An history of the earth: and animated nature: by Oliver Goldsmith. In eight volumes. ... [pt.2]

CHAP. XIII. Of Animals.

LEAVING man, we now descend to the lower ranks of animated nature, and prepare to examine the life, manners, and characters of these our humble partners in the creation. But, in such a wonderful variety as is diffused around us, where shall we begin. The num∣ber of beings endued with life as well as we, seems, at first view, infinite. Not only the fo∣rest, the waters, the air, teems with animals of various kinds; but almost every vegetable, every leaf, has millions of minute inhabitants, each of which fill up the circle of its allotted life, and some of which are found objects of the greatest curiosity. In this seeming exube∣rance of animals, it is natural enough for igno∣rance to lie down in hopeless uncertainty, and to declare what requires labour to particularize to be utterly inscrutable. It is otherwise how∣ever with the active and searching mind; no way intimidated with the immense variety, it begins the task of numbering, grouping and classing all the various kind that fall within its notice; finds every day new relations between

the several parts of the creation, acquires the art of considering several at a time under one point of view; and, at last, begins to find that the variety is neither so great nor so inscrutable as was at first imagined. As in a clear night, the number of the stars seems infinite; yet, if we sedulously attend to each in its place, and regularly class them, they will soon be found to diminish, and come within a very scanty com∣putation.

Method, therefore, is one of the principal helps in natural history, and without it very little progress can be made in this science. It is by that alone we can hope to dissipate that glare, if I may so express it, that arises from a multiplicity of objects at once presenting themselves to the view. It is method that fixes the attention to one point, and leads it, by slow and certain degrees, to leave no part of nature unobserved.

All naturalists, therefore, have been very careful in adopting some method of classing or grouping the several parts of nature; and some have written books of natural history with no other view. These methodical divi∣sions some have treated with contempt* 1.1, not considering that books, in general, are written

with opposite views: some to be read, and some only to be occasionally consulted. The methodists, in natural history, seem to be con∣tent with the latter advantage; and have sa∣crificed to order alone, all the delights of the subject, all the arts of heightening, awakening, or continuing curiosity. But they certainly have the same use in science that a dictionary has in language; but with this difference, that in a dictionary we proceed from the name to the definition; in a system of natural history, we proceed from the definition to find out the thing. Without the aid of system, nature must still have lain undistinguished, like furniture in a lumber room; every thing we wish for is there, indeed; but we know not where to find it. If, for instance, in a morning excursion, I find a plant, or an insect, the name of which I desire to learn; or, perhaps, am curious to know whether already known; in this enquiry I can expect information only from one of these systems, which, being couched in a methodical form, quickly directs me to what I seek for. Thus we will suppose that our enquirer has met with a spider, and that he has never seen such an in∣sect before. He is taught by the writer of a system* 1.2 to examine whether it has wings, and

he finds that it has none. He, therefore, is to look for it among the wingless insects, or the Aptera, as he calls them; he then is to see whether the head and breast make one part of the body, or are disunited: he finds they make one: he is then to reckon the number of feet and eyes, and he finds that it has eight of each. The insect, therefore, must be either a scorpion or a spider; but he lastly examines its feelers, which he finds clavated, or clubbed; and, by all these marks, he at last discovers it to be a spider. Of spiders, there are forty-seven sorts; and, by reading the description of each, the enquirer will learn the name of that which he desires to know. With the name of the insect, he is also directed to those authors that have given any account of it, and the page where that account is to be found; by this means he may know at once what has been said of that animal by others, and what there is of novelty in the result of his own re∣searches.

From hence, therefore, it will appear how useful those systems in natural history are to the enquirer; but, having given them all their merit, it would be wrong not to observe, that they have in general been very much abused. Their authors, in general, seem to think that

they are improvers of natural history, when in reality they are but guides; they seem to boast that they are adding to our knowledge, while they are only arranging it. These authors also, seem to think that the reading of their works and systems, is the best method to attain a knowledge of nature; but, setting aside the im∣possibility of getting through whole volumes of a dry long catalogue, the multiplicity of whose contents is too great for even the strongest me∣mory; such works rather tell us the names than the history of the creature we desire to en∣quire after. In these dreary pages, every in∣sect, or plant, that has a name, makes as di∣stinguished a figure as the most wonderful, or the most useful. The true end of studying nature is to make a just selection, to find those parts of it that most conduce to our pleasure or convenience, and to leave the rest in greater neglect. But these systems, employing the same degree of attention upon all, give us no opportunities of knowing which most deserves attention; and he who has made his know∣ledge from such systems only, has his memory crouded with a number of trifling, or minute particulars, which it should be his business and his labour to forget. These books, as was said before, are useful to be consulted, but they are

very unnecessary to be read; no enquirer in nature should be without one of them; and without any doubt Linnaeus deserves the pre∣ference.

