HENsiiAW.) KNOWLEDGE OF TROPICAL ANIMALS. 143 



that have beeu exhumed from the mounds and made known there is not 

 one which can, with even a fair degree of probability, be identified as 

 this species in distinction from the next animal named, the cougar. 



The cougar, to which several of the carvings can with but little doubt 

 be referred, was at the time of the discovery of America and is to-day, 

 where not exterminated by man, a common resident of the whole of 

 North America, including of course the whole of the Mississippi Valley. 

 It would be surprising, therefore, if an animal so striking, and one that 

 has figured so largely in Indian totemism and folk-lore, should not have 

 received attention at the hands of the Mound-Builders. 



Nothing resembling the toucan, as has been seen, has been found in 

 the mounds; but, as stated, this bird is found in Southern Mexico. 



The buzzard is to day common over almost the entire United States, 

 and is especially common fhroiighout most of the Mississippi Valley. 



As to the paroquet, there seems to be no evidence in the way of carv- 

 ings to show that it was known to the Mound-Builders, although that 

 such was the case is rendered highly probable from the fact that it 

 lived at their very doors. 



It therefore appears that of the five animals of which Wilson states 

 "the majority are not known in the United States," and "some of them 

 are totally unknown within any part of the North American continent," 

 every one is found in North America, and all but one within the limits 

 of the United States, while three were common residents of the Missis- 

 sippi Valley. 



As a further illustration of the inaccurate zoological knowledge to 

 which may I'e ascribed no small share of the theories advanced respect- 

 ing the origin of the Mound-Builders, the following illustration may be 

 taken from Wilson, this author, however, being but one of the many 

 who are equally in fault. The error is in regard to the habitat of the 

 conch shell, I'yrula {now Busycon) perversa. 



After exposing the blunder of Mr. John Delafleld, who describes this 

 shell as unknown on the coasts of North and South America, but as 

 abundant on the coast of Hindostan, from which supposed fact, coupled 

 with its presence in the mounds, he as; umes a migration on the part of 

 the ]Mound-Builders from Southern Asia (Prehistoric Man, vol. 1, p. 

 219, ihUl, p. 272), Wilson states. 



No question cau exist as to the tropical and marine origin of tlie large sbells ex- 

 luimetl not only in tlie inland regions of Kentucky and Tennessee, but in the northern 

 j)eninsula lying between the Ontario and Huron Lakes, or on the still remoter shores 

 and islands of Georgian Bay, at a distance of upwards of three thousand miles from 

 the coast of Yucatan, ou the mainland, the nearest jmiiit where the Pijrula perversa is 

 founil ill its native locality. (Italics of the present writer.) 



Now the plain facts on the authority of Mr. Dall are that the Busycon 

 (Pyruki) perversa is not only found in the United States, but extends 

 along the coast up to Charleston, S. C, with rare specimens as far north 

 as Beaufort, N. C. Moreover, archaeologists have usually confounded 



