1 84 LEPORID^— ORYCTOLAGUS 



sistency might be explained if it could be shown that Gregory's rabbits 

 as well as the first introductions to Britain, were of a tame or 

 semi-tame stock, which later escaped and became wild. Rabbits must 

 have been domesticated at a very early date, and, it might have been 

 expected, by the Spaniards, and, following them, by the Romans; but 

 it is noteworthy that domestic races are not mentioned by any of 

 the earlier writers. It is clear from the German naturalist Gesner's 

 account (1551) that, in the wild state at least, they were unknown in 

 Switzerland and south Germany (Zurich, Basle, Strassburg) at that 

 date. He is compelled to restrict himself to a description of their 

 varieties in colour, and to note their abundance ("copiosissimi sunt") 

 in hilly places and rocky mountains in Spain, which details he obtained 

 by letter from a friend (p. 397) ; and he adds a note on their great 

 numbers in England (p. 398), and comments on the fact that in that 

 country some people lived entirely by keeping rabbits. 



At about the same date they were so abundant in central France 

 that du Fouilloux, who wrote La Venerie at Poitiers in 1561, declared 

 that gentlemen would not spend much time in their pursuit, but left 

 that amusement to their servants. 



The animal is commonly supposed to have been introduced into 

 Britain by the Romans, but this was certainly not the case, since, as 

 shown above, it had no native name in any part of the three kingdoms 

 until the Normans came over and named it. Another point of im- 

 portance in this connection, and supporting a French as against a 

 Roman introduction, is the fact that the British Rabbit belongs to the 

 typical northern subspecies O. cuniculus cuniculus, and not to the 

 smaller Mediterranean form. The first advocate of a Roman introduc- 

 tion appears to have been John Whitaker {The History of Manchester ; 

 London, 1771, I., x., 344), but he cites no facts in support of it, and he 

 may have been misled by a supposed Latin origin of the name " cony," 

 whereas, in fact, as has been shown above, this word, as well as the more 

 modern term " rabbit," came to Britain from the French. 



There are no pre-Norman British allusions to the animal, and it 

 does not appear on coins as in Spain. Had it been known in Britain in 

 his time, Julius Cassar would no doubt have mentioned it with the hare, 

 the hen, and the goose, all three of which he stated to have been foods 

 unlawful to the ancient Britains {De Bello Gallico, v., 12). As noticed 

 above, warrens are not named in Domesday Book, and could not, 

 therefore, have been known in the eleventh century ; and rabbits 

 were also omitted by King John when, about May 1199, as Earl of 

 Moreton {i.e., Mortain in Normandy), he granted immunities to his 

 tenants outside the regard of Dartmoor Forest, Devon, to take hares 

 and other animals (see Rowe's Perambulation of Dartmoor, 1848, 263) ; 

 and they do not appear in other documents of the period, although 



