We have already made some general observations on the _genus canis_, whose natural history is most closely allied to that of man. Let us now inquire whether the domestic dog is but one species, or whether under this head have been included many proximate species of unlimited prolificacy. If we try the question by _permanency of type_, like the races of men, and all well-marked species, the doubt must be yielded.
There are strong reasons given by Dr. Morton and other naturalists, for supposing that our common dogs, independent of mixtures of _their_ various races, may also have an infusion of the blood of foxes, wolves, jackals, and even the hyena; thus forming, as we see every day around us, _curs_ of every possible grade; but setting aside all this, we have abundant evidence to show that each zoological province has its original dog, and, perhaps, not unfrequently several.
In one chapter on hybridity in the "_Types of Mankind_," it is shown that our Indian dogs in America present several well-marked types, unlike any in the Old World, and which are indigenous to the soil. For example, the Esquimaux dog, the Hare Indian dog, the North American dog, and several others. We have not s.p.a.ce here to enter fully into the facts, but they will be found at length in the work above mentioned.
These dogs, too, are clearly traced to wild species of this continent.
In other parts of the world we find other species equally well marked, but we shall content ourselves with the facts drawn from the ancient monuments of Egypt. It is no longer a matter of dispute that as far back, at least, as the twelfth dynasty, about 2300 years before Christ, we find the common small dog of Egypt, the greyhound, the staghound, the turnspit, and several other types which do not correspond with any dogs that can now be identified.[210] We find, also, the mastiff admirably portrayed on the monuments of Babylon, which dog was first brought from the East to Greece by Alexander the Great, 300 years B. C. The museums of natural history, also, everywhere abound in the remains of _fossil_ dogs, which long antedate all living species.
The wolf, jackal, and hyena are also found distinctly drawn on the early monuments of Egypt, and a greyhound, exactly like the English greyhound, with semi-pendent ears, is seen on a statue in the Vatican, at Rome. It is clear, then, that the leading types of dogs of the present day (and probably all) existed more than four thousand years ago, and it is equally certain that the type of a dog, when kept pure, will endure in opposite climates for ages. Our staghounds, greyhounds, mastiffs, turnspits, pointers, terriers, &c., are bred for centuries, not only in Egypt and Europe without losing their types, but in any climate which does not destroy them. No one denies that climate influences these animals greatly, but the greyhound, staghound, or bulldog can never be transformed into each other.
The facts above stated cannot be questioned, and it is admitted that these species are all prolific without limit _inter se_.
The llama affords another strong argument in favor of the fourth degree of hybridity. Cuvier admits but two species--the llama (_camelus llacma_), of which he regards the _alpaca_ as a variety, and the vigogne (_camelus vicunna_). More recent naturalists regard the alpaca as a distinct species, among whom is M. Geoffroy St. Hilaire.[211] At all events, it seems settled that they _all_ breed together without limit.
"A son tour, apres la vigogne, viendra bientot l"alpavigogne, fruit du crois.e.m.e.nt de l"alpaca avec la vigogne. Don Francisco de Theran, il ya quarante ans, et M. de Castelnau, avaient annonce deja que ce metis est fecond, et qu"il porte une laine presque aussi longue que celle de l"alpaca, presque aussi fine que celle de la vigogne.... M. Weddell a mis tout recemment l"Academie des Sciences a meme de voir et d"admirer cette admirable toison. Il a confirme en meme temps un fait que n"avait trouve que des incredules parmi les naturalists--la fecondite de l"alpaca-vigogne: l"abbe Cabrera, cure de la pet.i.te ville de Macusani, a obtenu une race qui se perpetue et dont il possede deja tout un troupeau. C"est, donc, pour ainsi dire, une nouvelle espece creee par l"homme; et si paradoxal qu" ait pu sembler ce resultat, il est, fort heureus.e.m.e.nt pour l"industrie, _definitivement acquis a la science_.
"Ce resultat n"aurait rien de paradoxal, si l"alpaca n"etait, comme l"ont pense plusieurs auteurs, qu"une race domestique et tres modifiee de la vigogne. Cette objection contre le pretendu principe de l"infecondite des mulets ne serait d"ailleurs levee que pour faire place a une autre; _l"alpa-llama_ serait alors un mulet, issu de deux especes distincts, et l"alpa-llama est fecond comme l"alpa-vigogne."[212]
We have recently seen exhibited in Mobile a beautiful hybrid of the alpaca and common sheep, and the owner informed us that he had a flock at home, which breed perfectly.
