markably more swift of foot: it has but one bunch on its back, the camel has two: the race is more numerous than that of the camel, and more widely spread. One would not defire distinguishing marks more fatisfying; and yet thefe two fpecies propagate together, no less freely than the different races of men and of dogs. M. Buffon indeed, with refpect to the camel and dromedary, endeavours to fave his credit by a distinction without a difference.

They are," fays he, one fpecies; "but their races are different, and have "been fo past all memory (a)." Is not this the fame with faying that the camel and the dromedary are different fpecies of the fame genus? which alfo holds true of the different fpecies of men and of dogs. If our author will permit me to carry back to the creation the camel and the dromedary as two distinct races, I defire no other conceffion. He admits no fewer than ten kinds of goats, vifibly distinguishable, which alfo propagate together; but fays, that these are varieties only, though permanent and unchangeable. No difficulty

(a) Vol. 10. p. 3.

to

is unfurmountable, if words be e allowed pass without meaning, Nor does he even adhere to the fame opinion: ; though in dif

tinguishing a horse from an ass, he affirms the mont

mule they generate to be barren; yet afterward, entirely forgetting his rule, he admits the direct contrary (a). At that rate a horse and an afs are of the fame fpecies. Did it never once enter into the ever 1b yao,di mind of this author, that the human race would be strangely imperfect, if they were unable to diftinguifh a man from a monkey, or a hare from a hedge-hog, till it were known whether they can procreate together?

9.760

But it feems unneceffary after all to urge any argument against the foregoing rule, which M. Buffon himself inadvertently abandons as to all animals, men and dogs excepted. We are indebted to him for a remark, That not a fingle animal of the torrid zone is common to the old world. and to the new. But how does he verify his remark? Does he ever think of trying whether fuch animals can procreate together?" They are," fays he, "of differ

(a) Vol. 12. p. 223.

ent

“ent

ent kinds, having no fuch resemblance as to make u

us pronounce them to be of

the fame kind.

startons of sprin Linnæus and Briffon," he adds, "have for opplingar have very improperly given

the ed

the name of the camel to the lama and reid

the pacos of Peru. So apparent is the difference, that other writers clafs these animals with fheep. Wool however is the only circumftance in which a pacos resembles a fheep: nor doth the laແ DOW

ma refemble a camel except in length

of neck." He diftinguifheth in the fame manner, the true Afiatic tiger from feveral American animals that bear the fame name. He mentions its fize, its force, its ferocity, the colour of its hair, the stripes black and white that like rings furround alternately its trunk, and are continued

to the tip of its tail ; characters," fays he, that clearly diftinguish the true tiger from all animals of prey in the new "world; the largest of which fcarce equals one of our mastives.” And he reafons in the fame manner upon the other animals of the torrid zone (a). Here. truth obliges our author to acknowledge,

(a) See vol. 8. fect. Of animals common to the two continents.

that

that we are taught by nature to distinguish animals into different kinds by vifible marks, without regard to his artificial rule. And if fo, there must be different kinds of men; for certain tribes differ vifibly from each other, no less than the lama and pacos from the camel or from the sheep, nor less than the true tiger from the American animals of that name

For proving that dogs were created of different kinds, what better evidence can be expected than that the kinds continue diftinct to this day? Our author pretends to derive the maftiff, the bull-dog, the hound, the greyhound, the terrier, the water-dog, &c. all of them from the prick-ear'd shepherd's cur. Now, admitting the progeny of the original male and female cur to have fuffered every poffible alteration from climate, food, domeftication; the refult would be endless varieties, fo that no one individual should refemble another. Whence then are deri

*No perfon thinks that all trees can be traced back to one kind. Yet the figure, leaves, fruit, &c. of different kinds, are not more diftinct, than the difference of figure, colour, &c. in the different races of men.

ved the different fpecies of dogs above mentioned, or the different races or varieties, as M. Buffon is pleafed to name them? Uniformity invariable must be a law in their nature, for it never can be afcribed to chance. There are mongrels,

a

of

it is true, among dogs, from want of choice, or from a depraved appetite, but as all animals prefer their own kind, mongrels are few compared with animals of true breed. There are mongrels alfo among men: the several kinds however continue distinct; and probably will fo còntinue for ever.

There remains an argument against the fyftem of M. Buffon with refpect to dogs, ftill more conclufive. Allowing to climate its utmost influence, it may poffibly have an effect upon the fize and figure; but furely M. Buffon cannot feriously think, Farborich that the different inftincts of dogs are owing to climate. A terrier, A terrier, whofe prey burrows under ground, is continually fcraping the earth, and thrufting its nofe into it. A hound has always its nofe on

the furface, in order to trace a hare, by

fmell. The fame inftinct is remarkable

in fpaniels. It is by nature that thefe C

VOL. I.

creatures