426 DR. M. WATSON ON THE MALE [Apr. 16, 



but that the genus was well known before his time is proved, first, 

 by the fact that Herodotus 1 (b.c. 484) speaks of the animal as being 

 met with in the Libyan desert, and, secondly, that the view in ac- 

 cordance with which each individual was bisexual, was current before 

 the time of Aristotle, who takes pains to show its absurdity. At a 

 later date Pliny 2 reasserts the bisexual nature of these animals ; and 

 his assertion is repeated by iElian 3 . As, however, with one exception, 

 to which I shall by-and-by refer, the observations of the last two 

 historians do not contain any thing of importance which had not 

 been previously stated by Aristotle, we may confine ourselves to a 

 criticism of the writings of the latter ; and by doing so I think we shall 

 throw some light on the origin of the view in question. Aristotle 

 says 4 : — "The Hysena resembles a Wolf in colour, but is more shaggy, 

 and its back is provided with a mane. It is said that it has the 

 genital organs of both sexes at once ; but this is not the case. Its 

 male organ resembles that of the Wolf and Dog ; and it has what re- 

 sembles a female organ under the tail. But this last, although 

 similar to the female organ in form, is imperforate. Underneath this 

 again is the fsecal passage. The female Hysena has this same so- 

 called female organ situated as in the male, just under the tail; but 

 it is imperforate. Next to this is the faecal passage ; and under this 

 again is the true female organ. The female Hysena, moreover, 

 possesses an uterus like other female animals. The female Hyaena 

 is rarely caught. Hunters maintain that for ten males they catch 

 but one female." With regard to this passage, the first question 

 that arises is as to the particular species of Hyaena which Aristotle 

 himself examined. There can, I think, be no doubt that it was 

 either H. brunnea or H. striata, but most probably the latter. His 

 description of the female organs is such as enables us to decide that 

 it was certainly not H. crocutu, inasmuch as he says that the gland- 

 pouch had been mistaken for the female organ, showing that the 

 former had some resemblance to the latter. But the female organ 

 of H. crocuta bears no resemblance whatever to the gland-pouch ; 

 therefore it must have been the female organ of another species to 

 which he referred. In favour of H. striata is (1) his observation 

 that the animal is provided with a mane, which, as we know, is 

 more evident in the Striped Hyaena than in H. brunnea ; and 

 (2) the geographical distribution of the two species — the Striped 

 Hysena being found in abundance in Northern Africa, with the 

 topography and productions of which the Greeks were well acquainted, 

 whilst H. brunnea is confined to the central and southern districts of 

 that continent, districts with which the Greeks were by no means 

 so familiar. But if we come to the conclusion that either II. striata 

 or H. brunnea formed the subject of Aristotle's investigation, I would 

 point out that in denying, as the result of his observations, the bi- 

 sexual character of either of these animals, he is attempting to refute 

 a hypothesis the origin of which (as referring to them) it is impos- 

 sible to explain, seeing that the male and female external organs of 



1 Eawlinson's Herodotus, vol. iii. p. 172. 2 Pliny, viii. 30. 



' ' Historia Aninialium,' i. 25. ■* Loc. cit. 



