61 



KNOWLEDGE. 



[March 1, 1897. 



When any species of animal — provided that it will breed 

 in this state — had once been domesticated, it is probable 

 that the descendants of such domesticated stock have 

 formed the basis of all or most of the later breeds ; for it 

 is obviously much easier to train such stock than to com- 

 mence again de rioro with a wild strain. Still, there are 

 many cases where subsequent crosses have taken place 

 with a wild race, or races. From the point of view of 

 their origin, domesticated animals may be divided into 

 three classes. In the first class we have those which but 

 seldom, or never, breed in captivity, and of which the 

 domestic race has constantly to be replenished by the 

 capture and training of wild individuals. Apparently, 

 the only two mammals coming under this category are 

 the Indian elephant and the hunting-leopard. The latter 

 can, however, only by courtesy be termed a domesticated 

 animal, and may accordingly be dismissed from further 

 notice. With regard to the elephant, the most curious 

 feature is the readiness with which wild individuals 

 submit themselves to servitude, and the aptitude they 

 display for learning their allotted duties. Fortunately, the 

 elephant is an extremely long-lived animal, and therefore 

 it has time to learn much during its period of captivity, 

 while the necessity for fresh captures is proportion- 

 ately diminished. Modern naturalists insist — and rightly 

 so — on the inferiority of the intelligence of the elephant 

 as compared with that of many domestic creatures : 

 the dog, for instance. But it is generally forgotten that, 

 in consequence of its not usually breeding in captivity, 

 there is no domestic race which has acquired the ex- 

 perience and docility of years of servitude. And it is a 

 subject for reflection to consider what might be the in- 

 tellectual capacity of this animal had it been in continuous 

 domestication for as long a period as the dog. In the 

 second class come those animals of which the ancestral 

 wild stock is either still existing, or was so within the 

 historic or prehistoric period. In this category come the 

 horse, ass, ox, goat, and probably the cat and dog. The 

 third class includes those domesticated animals of which 

 the wild stock is not only extinct, but is likewise totally 

 unknown. The best example of this class is the camel ; 

 but it is probable that the sheep must also be included. 



Commencing with the camel, it is probably known to 

 most of my readers that there are two kinds of this 

 animal — namely, the two-humped Bactrian camel {Camelur 

 hactriami.^), of Central Asia, and the one-humped Arabian 

 camel (C. drome daniis), now common to Asia and North 

 Africa. Although it has been affirmed that wild Bactrian 

 camels occur in the deserts of Turkestan, it is almost 

 certain that these are descendants of a domestic race 

 which escaped from captivity about two hundred and fifty 

 years ago. Consequently there are no truly wild camels 

 in existence. The only clue as to the original habitat 

 of the genus is afl'orded by the remains of fossil camels 

 in North-E astern India and Algeria ; and as the former 

 occur in the older deposits, it seems probable that Central 

 Asia is the cradle of the race. Naturalists regard the 

 two kinds of camels as distinct species ; but we have no 

 absolute proof that they may not both be domesticated 

 races derived from a single wild stock. And some con- 

 firmation of this suggestion is afforded by the llama and 

 alpaca of Peru, both of which are domesticated races 

 tracing their ancestry to the wild guanaco. At what 

 period the camel was first domesticated is lost in the mists 

 of antiquity. From its absence from the Egyptian 

 frescoes, it has been stated that this animal was unknown 

 to the early inhabitants of the Delta of the Nile ; but this 

 is controverted by a papyrus of the fourteenth century b.c, 

 in which reference is made to camels. 



Considering the very large number of existing wild 

 species of the genus ovis, it is a very remarkable fact that 

 we are unable to point to the ancestral stock of the sheep. 

 As we know them in this country, domestic sheep difi'er 

 from their wild kindred by their woolly fleece, the wild 

 species having hair more like that of a deer. But as some 

 of the native domestic sheep of Asia and Africa have a 

 more or less woolly pellage, the difficulty does not lie here. 

 With the single exception of the arnu, or Barbary sheep 

 ("c/s tnu/clKphus), of Northern Africa, all wild sheep have 

 short tails ; whereas in the domestic races this appendage 

 — until docked — is very long. The reader may ask why 

 we do not regard the arnu as the parent stock. To which 

 question it may be replied that the latter species has 

 smooth horns, with a curvature quite unlike those of any 

 of the domestic races, which approximate to the horns of 

 the Corsican mouflou. It seems somewhat ditiicult to 

 believe that a long tail can have been developed from a 

 short tail — as precisely the opposite development is the 

 only one with which we are acquainted ; but, nevertheless, 

 it has been suggested that the long tails of the domestic 

 breeds are a kind of degenerate development. If this be 

 substantiated, there is no reason why the mouflon — which 

 in former times probably had a wider distribution — or 

 some allied Asiatic species, should not have been the 

 original progenitor of the domesticated breeds. A small 

 breed of long-legged sheep, with somewhat goatlike horns, 

 was in existence at the long-distant epoch when the 

 inhabitants of the Swiss pile villages flourished. So far 

 as it goes, this form suggests that the domestic breeds are 

 derived from an extinct species. Although domestic 

 breeds were possessed by the ancient Egyptians, the 

 sheep represented on the frescoes, according to the late 

 Prof. Leith-Adams, is the wild arnu. 



With the domestic goats the case is very different ; it 

 being practically certain that most, if not all, of the breeds 

 of Europe and Western Asia are derived from the Persian 

 wild goat, or pasang (Cupra ivgni/rus), which ranges from 

 Asia Minor through Persia to Afghanistan and Sind. 

 This handsome species has long scimitar-like horns, with 

 the front surface forming a sharp ridge, instead of being 

 flattened and knobbed, as in the ibex. Many domestic 

 breeds have very similar horns ; but in others, especially 

 from Central Asia, the horns are more or less corkscrew- 

 like. As the wild markhor {C. jakoiwii) of the Himalaya 

 has horns of a similar type, it has been suggested that 

 many of the Asiatic breeds are derived from that species. 

 Against that view is the circumstance that the direction 

 of the spiral in the domestic ram is generally, although 

 not invariably, just the reverse of that in the markhor. 

 Although it is probable that some Asiatic rams may trace 

 their origin to the latter, it is more probable that they 

 are derived from the pasang but have been crossed with 

 the markhor. Most likely the goat was first domesticated 

 in Western Asia, whence it was imported into Africa, 

 where it has departed very widely from the original type. 

 A superstition prevails in countries so wide apart from 

 one another as Scotland and Kashmir that goats are 

 deadly foes to snakes (the name " markhor " signifying 

 snukt-i'titfi), and it would be very interesting to discover 

 whether the legend has any foundation in fact. 



The numerous breeds of domestic cattle of Europe all 

 trace their ancestry to the great extinct wild ox, or 

 aurochs (a name frequently misapplied to the bison), 

 which lived on in England at least as late as the Neolithic 

 period, and survived to a much later date on the Continent. 

 It has been thought that the white wild cattle of 

 ChiUingham Park are the direct descendants of the 

 aurochs, although it is far more probable that they are 



