14 
WARD’S NATURAL SCIENCE BULLETIN, 
THE PREPARATION OF SMALL MAMMAL 
SKINS. 
This question of what is the proper method 
of preparing small mammal skins, is one that 
is well worth our careful attention. While 
handling many of these skins, I am constantly 
finding those with imperfections, either owing to 
improper care when first procured, or from igno- 
rance or neglect in skinning. In some cases, 
when the skin is relaxed for mounting, the hair 
comes out to such an extent that the specimen is 
worthless, and in many cases this difficulty lies 
in the feet and tail, which parts need as careful 
attention, and in many cases more care than the 
rest of the specimen. The following hints have 
been gathered from some of our best collectors 
and most experienced taxidermists, and may be 
of interest to the readers of the “Bulletin.” 
When a small mammal is captured, the skin 
should be removed at once. If time cannot be 
taken to do this, open the specimen on the belly 
and remove the intestines, putting a piece of cot- 
ton saturated with carbolic acid into the opening, 
and also treating the mouth in the same manner. 
When prepared in this way a specimen will keep 
for one or two days without being skinned, but 
must not remain longer than two days. Cut 
your specimens along the belly, from the lower 
part of the throat to the tail, skinning carefully 
on either side, great care being taken not to 
stretch the skin. Leave attached to the skin the 
Humerus, Radius and Ulna on the fore, and the 
Femur, Tibia and Fibula on the hind feet. Do 
not cut the skin on the legs, but turn them well 
to the wrists and ankles, being very careful not 
to cut through the tender skin. The leg bones 
must be very thoroughly cleaned, then wound 
with a little cotton or tow, so as to prevent the 
bones from coming in contact with the skin; 
which, if allowed, would very probably result in 
the ruin of your specimen, owing to the oily sub- 
stance which oozes from the bone and rots the 
skin. In wrapping the bones be careful not to 
make the leg larger than the natural size, which 
stretches the skin, and is either stuffed incorrectly 
or a piece is taken out which makes it more dif- 
ficult to get a satisfactory result. The bone 
should always be removed from the tail without 
breaking or cutting the skin. This may be done 
by taking two sticks the size of a lead pencil 
(but not round) and place them on either side at 
the root of the tail, holding them firmly in the 
left hand at right angles to the tail; while with 
the right hand grasp the carcass and tail verte- 
brae, then pull them steadily out. If the tail 
does not slip easily, cut around the base and 
with a little care you can remove the caudal ver- 
tebra. This method can be used with mammals 
the size of a fox. When the tail has been prop- 
erly cared for, it saves the taxidermist much 
labor and the specimen gives better satisfaction 
when mounted. We will next turn our attention 
to the skull, which should be taken entirely from 
the skin, care being used not to injure the eye- 
lids or nose when removing. Clean the skull 
thoroughly, then fasten it to the neck or one of 
the legs, having first wrapped it in paper to pre- 
vent it from coming in contact with the skin, 
thus when the dentition or other portions of the 
skull are desired to be examined, the skull is 
easily accessible, and it is very important to have 
the skull where it can easily be examined, for 
in many cases it is absolutely necessary to exam- 
ine the skull in order to determine the species of 
your specimen. The skin being removed and 
prepared as above, must now receive some treat- 
ment which will properly preserve it; and we 
find nothing better than a mixture of salt and 
alum, rubbed on all parts of the inside of the 
skin, being careful to get plenty of the mixture 
in the tail; also open the balls of the feet, so 
that the salt and alum can thoroughly penetrate 
and preserve the skin, preventing the hair from 
coming out. Use about one-third alum and two- 
thirds salt. If care is taken to keep the skin in 
a tight box after being thoroughly dried, and cam- 
phor or some other insecticide be used to keep it 
from the devouring appetites of the moths and 
other insects; it will not be necessary to Use any 
other preventive than the treatment of salt and 
alum; but unless great care is taken, arsenic must 
be used. Before putting your skin away, partly 
fill it with dry grass, or cotton, taking a few 
stitches, in the edges of the skin, drawing it to- 
gether in as natural a shape as possible. Never 
let a skin dry in the sun or by the fire, and always 
leave it with the fur side out. I must not leave 
this subject without saying a few words on pre- 
serving specimens in alcohol, which is done by 
simply taking the specimen when procured, and 
cutting it on the belly, also opening the balls of 
the feet, and then dropping it into 75% alcohol. I 
would give the following reasons for keeping 
skins or entire specimens in this manner. 1 st. 
You can collect more specimens in a day, owing 
to the fact that no time need be taken in skin- 
ning. 2nd. In some climates your specimens 
are very hard to keep, unless they have immedi- 
ate and careful attention, and by the use of 
alcohol this difficulty is overcome. 3rd. When 
you desire to use a skin it is always relaxed, and 
in case you have an entire specimen, the form is 
preserved, which enables you to take careful 
measurements before skinning: the preservation 
of the nose and other parts of the face is very 
desirable, especially in rare forms. You also 
preserve the skeleton as well as the skin, in case 
you desire to use it. When alcohol can easily be 
carried, we highly favor its use. C. D. C. 
