these species has given rise to a breed of dogs in the different countries
where they are found, then, as all domestic dogs promiscuously breed together,
the advocate of the non-admixture of species is plunged into a dilemma.” 406
M. de Blainville, speaking of the experiments of Buffon on dogs and wolves, adopts
the idea of distinct species for these animals; thereby leaving the inference, that all
dogs are not descendants from one primitive stock. The great naturalist tested the
question as follows:
1st. He brought together a ciir-dog and a she-wolf. The result of' this union was a
litter of four pups — two male, and two female. No difficulty occurred in procuring
this cross.
2d. A male and a female of the first generation were coupled; whence four pups—■
of which two lived to maturity: a male and a female.