1878.] GENERATIVE ORGANS OF HY.ENA CROCUTA. 427 



both species differ widely in appearance, and that consequently the 

 sexes of each are readily distinguishable one from the other J 



U tins be granted, we need not further attempt to explain an 

 assertion, the or.gin of which has no foundation in fact But thS 

 Ins hypothesis did originate with reference to either of these side 

 I am not prepared to admit, as it appears to me that the bffexua 

 character attributed to the Hyaena allows of a rational exp ana ton f 

 we regard that character as referring not to either H. strataovH 

 brunnea, either of which Aristotle °may have examined I bu t \w 

 crocuta, winch he certainly did not examine. And as further howif. 

 that in all probability Aristotle unwittingly mixed up and confounded 



t?two o>? h rdinS , t0taHy ? Sth,Ct an ™ als ' l ->uld P direct a eT£ 

 to two of the sentences above quoted, in one of which he savs 1> 

 is said that it (the Hyaena) bVthe genital organs of both s^xes a 

 once ; ■ and in another « The female hyama is rarely caught Hu„ er 

 maintain that for ten males they catch but one Lei » K 

 over the evident inconsistency of these two statements, I have aS 

 shown that the first is inexplicable when applied to either H. sZta 

 orH. brunnea ; and in like manner, the second is equally devoid of 

 meaning when regarded as having reference to either of these Tnecies 

 nasmuch as we have no reason to believe that the proportioi ifnum 

 her f the sexes is different in either of them fronfwhat 7s 5 X 

 carnivorous mammals, or that the female of either is more difficult of 

 capture than the male. We conclude, therefore, that if the Sual 

 Jeory of the ancienta regarding the Hyama had any found Em 

 fact at all, such fact had reference not to either H. striata or 77 

 brunnea ; and by a process of exclusion we are compelled to re "arcHi 

 as having reference to H. crocuta. I have already shown thaJi 

 almost impossible to distinguish the female of this spedes from he 

 ma e by the mere inspection of the external genital organs and £ 

 this fact lies, as I believe, the explanation of' the views held bltZ 

 ancients regarding these animals" This explanation is L/eotl 

 borne out by Aristotle's observation that "the female Zl 

 rarely caught," a fact which Pliny also records The Tat erhC 

 makes a further with referenced the present inqu ^ im p S 

 observa ion which is not to be found in the writings of ArfstoSe He 

 says < I IS a matter of common belief that the Hyama is bisexual 

 and that it is male and female in alternate years " 'it i f Ja ? I 

 her e that Pliny like Arisfotle, mixes up ZST^^S 

 he animal, as it requires no elaborate argument toshow Zt we"f 

 the animal bisexua it did not require to change its sex every vear 

 Be this as it may, it appears to me that if we consider thele 4S US ' 

 statements as referring to H. crocuta, the origin of all of them admita 

 ll TTl *&»*? Jt ™*ht well be that the ignoranT tracers 

 who trafficked with the natives of the interior of the African co „ 

 tinent, observing that all, or at least the majority, of fhXaenas 

 which they encountered were apparently miles/ hould have ex 



ZTeTtfZJtT" hl aCC0U ^g"- the 'continuance f he 

 l?l Y T • ha - d recourse ^ the view that each animal was 

 bisexual. It is not improbable that, as Aristotle explains S view 