Dr. Bachman confesses that he has not examined the drawings given in the works of Lepsius, Champollion, Rossellini, and other Egyptologists, of various animals represented on the monuments, and ridicules the idea of their being received as authority in matters of natural history.
Although many of the drawings are rudely done, most of them, in outline, are beautifully executed, and Dr. B. is the first, so far as we know, to call the fact in question. Dr. Chas. Pickering is received by Dr. B. as high authority in scientific matters--he has not only examined these drawings, but their originals. Lepsius, Champollion, Rossellini, Wilkinson, and all the Egyptologists, have borne witness to the reliability of these drawings, and have enumerated hundreds of animals and plants which are perfectly identified.
Martin, the author of the work on "_Man and Monkeys_," is certainly good authority. He says:--
"Now we have in modern Egypt and Arabia, and also in Persia, varieties of greyhound closely resembling those of the ancient remains of art, and it would appear that two or three varieties exist--one smooth, another long haired, and another smooth with long-haired ears, resembling those of the spaniel. In Persia, the greyhound, to judge from specimens we have seen, is silk-haired, with a fringed tail. They are of a black color; but a fine breed, we are informed, is of a slate or ash color, as are some of the smooth-haired greyhounds depicted in the Egyptian paintings. In Arabia, a large, rough, powerful race exists; and about Akaba, according to Laborde, a breed of slender form, fleet, with a long tail, very hairy, in the form of a brush, with the ears erect and pointed, closely resembling, in fact, many of those figured by the ancient Egyptians."[213]
He goes on to quote Col. Sykes, and others, for other varieties of greyhound in the east, unlike any in Europe.
Dr. Pickering, after enumerating various objects identified on the monuments of the third and fourth dynasties, as Nubians, white races, the ostrich, ibis, jackal, antelope, hedgehog, goose, fowls, ducks, bullock, donkey, goats, dog-faced ape, hyena, porcupine, wolves, foxes, &c. &c., when he comes down to the twelfth dynasty, says:--
"The paintings on the walls represent a vast variety of subjects; including, most unexpectedly, the greater part of the _arts_ and _trades_ practised among civilized nations at the present day; also birds, quadrupeds, fishes, and insects, amounting to an _extended treatise on zoology_, well deserving the attention of naturalists. The date accompanying these representations has been astronomically determined by Biot, at about B. C. 2200 (Champollion-Figeac, _Egyp. Arc._); and Lepsius"s chronological computation corresponds."[214]
Dr. P. gives us a fauna and flora of Egypt, running further back than Usher"s date for the creation, and it cannot be doubted that the drawings are as reliable as those in any modern work on natural history.
FOOTNOTES:
[198] Natural History of Man and Monkeys.
[199] Fauna and Flora within Living Animals, p. 9.
[200] Doctrine of the Unity of the Human Race, p. 10.
[201] We are told that the pigs in one department of France are all black, in another, all white, and local causes are a.s.signed! When I was a boy, my father introduced what was then called the China hog into the Union District, South Carolina; they were black, with white faces. On a visit to that district about twelve years ago, I found the whole country for 40 miles covered with them. On a visit one year ago, I found they had been supplanted entirely by other breeds of different colors: the old familiar type had disappeared.
[202] _Op. cit._, p. 177.
[203] _Domestication et Naturalization des Animaux utiles_, par M.
Isadore Geoffroy St. Hilaire, p. 71, Paris, 1854.
[204] Ibid.
[205] Columbia, p. 135.
[206] _De la Longevite Humaine_, &c., par P. Flourens, Paris, 1855.
[207] M. Flourens here, perhaps, speaks too positively. The blood of the apparently lost species will show itself from time to time for many, if not endless generations.
[208] _Op. cit._
[209] _Op. cit._, p. 122.
[210] It has been objected, that the drawings cannot be relied on, as some of these types are no longer to be found. But there are several well-marked types of domestic animals on the old monuments that no longer exist, because they have been supplanted by better breeds. In this country several varieties of the Indian dogs are rapidly disappearing for the same reason. The llama must give place, in the same way, to the cow and the horse. Many other instances may be cited.