A ZOOLOGY OF 1748. 
Hill’s History of Fossils, noticed in the last 
Bulletin, was one of a series of three volumes, 
the whole forming a complete treatise on Natural 
History, and containing descriptions of all ani 
mals, plants and minerals that were known in 
the year 1748. The second or Zoological portion 
of the work is entitled “The History of Animals,” 
and beginning with “Animalcules” ends with 
“Quadrupeds.” Spite of the great increase of 
knowledge since the time of Hill, it is impossible 
to read this second volume carefully without 
coming to the conclusion that he was a careful 
and painstaking Naturalist, who only escaped 
celebrity by having been born a century and a 
half too soon. Of course there are many things 
in his work which strike us as amusing, but so 
careful was Hill in his statements that his History 
of Animals contains far less of fiction than does 
the popular work of Wood. Like a second St. 
George, Hill had atilt with the dragon and came 
out victor by conclusively proving that such a 
creature had no existence, save in the brains of 
its describers. The origin of the fable of the 
Barnacle Goose is explained and the fact noted 
that the fish Corypliaena and Cetacean Delphinns 
are both called Dolphins, a confusion of names 
which has caused much needless discussion of 
the fact that the Dolphin changes color in dying. 
Hill’s classification seems a very queer jumble, 
but it should be borne in mind that the older 
naturalists— and for that matter a goodly number 
of recent ones — classified animals entirely by 
their external characters. And if so late as 1869 
Dr. Gray put the Echidna and Ornitliorhynchus 
among the Edentates, we must not be surprised 
to find that in 1748 the whales and sirenians 
were grouped with the fishes,* although our au- 
thor notes that they form but a single series, 
readily distinguished by their transverse tails, 
that they breathe by means of lungs, and are 
viviparous. 
*Note— After all, this is not much worse than the 
statement found in every other Zodlogy of to-day that 
the whale spouts water. 
Of the Manatee he says, “this singular creature 
seems to be the link in the great chain of beings 
uniting the fish and the quadruped tribes” * 
* * * and that “it is probably from an im- 
imperfect view of this fish that the opinion of 
Mermaids, mermen and syrens first arose.” 
The highest divisions in Hill’s system which 
correspond to our classes, are termed irrespective- 
ly families or tribes, the term class being used as 
we now use order, the whales for example being 
termed the Class Plagiuri. The only named 
divisions smaller than these “ classes ” are genera 
and species, but we find families foreshadowed in 
a sentence occurring at the end of the introduc- 
tion to fishes, * * “the very numerous ones 
(species) arranged under the Malacopterygious 
and Acanthopterygious series, have natural and 
obvious classical distinctions under those of the 
series and above the generical.” What the state 
of Zoological classification had been may be 
guessed at from the fact that the Manis is spoken 
of as having been formerly placed with the Rep- 
tiles (Amphibious Animals), although Hill raised it 
from this low position and correctly placed it 
near the Anteater. The bats are also taken from 
among the birds and placed with the Quadrupeds. 
Hill was no modern hair-splitting systematist in 
his views of what constituted a species, since he 
considered all the bears as forming but one 
species which “ towards the pole is large and 
white and in other places is smaller and of a black 
or rusty brown.” Would that some of our more 
modern naturalists had been blest with a little of 
this breadth of view. Whenever it was possible, 
animals were described at first hand, but for 
some of his descriptions he was forced to draw 
on other authors, and consequently should not be 
credited with all the errors in his book. Up to 
1748, no Giraffe had been brought to England, 
and in fact it is doubtful if any had been seen in 
Europe since the date of the Roman Empire. 
Even so late as 1770, many naturalists doubted 
the existence of such an animal, and we are not 
surprised that Hill’s description and figure (taken 
from Bellonius ?) are somewhat quaint. Careful 
as Hill usually was not to exaggerate the size of 
an animal— indeed many are described under 
their full size— he yet breaks this rule in one or 
two instances, as where in speaking of the Ele- 
phant he says that the height of a full-grown 
specimen is from seventeen to twenty feet. He 
also states that the Elephant has no epiglottis, so 
that it would be easy for any small animal to 
enter the lungs by way of the trunk, and in order 
to guard against this the creature sleeps with the 
extremity of the trunk so closely applied to the 
ground as to admit air only. “ The soals of the 
feet are not covered with any thing horny or 
firm, but with a mere skin, and this indeed 
thinner than that of the rest of the body, and 
easily cut through with a knife.” The Rhinoceros 
is credited with a height of fourteen feet and the 
head described as so bulky that the creature 
seems to find pain in holding it up, and is always 
seen in the wild state with it in a depending 
position. 
/%/c -2S 4 
The figure of the Rhinoceros is, with one 
exception, the most singular of any given, al- 
though at the date of writing there was one on 
exhibition in London, and also an Elephant. 
None of the anthropoid apes were personally 
known to Hill, only one or two having been 
brought to England up to that date, but he was 
acquainted with several of the Baboons and 
