128 
THE CABINET OF NATURAL HISTORY 
at Barcelona, in Spanish, in the year 1591. From an Eng- 
lish translation of this work, printed at London, in 1604, we 
extract the following sentence, which is all that relates to 
the animal in question. “The Chinchilles is an other kind 
of small beasts, like squirrels, they have a woonderfull 
smoothe and soft skinne, which they weare as a healthfull 
thing to comfort the stomacke, and those parts that have 
neede of a moderate heate;” [as most “beasts” do; but the 
concluding part of the extract shows that this is spoken of 
the human natives, and not of the poor Chinchillas them- 
selves;] “they make coverings and rugges of the haire of 
these Chinchilles, which are found on the Sierre of Peru.” 
We find these animals again mentioned, and nearly to the 
same purpose, in “The Observations of Sir Richard Haw- 
kins, Knight, in his Voyage into the South Sea, An. Dorn. 
1593,” published at London, in a small folio, in the year 
1622, and reprinted, three years afterwards, in the fourth 
part of “Purchas his Pilgrims.” This hardy and adven- 
turous seaman appears, notwithstanding the somewhat con- 
temptuous manner in which he speaks of the “princes and 
nobles” that “laie waite” for these skins, to have been 
much of the same opinion with regard to their superior 
quality and comfort. It is worthy of remark that he treats 
them not as wool, in which light Acosta seems to have re- 
garded them, but as fur. “Amongst others,” he says, 
(showing, by the by, as little respect for the niceties of 
grammar as the translator above quoted,) “they have little 
beastes, like unto a squirrell, but that hee is grey, his skinne 
is the most delicate soft and curious furre that I have seene, 
and of much estimation, (as is reason,) in the Peru; few of 
them come into Spaine, because difficult to be come by, for 
that the princes and nobles laie waite for them, they call 
this beast Chinchilla, and of them they have great abun- 
dance.” 
In the foregoing quotations the Chinchilla is only said to 
be like a Squirrel: later writers appear to have confounded 
them. Thus when Alonso de Ovalle, another Spaniard, 
whose “ Historical Relation of the Kingdom of Chili” was 
published at Rome in 1646, says that “the Squirrels 
[Ardas] which are found only in the Valley of Guasco, are 
ash-coloured, and their skins are in great esteem for the 
fineness and softness of the fur,” he evidently means the 
Chinchilla; for no species of Squirrel, whose fur is of any 
value, is found in that country. The same may also be said 
of an anonymous Italian author, (considered by some biblio- 
graphers, but we believe erroneously, to have been the 
Abbe Vidaure,) who published at Bologna in 1776, a Com- 
pendium of the Geographical, Natural, and Civil History 
of the Kingdom of Chili. This writer speaks of the Arda, 
which is the Spanish word for a Squirrel, as a species of 
Rat or Campagnol, of the size of a Cat, found only in the 
province of Copiapo, moderately docile, and covered with 
ash-coloured wool, as close and delicate as the finest cotton. 
But this confusion of species becomes tolerable if com- 
pared with another into which the same author has fallen 
when he speaks of the Chinches, the most insupportably 
offensive of all stinking animals, as having a remarkably 
soft fur, which is made into coverlets for beds. The 
responsibility, however, for the latter error must rest with 
Buffon; who, after quoting Feuillee’s excellent description 
of that abominable beast, adds: “it appears to me that the 
same animal is indicated by Acosta under the name of 
Chinchilla, which is not very different from that of Chin- 
che.” How this great naturalist could have been led to 
confound two animals so essentially distinct in every parti- 
cular, of one of which he had a specimen in good preserva- 
tion, while the skins of the other, mutilated it is true, but 
still distinctly recognisable, might probably have been seen 
in the warehouse of every furrier, we are at a loss to con- 
jecture. The circumstance itself affords a striking proof of 
the obscurity in which the history of the Chinchilla was 
then involved, when the mere similarity of sound in the 
names was the solitary argument advanced in favour of so 
unfortunate a conjecture. The error was corrected by 
D’Azara, who is, however, himself mistaken in regarding 
the Chinche of Feuillee and Buffon as his Yagouare, and 
who adds nothing to what was already known with respect 
to the true Chinchilla. 
Molina’s Essay on the Natural History of Chili was 
originally published in Italian at Bologna in 1782. In the 
preface the author candidly confesses that his materials are 
not sufficiently complete for a general Natural History of 
the country. They appear indeed to have consisted partly 
of the recollections of a vigorous mind, and partly of such 
imperfect notes as could only be made use of in the way of 
hints to recall to the memory some of those minor points 
which might otherwise have escaped it. It is obvious that 
under such circumstances, however careful the writer may 
have been to avoid mistakes, it is impossible to place in his 
descriptions that implicit confidence to which his acknow- 
ledged good faith would otherwise entitle him. In this 
work he describes the Chinchilla as a species of the Linnsean 
genus Mus, under the name of Mus laniger, by which ap- 
pellation it was received into Gmelin’s Edition of the 
Systema Naturae, and continued to be known among natu- 
ralists, until M. Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire suggested that it 
ought rather to be regarded as a species of the genus separated 
by him from the Rats under the name of Hamster. This 
opinion was immediately adopted by zoologists, and seems 
to have been taken up by Molina himself, in a second 
edition of his Essay, published in 1810, which contains 
some trifling additions to his former article on the Chin- 
