44 



CHARLES WATER TON AS A NATURALIST. 



If there is an animal in the 

 United States that is known and 

 detested for its peculiarities, it is the 

 skunk. 'Tis in the mouth of al- 

 most every one in country places, 

 when a person has behaved un- 

 gratefully, abused one's confidence, 

 done a mean action, or been guilty 

 of cheating. According to Apple- 

 tons Cyclopcedia, it is described (and 

 correctly) as follows, " Though 

 weak, timid, and slow in its mo- 

 tions, it is effectually armed against 

 its most ferocious enemies by an 

 acrid and exceedingly offensive 

 fluid, secreted by two glands whose 

 ducts open near the anus . . . 

 sufficient to eject the fluid to a dis- 

 tance of fourteen feet. ... It 

 is a very cleanly animal, and never 

 allows its own fur to be soiled with 

 its secretion. ... Its flesh is 

 white and fat, and, if properly 

 skinned, in no way tainted by its 

 secretion ; it is highly esteemed by 

 the Indians, and is eaten by the 

 Whites in various parts of the 

 country." Appleton says that its 

 secretion has been successfully em- 

 ployed in some forms of asthma, 

 and for other medical purposes. Its 

 grease is used for rheumatism and 

 diseases of the joints. I have 

 known it to be taken from a skunk 

 for such purposes. Now, turn to 

 what Waterton says about this ani- 

 mal, in his essay on the weasel : 

 " At what old granny's fireside in 

 the United States has the writer of 

 this picked up such an important 

 piece of information? How comes 

 the 'pole-cat to be aware that the 

 emitted contents of a gland . . . 

 should be offensive to all its pur- 

 suers ?" (p. 227.) He returns to the 

 question again, and says : " I can- 

 not refrain from asking by what 

 power of intuition the pole-cat is 

 convinced that a smell, naturally 

 agreeable to itself, is absolutely in- 

 tolerant to man?" (p. 341.) A 

 queer question fora " naturalist " to 

 ask. "It now and then happens 

 that we are led astray by our feel- 



ings when we pronounce judgment 

 on the actions of irrational ani- 

 mals " (p. 341), especially when we 

 are asked to " reject the Transatlan- 

 tic theory as a thing of emptiness," 

 and agree with Waterton when he 

 says : " If we are called upon for 

 an opinion as to the real uses of the 

 foetid gland in pole-cats, let us frank- 

 ly own that we have it not in our 

 power to give anything satisfactory 

 on the subject" (p. 228). He con- 

 sidered himself an injured man when 

 told he was not a " scientific natu- 

 ralist," when, by his own confes- 

 sion, he could not settle a question 

 that any old Yankee granny can, in 

 common with the cur that sits on 

 her door-step. Was it like a natu- 

 ralist of any kind to dogmatize on 

 a subject about which he apparent- 

 ly knew nothing, and characterize 

 another's opinion as a " granny's 

 story," without giving one of his 

 own, or showing that he even had 

 the capacity to form one ? 



Under the head of " the dog 

 tribe," he says : " I have heard 

 and read much of dogs and wolves 

 hunting in packs, but believe it not " 

 (p. 202) ; and, under the head of 

 " the food of animals," he repeats 

 the idea : " I consider the stories 

 about wolves hunting in packs as 

 mere inventions of the nursery to 

 keep cross children quiet" (p. 471). 

 That wolves hunt in packs all the 

 time is what I should suppose no 

 one will maintain ; but that they 

 never, or do not often, do it, would 

 be as contrary to evidence as any- 

 thing that could be mentioned. A 

 question like that Waterton does 

 not pretend to settle by his own 

 knowledge, nor would he have re- 

 course to that of others, for then he 

 would have become, what he had a 

 peculiar horror for, a " closet natu- 

 ralist." Said he: "Whip me, 

 you dry and scientific closet nat- 

 uralists " (p. 127), and field ones, 

 too, should such be around. " He 

 did not recast the information pick- 

 ed up from books ; he did not even 