One fault more, in almost all these systematic writers, and that which leads me to the subject of the present chapter, is, that seeing the ne∣cessity of methodical distribution in some parts of nature, they have introduced it into all. Finding the utility of arranging plants, birds, or insects, they have arranged quadrupedes also with the same assiduity; and although the num∣ber of these is so few as not to reach two hundred, they have darkened the subject with distinctions and divisions, which only serve to puzzle and perplex. All method is only use∣ful in giving perspicuity, where the subject is either dark or copious: but with regard to qua∣drupedes, the number is but few; many of them we are well acquainted with by habit; and the rest may very readily be known, without any method. In treating of such, therefore, it would be useless to confound the reader with a multiplicity of divisions; as quadrupedes are conspicuous enough to obtain the second rank in nature, it becomes us to be acquainted with, at least, the names of them all. However, as there are naturalists who have gained a name

from the excellence of their methods, in classing these animals, some readers may desire to have a knowledge of what has been laboriously in∣vented for their instruction. I will just take leave, therefore, to mention the most applauded methods of classing animals, as adopted by Ray, Klein, and Linnaeus; for it often happens, that the terms which have been long used in a science, though frivolous, become, by prescrip∣tion, a part of the science itself.

Ray, after Aristotle, divides all animals into two kinds; those which have blood, and those which are bloodless. In the last class, he places all the insect tribes. The former he di∣vides into such as breathe through the lungs, and such as breathe through gills: these last comprehend the fishes. In those which breathe through the lungs, some have the heart com∣posed of two ventricles, and some have it of one. Of the last are all animals of the cetaceous kind, all oviparous quadrupedes, and serpents. Of those that have two ventricles, some are oviparous, which are the birds; and some vivi∣parous, which are quadrupedes. The quadru∣pedes he divides into such as have an hoof, and such as are claw-footed. Those with the hoof, he divides into such as have it undivided, such as have it cloven, and such as have the

hoof divided into more parts, as the rhinoceros, and hippopotamos. Animals with the cloven hoof, he divides into such as chew the cud, such as the cow, and the sheep; and such as are not ruminant, as the hog. He divides those ani∣mals that chew the cud, into four kinds: the first have hollow horns, which they never shed, as the cow; the second is of a less species, and is of the sheep kind; the third is of the goat kind; and the last, which have solid horns, and shed them annually, are of the deer kind. Coming to the claw-footed animals, he finds some with large claws, resembling the fingers of the human hand; and these he makes the ape kind. Of the others, some have the foot divided in two, and have a claw to each division; these are the camel kind. The ele∣phant makes a kind by itself, as its claws are covered over by a skin. The rest of the nume∣rous tribe of claw-footed animals, he divides into two kinds; the analogous, or such as re∣semble each other; and the anomalous, which differ from the rest. The analogous claw-footed animals, are of two kinds: they have more than two cutting teeth in each jaw, such as the lion and the dog, which are carnivorous; or they have but two cutting teeth in each jaw; and these are chiefly fed upon vegetables.

The carnivorous kinds are divided into the great and the little. The great carnivorous animals are divided into such as have a short snout, as the cat and the lion; and such as have it long and pointed, as the dog and the wolf. The little claw-footed carnivorous ani∣mals, differ from the great, in having a pro∣portionably smaller head, and a slender body, that fits them for creeping into holes, in pur∣suit of their prey, like worms; and they are therefore called the vermin kind.

We see, from this sketch of division and sub∣division, how a subject, extremely delightful and amusing in itself, may be darkened, and ren∣dered disgusting. But, notwithstanding, Ray seems to be one of the most simple distributors; and his method is still, and not without reason, adopted by many. Such as have been at the trouble to learn this method, will certainly find it useful; nor would we be thought, in the least, to take from its merits; all we contend for is, that the same information may be ob∣tained by a pleasanter and an easier method.

