NORTHERN HARE. 103 



of the state of natural science in England, at that earlj"^ day. The ani- 

 mal had for some time remained alive, but had died in the previous No- 

 vember. It had at that time already changed its summer colour, and 

 become nearly white. It was boiled, in order to ascertain whether it was 

 a hare or a rabbit, as according to Ray, if the flesh was brown it was a 

 hare, if white a rabbit. It proved to be brown, and was declared to be 

 a hare. The test was strange enough, but the conclusion was correct. 

 In May, of the same year, J. R. Forster, Esq., F. R. S., described this, 

 among twenty quadrupeds, that had been sent from Hudson's Bay. After 

 giving an account of the manner in which it was captured by snares made 

 of brass wire and pack thi-ead, he designates its size as "bigger than the 

 rabbit, but less than the Alpine hare." In this he was quite correct. 

 He then goes on to show that its hind-feet are longer in proportion to 

 the body than those of the rabbit, and common hare, &c. He finally 

 speaks of its habits, and here his first error occurs. Kalm's accounts 

 of two different species were supposed by him to refer to one species only, 

 and whilst the Northern Hare was described — some of the habits of the 

 American gray rabbit were incorrectly referred to it. 



As, however, Forster gave it no specific name, and liis description on 

 the whole was but a loose one, it was left to another naturalist to give 

 it a scientific appellation. 



In 1777, Erxleben gave the first scientific description of it, and named it 

 Lepus Americanus. Schreber, (as we are prepared to show in our article 

 on Lepus sylvaticus,) published an account of it immediately after^vards, 

 under the name of Lepus nanus. 



This description, as may easily be seen, was principally taken from 

 Forster. Schcepff about the same period, and Pallas in 1778, under the 

 name of L. Hudsonicus, and Pennant in 1780, imder that of American hare, 

 followed each other in quick succession. 



In Gmelin's Linn^us, (1788,) it is very imperfectly described in one 

 single line. All these authors copied the error of Forster in giving to the 

 Northern Hare the habits of the American gray rabbit. 



In the work of Desmarest, (Mammalogie, ou description des especes de 

 Mammiferes, p. 351, Paris, 1820,) a description is given of "Esp. Lievre 

 d' Amerique, Lepus Americanus." This however, instead of being a de- 

 scription of the true L. Americanus of all previous authors, is in most par- 

 ticulars a pretty good description of our gray rabbit. Harlan, who pub- 

 lished his Fauna in 1825, translated and published this description very 

 literally, even to its faults, (see Fauna Americana, p. 196.) Having thus 

 erroneously disposed of the gray rabbit, under the name of L. America- 

 nus, the true Lepus Americanus was named by him L. Virginianus ! The 



