112 



proofs of the wide difFerence between the Canis jubatus and Dogs 

 (the most striking part of which difFerence, however, he has omitted 

 to characterize, viz. the long mane), but here my coincidence in 

 opinion ceases, for it is evident that tbe animal of ■vvhich the skin 

 lies upon the table has not the slightest approximation to the cha- 

 racter of a Fox, which Azara would make it. A question is thus 

 opened, to ■vvhat genus or subgenus of the second division of digiti- 

 grada does the animal belong ? Unfortimately the skins in my pos- 

 session do not aflFord the means of fixing definitively its place in the 

 family, there being neither skuU nor teeth, no toes, and no means 

 of determining ■vvhether or not an anai pouch existed. Azara's 

 dental characters are applicable to the genus Canis, but he has 

 omitted to notice those minute points which might constitute sub- 

 generic difFerences. One fact mentioned, that the canines of the 

 only adult ke examined were ten lines long, although they were 

 very much worn, would apĮily rather to Hycena than to Canis. 

 The number of toes is omitted. Buffon caUs the Canis jiihatus the 

 Red Wo]f ; but, were not its solitary and noctumal habits and its 

 predilection for certain fruits and vegetables sufficient to separate it, 

 the remarkable mane at once prevents the alliance. Apparently, 

 therefore, being neither fox, dog, nor \volf, it raay be permitted us to 

 iook to a neighbouring genus, to see whether or not there are more 

 characteristics common to the animal under consideration and species 

 of that genus thaa we have yet met with. 



" While residing with my family at Cadiz during the spring,three 

 beautiful skins were iraported from Buenos Ayres ; they were quite 

 unknown to the owner and his friends, and learning that I took an 

 interest in natūrai history, I was asked to examine and give my opi- 

 nion upon them. The heavy head, the large ears, the bulky body and 

 comparatively slender hind-limbs, the short neck, the shaggy hair, 

 but particularly the singular mane, fixed my attention ; and in the 

 absence of primary generic characters, I \vould have pronounced the 

 skins to be those of a beautiful species of Hycsna : but the few natu- 

 ralists who have examined the New World have not yet discovered 

 the Hysena, and it would have been rash, •with the slender data before 

 me, to have expressed a definitive opinion. Nevertheless on returning 

 to England and deliberately examining Azara's description of the 

 form and habits of the Canis jubatus, my origiual opinion is so much 

 strengthened that I am induced to submit the whole ąuestion to the 

 consideration of naturalists, in the hope that on an opportunity occur- 

 ring it may be taken advantage of to determine the primary generic 

 characters, with a view to the allocation of the animal into its exact 

 place in the digitigrade family. But to me it is a matter of indifFer- 

 ence vvhether or not the animal has the technical characters of Ca7iis 

 or Hytena. Nature, in her uondrous chain of animated beings di- 

 spersed over the world, is never defective in a link (at least on the 

 great continents), for if the identical species of one continent be 

 wanting, in another we sūrely find its analogue. The Ostrich of 

 Africa has its analogue in America iu the Rhea, and in the £mu and 

 Cassovvary of Australia : the Llama replaces the Camel, and the Fe- 