It was the great success of Ray's method, that soon after produced such a variety of at∣tempts in the same manner; but almost all less simple, and more obscure. Mr. Klein's me∣thod is briefly as follows: he makes the power

of changing place, the characteristic mark of animals in general; and he takes their di∣stinctions from their aptitude and fitness for such a change. Some change place by means of feet, or some similar contrivance; others have wings and feet: some can change place only in water, and have only fins; some go upon earth, without any feet at all: some change place, by moving their shell; and some move only at a certain time of the year. Of such, however, as do not move at all, he takes no notice. The quadrupedes that move chiefly by means of four feet upon land, he divides into two orders. The first are the hoofed kind; and the second, the claw kind. Each of these orders is divided into four fa∣milies. The first family of the hoofed kind, are the single hoofed, such as the horse, ass, &c. The second family are such as have the hoof cloven into two parts, such as the cow, &c. The third family have the hoof divided into three parts; and in this family is found only the rhinoceros. The fourth family have the hoof divided into five parts; and in this is only to be found the elephant. With respect to the clawed kind, the first family comprehends those that have but two claws on each foot, as the camel; the second family have three claws;

the third, four; and the fourth, five. This me∣thod of taking the distinctions of animals from the organs of motion, is ingenious; but it is, at the same time, incomplete: and, besides, the divisions into which it must necessarily fall, is inadequate; since, for instance, in his family with two claws, there is but one animal; whereas, in his family with five claws, there are above an hundred.

Brisson, who has laboured this subject with great accuracy, divides animated nature into nine classes: namely, quadrupedes; cetaceous animals, or those of the whale kind; birds; rep∣tiles, or those of the serpent kind; cartilaginous fishes; spinous fishes; shelled animals; insects; and worms. He divides the quadrupedes into eighteen orders; and takes their distinctions, from the number and form of their teeth.

But of all those whose systems have been adopted and admired, Linnaeus is the foremost; as, with a studied brevity, his system compre∣hends the greatest variety, in the smallest space.

According to him, the first distinction of animals is to be taken from their internal structure. Some have the heart with two ven∣tricles, and hot red blood: namely, quadrupedes and birds. The quadrupedes are viviparous, and the birds oviparous.

Some have the heart with but one ventricle, and cold red blood; namely, amphibia and fishes. The amphibia are furnished with lungs; the fishes, with gills.

Some have the heart with one ventricle, and cold white serum; namely, insects and worms: the insects have feelers; and the worms, holders.

The distinctions of quadrupedes, or animals with paps, as he calls them, are taken from their teeth. He divides them into seven or∣ders; to which he gives names that are not easy of translation: Primates, or principals, with four cutting teeth in each jaw; Bruta, or brutes, with no cutting teeth; Ferae, or wild beasts, with generally six cutting teeth in each jaw; Glires, or dormice, with two cutting teeth, both above and below; Pecora, or cattle, with many cutting teeth above, and none below; Belluae, or beasts, with the fore teeth blunt; Cete, or those of the whale kind, with cartilaginous teeth. I have but just sketched out this system, as being, in its own nature, the closest abridgment; it would take volumes to dilate it to its proper length. The names of the differ∣ent animals, and their classes, alone makes two thick octavo volumes; and yet nothing is given but the slightest description of each. I

have omitted all criticism also, upon the ac∣curacy of the preceding systems: this has been done both by Buffon and Daubenton, not with less truth than humour, for they had too much good sense not to see the absurdity of multi∣plying the terms of science to no end, and dis∣appointing our curiosity rather with a catalogue of nature's varieties than an history of nature.

