,120 APPENDIX. 



This animofity between him and dogs, though it has 

 efcaped modern naturalifls,, appears to have been known to 

 the ancients in the eaft. In Ecclefiafticus (chap. xiii. vei\ 18.) 

 it is laid, " What agreement is there between the hyama 

 .and the dog ?" a iufficient proof that the antipathy was fo 

 well known as to be proverbial. 



And I mufl here obferve, that if there is any precision in 

 the definition of Linnaeus, this animal does not anfwer to it, 

 either in the cauda recta or annulata, for he never carries his 

 tail creel:, butalways clofe behindhim like a dog whenafraid, 

 or unlefs when he is in full fpeed ; nor is the figure given 

 by M. de Buffon marked like the hyama of Atbara, though, 

 as have I faicl, perfectly refembling that of Syria, and the 

 figure I have here given has, I believe, fcarcely a hair mif- 

 placed in it. Upon the whole, I fubmit this entirely to my 

 reader, being fatisfied v/ith having, I hope, fully proved 

 what was the intent of this difiertation, that the faphan is 

 not the hysena, as Greek commentators upon the fcripture 

 have imagined. 





JERBOA. 



■ 



