Notices of Neiv Books. 



8553 



all know that the very name of this strange creature was given to 

 express its character; we all know that the belief obtained for very 

 many years that the name was a description and conveyed a truthful 

 idea; and it is also known that the sloth in the Zoological Society's 

 Gardens well merits the character for slothfulness assigned to its 

 kindred. But there is another side to the question, or, as it is rather 

 coarsely expressed, another end of the stick, and one of our most 

 illustrious travellers has seized the other end of the stick, and has 

 given his testimony as an eyewitness that the sloth belies his name, 

 and runs along the under side of a bough, back downwards, with con- 

 siderable speed and a reasonable amount of activity. Now Mr. Water- 

 ton certainly saw the sloth in a state of Nature, and BufFon and Cuvier 

 certainly did not, and so Natural-History readers in general were 

 inclined to side with Mr. Waterton, and to believe that the sloth had 

 first obtained and long retained his place in our system in virtue of a 

 false character. At this point of the controversy another eyewitness 

 enters the box and gives his evidence as follows : — 



" The inhabitants of the Amazons region, both Indians and descend- 

 ants of the Portuguese, hold to the common opinion, and consider the 

 sloth the type of laziness. It is very common for one native to call 

 another, in reproaching him for idleness, 'bicho do Embauba ' (beast 

 of the Cecropia tree), the leaves of the Cecropia being the food of the 

 sloth."— (Vol. II. p. 56). 



Now it is quite impossible that the Indians, and very improbable 

 that the descendants of the Portuguese, should have adopted a fable 

 from Europe concerning an animal with which they are so familiar as 

 with the sloth. But what says Mr. Bates of his own observation. He 

 watched the creature with truth-seeking eyes, not to establish a theory, 

 but fully alive to the conflict of opinions. 



u It is a strange sight to watch the uncouth creature, fit production 

 of these silent shades, lazily moving from branch to branch. Every 

 movement betrays not indolence exactly, but extreme caution. He 

 never loses his hold of one branch without first securing himself to the 

 next, and when he does not immediately find a bough to grasp with 

 the rigid hooks into which his claws are so curiously transformed he 

 raises his body, supported on his hind legs, and claws around in search 

 of a fresh foot-hold."— (Vol. II. p. 57). 



I leave this without comment. On one occasion our traveller saw 

 a sloth swimming a river three hundred yards wide. No doubt can be 

 entertained as to what the animal was, for the boatmen caught, killed, 

 roasted, and ate him. 



VOL. xxi. 2 I 



