M U 
wolf, and belonged to lord Clanbrazil, intermixed with a 
fetting-dog, and produced puppies, which, according to 
his hunter, will be excellent pointers.” 
In general, kindred of fpecies is one of thofe myfteries 
of Nature, which man can never unravel, without a long- 
continued and difficult feries of experiments. How can 
we othertvife learn, than by the union of different fpecies 
of animals, many thoufand times repeated, the degree of 
their kindred ? Is the afs more allied to the horfe than 
the zebra ? Does the wolf approach nearer to the dog than 
the fox or jackal ? At what diftance from man (hall we 
place the large apes, who referable him fo perfectly in 
conformation of body? (Nature and the laws forbid us 
to make the experiment.) Are all the fpecies of animals 
the fame now that they were originally ? Has not their 
number augmented, inftead of being diminiffied ? Have 
not the feeble fpecies been deftroyed by the ftronger, or 
by the tyranny of man, the number of whom has become 
a thoufand times greater than that of any other large 
animals ? What relation can be eftablilhed between kin¬ 
dred fpecies, and another kindred ftill better known, that 
of different races in the fame fpecies ? Does not a race, 
like the mixed fpecies, proceed from an anomalous in¬ 
dividual, which forms the original flock ? In the dog 
fpecies, there is, perhaps, a race fo rare, that it is more 
difficult to procreate than the mixed fpecies proceeding 
from the afs and mare. How many queftions does this 
fubjeft admit of; and how few of them are we in a con¬ 
dition to folve ? How many fa£ts mull be difcovered be¬ 
fore we can even form probable conjectures ? However, 
inftead of being difcouraged, the philofopher ought to 
applaud Nature, even when the is molt myfterious; and to 
rejoice that, in proportion as he removes one part of her 
veil, the exhibits an immenfity of other objects, all worthy 
of his refearches. For, what we already know ought to 
point out what may ftill be known. There is no boundary 
to the human intellect. It extends in proportion as the 
univerfe is difplayed. Hence man can and ought to at¬ 
tempt every thing: he wants nothing but time to enable 
him to obtain univerfal knowledge. By multiplying his 
obfervations, lie might forefee all the phenomena and all 
the events of nature with equal certainty as if he deduced 
them from their immediate caufes : and what enthuliafm 
can be more pardonable, or rather more noble, than to 
believe that man is capable, by his labours, to difcover 
all the powers and myfteries of Nature! 
Thefe labours conlift chiefly in making obfervations 
and experiments, from which we difcover new truths. 
For example, the union of animals of different fpecies, 
by which alone we can learn their kindred, has never 
been fufficiently tried. The faCts we have been able to 
coiled; concerning -this union, whether voluntary or 
forced, are fo few, that we are not in condition to afcer- 
tain the exiftence of jumars. This name was firft given 
to mules faid to have proceeded from the bull and mare ; 
but it has likewife been applied to denote mongrels al¬ 
leged to have been procreated by the jack-afs and cow. 
Dr. Shaw tells us, that, in the provinces of Tunis and 
Algiers, “ there is a little ferviceable beaft of burden, 
called kumrah, begot betwixt an afs and a cow. That 
which I faw at Algiers (where it was not looked upon as 
a rarity) was fingle-hoofed like the afs, but diftinguillied 
from it in having a fleeker Ikin, with the tail and the head 
(though without horns) in falhion of the dam’s.” Thus 
we have already two kinds of jumars, the one proceeding 
from the bull and mare, and the other from the jack-afs 
and cow. A third is mentioned by Merolle, and is pre¬ 
tended to proceed from the bull and Ihe-afs: “ There 
was a beaft of burden which proceeds from the bull and 
Ihe-afs, and is obtained by covering the afs with cow’s 
Ikin, in order to deceive the bull.” 
But I am equally doubtful (continued M. de Buft'on) 
concerning the exiftence of all the three kinds of jumars: 
though I pretend not to deny the poffibility of the fa6t. 
