AND AMERICAN RURAL SPORTS. 
129 
Such attainments, as well as the habits and dispositions 
which the Shepherd’s Dog, and many others inherit, seem 
to be of a nature and extent which we can hardly explain 
by supposing them to be modifications of instincts neces- 
sary for the preservation of the species in a wild state. 
When such remarkable habits appear in races of this spe- 
cies, we may reasonably conjecture that they were given 
with no other view than for the use of man, and the pre- 
servation of the dog which thus obtains protection. 
As a general rule, we fully agree with M. F. Cuvier, that, 
in studying the habits of animals, we must attempt, as far as 
possible, to refer their domestic qualities to modifications of 
instincts which are implanted in them in a state of nature; 
and that writer has successfully pointed out, in an admira- 
ble essay on the domestication of the mammalia, the true 
origin of mapy dispositions which are vulgarly attributed 
to the influence of education alone. But we should go too 
far if we did not admit that some of the qualities of parti- 
cular animals and plants may have been given solely with 
a view to the connexion which it was foreseen would ex- 
ist between them and man — especially when we see that 
connexion to be in many cases so intimate, that the greater 
number, and sometimes all the individuals of the species 
which existon the earth, are in subjection to the human race. 
We can perceive in a multitude of animals, especially in 
some of the parasitic tribes, that certain instincts and 
organs are conferred for the purpose of defence or attack 
against some other species. Now if we are reluctant to 
suppose the existence of similar relations between man, and 
the instincts of many of the inferior animals, we adopt an 
hypothesis no less violent, though in the opposite extreme 
to that which has led to imagine the whole animate and 
inanimate creation to have been made solely for the sup- 
port, gratification, and instruction of mankind. 
Many species most hostile to our persons or property 
multiply in spite of our efforts to repress them; others, on 
the contrary, are intentionally augmented many hundred- 
fold in number by our exertions. In such instances we 
must imagine the relative resources of man and of species, 
friendly or inimical to him, to have been prospectively 
calculated and adjusted. To withhold assent to this sup- 
position would be to refuse what we must grant in respect 
to the economy of Nature in every other part of the or- 
ganic creation; for the various species of contemporary 
plants and animals have obviously their relative forces 
nicely balanced, and their respective tastes, passions, and 
instincts so contrived, that they are all in perfect harmony 
with each other. In no other manner could it happen, 
that each species, surrounded as it is by countless dan- 
gers, should be enabled to maintain its ground for periods 
of considerable duration. 
K K 
The docility of the individuals of some of our domestic 
species extending, as it does, to attainments foreign to their 
natural habits and faculties, may perhaps have been con- 
ferred with a view to their association with man. But 
lest species should be thereby made to vary indefinitely, 
we find that such habits are never transmissible by gene- 
ration. 
A pig has been trained to hunt and point game with 
great activity and steadiness; and other learned individuals 
of the same species, have been taught to spell; but such 
fortuitous acquirements never become hereditary, for they 
have no relation whatever to the exigencies of the animal 
in a wild state, and cannot therefore be developments of 
any instinctive propensities. 
An animal in domesticity, says M. F. Cuvier, is not 
essentially in a different situation in regard to the feeling 
of restraint from one left to itself. It lives in society 
without constraint, because without doubt it was a social 
animal, and it conforms itself to the will of man, because 
it had a chief to which in a wild state it would have yielded 
obedience. There is nothing in its new situation that is not 
conformable to its propensities; it is satisfying its wants 
by submission to a master, and makes no saci’ifice of its 
natural inclinations. All the social animals when left to 
themselves form herds more or less numerous, and all the 
individuals of the same herd know each other, are mu- 
tually attached, and will not allow a strange individual to 
join them. In a wild state, moreover, they obey some in- 
dividual, which by its superiority has become the chief of 
the herd. Our domestic species had originally this socia- 
bility of disposition, and no solitary species, however easy 
it may be to tame it, has yet afforded true domestic races. 
We merely, therefore, develope to our own advantage, pro- 
pensities which propel the individuals of certain species to 
draw near to their fellows. 
The sheep which we have reared is induced to follow 
us, as it would be led to follow the flock among which it 
was brought up, and when individuals of gregarious spe- 
cies have been accustomed to one master, it is he alone 
whom they acknowledge as their chief, he only whom they 
obey. — “ The elephant only allows himself to be led by 
the carnac whom he has adopted; the dog itself, reared in 
solitude with its master, manifests a hostile disposition to- 
wards all others; and every body knows how dangerous 
it is to be in the midst of a herd of cows, in pasturages 
that are little frequented, when they have not at their head 
the keeper who takes care of them.” 
“Every thing, therefore, tends to convince us, that 
formerly men were only, with regard to the domestic ani- 
mals, what those who are particularly charged with the 
care of them still are, namely, members of the society, 