Instead, therefore, of taxing the memory and teizing the patience with such a variety of di∣visions and subdivisions, I will take leave to class the productions of nature in the most ob∣vious, though not in the most accurate man∣ner. In natural history, of all other sciences, there is the least danger of obscurity. In morals, or in metaphysics, every definition must be precise, because those sciences are built upon definitions; but it is otherwise in those subjects where the exhibition of the object itself is always capable of correcting the error. Thus it may often happen that in a lax system of natural history, a creature may be ranked among quadrupedes that belongs more pro∣perly to the fish or the insect classes. But that can produce very little confusion, and every reader can thus make a system the most agree∣able to his own imagination. It will be of no manner of consequence whether we call a bird

or an insect a quadrupede, if we are careful in marking all its distinctions: the uncertainty in reasoning, or thinking, that these approxima∣tions of the different kinds of animals produce, is but very small, and happens but very rarely; whereas the labour that naturalists have been at to keep the kinds asunder, had been excessive. This, in general, has given birth to that va∣riety of systems which we have just mentioned, each of which seems to be almost as good as the preceding.

Taking, therefore, this latitude, and using method only where it contributes to concise∣ness or perspicuity, we shall divide animated nature into four classes; namely, quadrupedes, birds, fishes, and insects. All these seem in general pretty well distinguished from each other by nature; yet there are several instances in which we can scarce tell whether it is a bird or a quadrupede that we are about to examine; whether it is a fish or an insect that offers to our curiosity. Nature is varied by impercep∣tible gradations, so that no line can be drawn between any two classes of its productions, and no definition made to comprehend them all. However, the distinctions between these classes are sufficiently marked in general; and their encroachments upon each other are so rare, that

it will be sufficient particularly to apprize the reader when they happen to be blended.

There are many quadrupedes that we are well acquainted with; and of those we do not know we shall form the most clear and distinct conceptions, by being told wherein they differ, and wherein they resemble those with which we are familiar. Each class of qua∣drupedes may be ranged under some one of the domestic kinds, that may serve for the mo∣del by which we are to form some kind of idea of the rest. Thus we may say that a tiger is of the cat kind, a wolf of the dog kind, be∣cause there are some rude resemblances between each; and a person who has never seen the wild animals will have some incomplete knowledge of their figure from the tame ones. On the contrary, I will not, as some systematic writers have done* 1.3, say that a bat is of the human kind, or an hog of the horse kind, merely because there is some resemblance in their teeth, or their paps. For, although this resemblance may be striking enough, yet a person who has never seen a bat or a hog, will never form any just conception of either, by being told of this minute similitude. In short, the method in classing quadrupedes should be taken from their

most striking resemblances; and where these resemblances do not offer, we should not force the similitude, but leave the animal to be de∣scribed as a solitary species, by itself. The number of quadrupedes, is so few that, indeed, without any method whatsoever, there is no great, danger of confusion.

All quadrupedes, the number of which, ac∣cording to Buffon, amounts to but two hundred, may be classed in the following manner.

First, those of the Horse kind. This class contains the Horse, the Ass, and the Zebra. Of these, none have horns; and their hoof is of one solid piece.

The second class are those of the Cow kind; comprehending the Urus, the Buffalo, the Bi∣son, and the Bonassas. These have cloven hoofs, and chew the cud.

The third class is that of the Sheep kind; with cloven hoofs, and chewing the cud, like the former. In this is comprehended the Sheep, the Goat, the Lama, the Vigogne, the Gazella, the Guinea deer, and all of a similar form.

The fourth class is that of the Deer kind, with cloven hoofs, and with solid horns, that are shed every year. This class contains the Elk, the Rein-deer, the Stag, the Buck, the Roe-buck, and the Axis.

The fifth class comprehends all those of the Hog kind, the Pecari, and the Bayberroussa.

The sixth class is that numerous one of the Cat kind. This comprehends the Cat, the Lion, the Panther, the Leopard, the Jaguar, the Cou∣gar, the Jaguarette, the Lynx, the Ounce, and the Catamountain. These are all carnivorous, and furnished with crooked claws, which they can sheath and unsheath at pleasure.

The seventh class is that of the Dog kind, carnivorous, and furnished with claws like the former, but which they cannot sheath. This class comprehends the Dog, the Wolf, the Fox, the Jackall, the Isatis, the Hyena, the Civette, the Gibet, and the Genet.

The eighth class is that of the Weasil kind, with a long small body, with five toes, or claws, on each foot; the first of them separated from the rest like a thumb. This comprehends the Weasil, the Martin, the Pole-cat, the Ferrit, the Mangoust, the Vansire, the Ermin, with all the varieties of the American Moufettes.

