[ 7 1 



I find accordingly, that Linnaeus hath omitted the 

 pupillis rabris, as applied to the Rabbit, in the 

 twelfth edition of his Syftema Naturae j but adds 

 another diftin&ioh, which will be found equally to 

 fail. 



He there fays, that the ears Of a Rabbit are 

 fhorter than the head j whereas thofe of a Hare are 

 longer: which is a juft obfervation, when the war- 

 ren Rabbit is examined ; but the tame Rabbit (and 

 particularly thofe which are white or carroty) have 

 ears that are confiderably longer than their head* 



This circumftance, therefore, eftabliihes no more a 

 ipecific difference between the Rabbit and the Hare 3 

 than the greater length of the ears of a dog would, 

 which in fome varieties of that animal are known to 

 be excefilvely long. 



Monf. de BufTon, in his defcriptibn of trie Hare 

 and Rabbit, agrees with Ray that there is nothing 

 either exterior or interior which feems to conftitute 

 a fpecific difference, though he endeavours to efta- 

 blifh an inconteftable proof that they are really dif~ 

 tincl. 



He informs us, that he had tried to procure a 

 breed between Rabbits and Hares, but never could 

 fucceed in the experiment. 



This moft ingenious and able writer does not ftate, 

 however, at what ages the Hares or Rabbits were 

 thus confined, which is known to be a moil material 



with black : the grey Rabbit however never hath eyes of a red 

 colour. When the white Rabbits are very young, their eyes 

 are often like a ferret's,; but when they are grown to their full 

 frze, the pupils are generally quite red, 



5 circumftance, 



