342 



SCIENTIFIC NEWS. 



[Sept. 28, 1888. 



DOMESTICITY IN ANIMALS. 



THE existence of domestic animals suggests to us some 

 curious questions, to some of which naturalists 

 have not hitherto been able to furnish a rational answer. 

 We may be asked why man has succeeded in taming 

 certain species and not others ? Why had the natives 

 of the western hemisphere, when discovered by the 

 Spaniards, practically speaking, no domestic animals at 

 all, whilst nations of the eastern continent, not further 

 advanced in civilization, had enjoyed the services of 

 beasts of burden from the most remote antiquity ? 



Swainson and his followers cut the knot by asserting 

 that animals of the rasorial type had been Divinely 

 pre-ordained for domestication. These, therefore, man 

 had succeeded in taming, whilst with all other species 

 he has failed. 



But if Swainson's "rasorial type" have been especially 

 adapted for domestication, why do so many of them 

 hold aloof? Take as an instance the common pheasant. 

 This bird belongs to the same family as the barn-door 

 fowl. The delicacy of its flesh has tempted man to re- 

 duce it to complete domestication, so that it might be 

 bred in the poultry-yard. But no : on the approach of 

 a stranger it shows none of the confidence of the 

 domestic fowl, but flees for shelter to the nearest thicket. 



Why did none of the aborigines of America domes- 

 ticate the turkey ? In Europe, as with the white 

 settlers beyond the Atlantic, it has proved quite capable 

 of tameness. Were not the ancient Mexicans civilised 

 enough to have made the attempt ? 



Why was the American bison (erroneously called 

 buffalo) never brought into subjection by the Red 

 Indians ? To them it would have been of great service 

 as a beast of burden as well as for food. Mr. Swainson, 

 to make his escape, pronounces the " ox the typical ex- 

 ample of the genus bos, the bison the sub-typical." He 

 adds that " no two animals can be more opposite in their 

 moral character : the one is the most useful, docile, and 

 tamable of the brute creation, the other wild, revengeful, 

 and showing an innate detestation of man." 



This declaration is at issue with facts. The bison 

 shows no disposition to attack man unless molested. He 

 is far less dangerous than the half-wild cattle of Texas, 

 of the Falkland Islands, and of the Peramos of the 

 Andes. To an unarmed man in an open country 

 there are lew animals more dangerous than the common 

 bull. Further, the bison has been found to be readily 

 capable of domestication. (J. A. Allen : History of the 

 American Bison, p. 585). There is little inducement to 

 multiply the tame breed, as the cows are not good 

 milkers, but in the absence of ordinary cattle it would 

 have been of value. It remains therefore a problem 

 why the Red Indians did not have herds of tame bison just 

 as the Tartars of the Asiatic steppes had their oxen. 



Of the carnivorous animals which enter into domestica- 

 tion, the dog and the cat, Swainson pronounces the former 

 to be the " rasorial type " of the carnivorous circle. But he 

 vouchsafes no explanation of the tameness of the cat. 

 This animal according to his theory should be hostile to 

 mankind, yet no creature shows a greater craving for 

 human sympathy. This is the more remarkable as it 

 is not a social species, and shows very little liking for the 

 companionship of its own kind. It is to be noted that 

 several nearly allied forms, including the wild cat of 

 Britain, seem hitherto quite untamable. 



In like manner it may be noticed that certain wild 



Canedse such as C. dukhuensis and C. primoevus, have as 

 good a right as the domestic dog to be considered as 

 " rasorial types " of the carnivora. Yet they show little 

 attachment to man and no dependence can be placed 

 upon them, although they have been occasionally em- 

 ployed in hunting. 



A very different attempt at finding some general prin- 

 ciple is shown in the assertion that all domestic animals 

 are naturally gregarious. To this rule the cat and the mun- 

 gus are the only exceptions. But we cannot affirm con- 

 versely that all gregarious animals have entered into 

 domestication. The wolf, the zebra, the baboon, the 

 hyasna, and various other forms might serve for ex- 

 amples. 



A very curious observation is that all the truly domes- 

 ticated species, both of mammals and birds, are poly- 

 gamous or at least promiscuous in their amours. We have 

 here the only difference in habits between the ordinary in- 

 mates of the farm-yard and the pheasants. The com- 

 mon cock, the turkey, and the guinea-fowl are feathered 

 Mormonites, whilst the pheasant adheres to one mate. 

 The same is the case with the mammalia. The ox, sheep, 

 goat, horse, ass are all polygamous, whilst the dog and 

 the cat form no permanent connections, the nurture and 

 defence of the young devolving upon the female alone. 

 On the other hand, the fox, which lives in pairs, has not 

 become domesticated. 



But this attempted rule also breaks down on close 

 scrutiny. The pigeon and the parrot are monogamous; 

 yet the former lives contentedly in a state of tameness. 

 Parrots if kindly treated and not startled by sudden and 

 abrupt movements, must rank among the most docile 

 and affectionate of creatures and have even been known 

 to die of grief if separated from their owners. This is 

 the more striking, as in their case domestication is the 

 result of a single life-time. 



Having thus set aside all these attempts at finding a 

 general principle in the tamability of animals, we sub- 

 mit that the truth is much simpler than any of them. 

 Any species, thought desirable, can be tamed if the at- 

 tempt be made judiciously and perseveringly and it the 

 animal does not break down in the process. It is curious 

 that this view was put forward by St. James and was 

 doubtless the opinion current in his time. In most cases, 

 however, many generations must pass before the original 

 wild nature is completely and permanently subverted. 



It is a not unimportant fact that in ancient Egypt one 

 species of antelope, or perhaps more than one, was kept 

 in herds. Thus we see that the group of tame animals 

 is not alike at all times. 



There are at least three different degrees in the friendly 

 relations into which the lower animals enter with man. 

 In the lowest grade we find creatures which seek his 

 near neighbourhood, not for plunder, as do rats, mice, 

 and sparrows, but for safety. Such are the stork, the 

 swallow, and the martin. Many more harmless and useful 

 species of birds would enter into this class if nesting, rat- 

 ting, shooting, and trapping were put under due restraint. 



In the second class come creatures which are the pro- 

 perty of men and which display a certain kind of docility, 

 but which do not enter into companionship with man. 

 Here we have all kinds of cattle and poultry. The 

 horse, if kindly treated, may pass into the third grade. 



In this highest class the animal is not merely the 

 chattel, but the companion and friend of its owner. 

 Here we find only the dog, the cat, the mungus, the 

 parrot, and a few song-birds. 