The ninth class is that of the Rabbit kind, with two large cutting teeth in each jaw. This comprehends the Rabbit, the Hare, the Guinea-pig, all the various species of the Squirrel, the Dormouse, the Marrnotte, the Rat, the Mouse, Agouti, the Paca, the Aperea, and the Tapeti.

The tenth class is that of the Hedge-hog kind, with claw feet, and covered with prickles, comprehending the Hedge-hog and the Porcu∣pine, the Couendou, and the Urson.

The eleventh class is that of the Tortoise kind, covered with a shell, or scales. This comprehends the Tortoise; the Pangolin, and the Phataguin.

The twelfth is if the Otter, or amphibious kind, comprehending the Otter, the Beaver, the Desman, the Morse, and the Seal.

The thirteenth class is that of the Ape and Monkey kinds, with hands, and feet resembling hinds.

The fifteenth class is that of winged qua∣drupedes, or the Bat kind, containing the Bat, the Flying Squirrel, and some other varieties.

The animals which seem to approach no other kind, either in nature, or in form, but to make each a distinct species in itself, are the following: the Elephant, the Rhinoceros, the Hippopotamos, the Camelopard, the Camel, the Bear, the Badger, the Tapir, the Cabiai, the Coati, the Antbear, the Tatou, and lastly the Sloth.

All other quadrupedes, whose names are not set down, will be found among some of the above-mentioned classes, and referred to that

which they most resemble. When, therefore, we are at a loss to know the name of any par∣ticular animal, by examining which of the known kinds it most resembles, either in shape, or in hoofs, or claws; and then, examining the particular description, we shall be able to discover not only its name, but its history. I have already said that all methods of this kind are merely arbitrary, and that nature makes no exact distinction between her productions. It is hard, for instance, to tell whether we ought to refer the Civet to the dog, or the cat kind; but, if we know the exact history of the civet, it is no great matter to which kind we shall judge it to bear the greatest resemblance. It is enough that a distribution of this kind ex∣cites in us some rude out-lines of the make, or some marked similitudes in the nature of these animals; but, to know them with any precision, no system, or even description will serve, since the animal itself, or a good print of it, must be seen, and its history be read at length, be∣fore it can be said to be known. To pretend to say that we have an idea of a quadrupede, because we can tell the number, or the make of its teeth, or its paps, is as absurd as if we should pretend to distinguish men by the but∣tons on their cloaths. Indeed it often happens

that the quadrupede itself can be but seldom seen; that many of the more rare kinds do not come into Europe above once an age, and some of them have never been able to bear the re∣moval; in such a case, therefore, there is no other substitute but a good print of the animal to give an idea of its figure; for no description whatsoever can answer this purpose so well. Mr. Locke, with his usual good sense, has ob∣served, that a drawing of the animal, taken from the life, is one of the best methods of advancing natural history; and yet, most of our modern sy∣stematic writers are content rather with de∣scribing. Descriptions, no doubt, will go some way towards giving an idea of the figure of an animal; but they are certainly much the longest way about, and, as they are usually managed, much the most obscure. In a drawing we can, at a single glance, gather more instruction than by a day's painful investigation of me∣thodical systems, where we are told the pro∣portions with great exactness, and yet remain ignorant of the totality. In fact, this method of describing all things is a fault that has in∣fected many of our books, that treat on the meaner arts for this last age. They attempt to teach by words what is only to be learnt by practice and inspection. Most of our dictio∣naries,

and bodies of arts and sciences, are guilty of this error. Suppose, for instance, it be requisite to mention the manner of making shoes, it is plain that all the verbal instructions in the world will never give an adequate idea of this humble art, or teach a man to become a shoe-maker. A day or two in a shoe-maker's shop will answer the end better than a whole folio of instruction, which only serves to op∣press the learner with the weight of its pre∣tended importance. We have lately seen a la∣borious work carried on at Paris, with this only intent of teaching all the trades by de∣scription; however, the design at first blush seems to be ill considered; and it is pro∣bable that very few advantages will be derived from so laborious an undertaking. With regard to the descriptions in natural history, these, without all question, under the direction of good sense, are necessary; but still they should be kept within proper bounds; and, where a thing may be much more easily shewn than described, the exhibition should ever pre∣cede the account.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Mr. Buffon in his Introduction, &c.
• * 1.2

  Linnaeus.
• * 1.3

  Linnaei Syst.