[211] _Op. cit._, p. 29. 1854.
[212] _Op. cit._, p. 101.
[213] _Op. cit._, p. 53.
[214] _Geographical Dist._, p. 17.
This work, I believe, is not yet issued, but Dr. Pickering has kindly sent me the first 150 pages, as printed.
C.
Mr. Gobineau remarks (p. 367), that he has very serious doubts as to the unity of origin. "These doubts, however," he continues, "I am compelled to repress, because they are in contradiction to a scientific fact, which I cannot refute--the prolificness of half-breeds; and secondly, what is of much greater weight with me, they impugn a religious interpretation sanctioned by the church."
With regard to the prolificness of half-breeds, I have already mentioned such facts as might have served to dispel the learned writer"s doubts, had he been acquainted with them. In reference to the other, more serious, obstacle to his admission of the plurality of origins, he himself intimates (p. 339) that the authority of this interpretation might, perhaps, be questioned without transgressing the limits imposed by the church. Believing this view to be correct, I shall venture on a few remarks upon this last scruple of the author, which is shared by many investigators of this interesting subject.
"The strict rule of scientific scrutiny," says the most learned and formidable opponent in the adversary"s camp,[215] "exacts, according to modern philosophers, in matters of inductive reasoning, an exclusive homage. It requires that we should close our eyes against all presumptive and exterior evidence, and _abstract our minds from all considerations not derived from the matters of fact which bear immediately on the question_. The maxim we have to follow in such controversies is "fiat just.i.tia, ruat coelum." _In fact, what is actually true, it is always desirous to know, whatever consequences may arise from its admission._"
To this sentiment I cheerfully subscribe: it has always been my maxim.
Yet I find it necessary, in treating of this subject, to touch on its _biblical_ connections, for although we have great reason to rejoice at the improved tone of toleration, or even liberality which prevails in this country, the day has not come when science can be severed from theology, and the student of nature can calmly follow her truths, no matter whither they may lead. What a mortifying picture do we behold in the histories of astronomy, geology, chronology, cosmogony, geographical distribution of animals, &c.; they have been compelled to fight their way, step by step, through human pa.s.sion and prejudice, from their supposed contradiction to Holy Writ. But science has been vindicated--their great truths have been established, and the Bible stands as firmly as it did before. The last great struggle between science and theology is the one we are now engaged in--the _natural history of man_--it has now, for the first time, a fair hearing before Christendom, and all any question should ask is "_daylight and fair play_."
The Bible should not be regarded as a text-book of natural history. On the contrary, it must be admitted that none of the writers of the Old or New Testament give the slightest evidence of knowledge in any department of science beyond that of their profane contemporaries; and we hold that the natural history of man is a department of science which should be placed upon the same footing with others, and its facts dispa.s.sionately investigated. What we require for our guidance in this world is truth, and the history of science shows how long it has been stifled by bigotry and error.
It was taught for ages that the sun moved around the earth; that there had been but one creation of organized beings; that our earth was created but six thousand years ago, and that the stars were made to shed light upon it; that the earth was a plane, with sides and ends; that all the animals on earth were derived from Noah"s ark, &c. But what a different revelation does science give us? We now know that the earth revolves around the sun, that the earth is a globe which turns on its own axis, that there has been a succession of destructions and creations of living beings, that the earth has existed countless ages, and that there are stars so distant as to require millions of years for their light to reach us; that instead of one, there are many centres of creation for existing animals and plants, &c.
If so many false readings of the Bible have been admitted among theologians, who has authority or wisdom to say to science--"thus far shalt thou go, and no further?" The doctrine of _unity_ for the human family may be another great error, and certainly a denial of its truth does no more, nay, less violence to the language of the Bible, than do the examples above cited.
It is a popular error, and one difficult to eradicate, that all the species of animals now dwelling on the earth are descendants of pairs and septuples preserved in Noah"s ark, and certainly the language of Genesis on this point is too plain to admit of any quibble; it does teach that every living being perished by the flood, except those alone which were saved in the ark. Yet no living naturalist, in or out of the church, believes this statement to be correct. The centres of creation are so numerous, and the number of animals so great that it is impossible it should be so.
On the other hand, the first chapter of Genesis gives an account entirely in accordance with the teachings of science.