1 iiave even enumerated fome fa£ts which prove an aftual 
L E. 175 
copulation between animals of very different fpecies; but 
their embraces were ineffectual. Nothing feems to be more 
remote from the amiable character of the dog than the 
brutal manners and inftinCt of the hog : and the form of 
their bodies is as different as their natural difpofitions. 
I have feen, however, two examples of a violent attach¬ 
ment between a dog and a fow. During the fummer of 
1774, a large fpaniel difcovered a violent paffion for a 
fow which was in feafon : they were (hut up together for 
feveral days; and all the domeftics were witneffes of the 
mutual ardour of the two animals. The dog exerted 
many violent efforts to copulate with the fow; but the 
diffimilarity of their organs prevented their union. The 
fame thing happened fome years before. Hence animals, 
though of a very different fpecies, may contrail a ltrong 
affeCtion to each other ; for it is certain, that in the above 
examples nothing prevented the union of the dog and 
fow but the conformation of their organs. It is net' 
equally certain, however, that, if confummation had taken 
place, production would have followed. It often hap¬ 
pens, that animals of different fpecies fpontaneoufly 
unite. Thefe voluntary unions ought to be prolific, 
fince they imply that the natural repugnance, which is 
the chief obftacle, is furmounted, and alfo a conformity 
between the organs. No fertility, however, has relulted 
from fuch commixtures. In 1767, and fome lucceeding 
years, the miller at my eftate kept a mare and a bull in 
the fame liable, who contracted fuch a paffion for each 
other, that, as often as the mare came in feafon, the bull 
covered her three or four times a-day. Thefe embraces 
were repeated during feveral years, and gave the mailer 
of the animals great hopes of feeing their offspring. 
Nothing, however, refulted from them. All the in¬ 
habitants of the place were witneffes of this faCt, which 
proves, that in our climate at leaft, the bull cannot pro¬ 
create with the mare, and renders this firft kind of jumar 
extremely fufpicious. I have not equal evidence to op- 
pofe to the fecond kind, which Dr. Shaw fays proceeds 
from the jack-afs and cow. I acknowledge, that, though 
the diffimilarities in ftruCture appear to be nearly equal 
in both cafes, the pofitive teftimony of a traveller fo well 
informed as Dr. Shaw feems to give a greater degree of 
probability to the exiftence of this fecond kind of jumar 
than we have for the firft. With regard to the third 
jumar, proceeding from the bull and Ihe-afs, I am per- 
fuaded, notwithftanding the authority of Merolle, that 
it has no more exiftence than the one fuppofed to be pro¬ 
duced by the bull and mare. The nature of the bull is 
ftill farther removed from that of the Ihe-afs than from 
that of the mare : and the unfertility of the mare and 
bull, which is afeertained by the above examples, fhould 
apply with greater force to the union of the bull and afs. 
A very Angular mule-bird was a few years ago prefented 
to the world, by lord Stawell, of the Holt-park, near 
Farnham in Surrey. It was found by the fpaniels of 
one of his gamekeepers in a coppice, and fliot on the 
wing. The ffiape and general appearance of the bird, and 
a fcarlet ring round its eyes, agree well with the appear¬ 
ance of a cock-pheafant; but then the head and neck, 
with the bread and belly, were of a gloffy black; and, 
though it weighed three pounds three ounces, the weight 
of a full-grown pheafant, yet there were no figns of any 
fpurs on -the legs, as is ufual with all grown cock-phea- 
lants, who have large ones. The legs and feet were 
naked of feathers; and therefore it could be nothing of 
the grous kind. In the tail were no long bending fea¬ 
thers, fuch as cock-pheafants ufually have, and which 
are charaiteriltic of the lex. The tail was much Ihorter 
than the tail of a hen-pheafant, and blunt and fquare at 
the end. The back, wing-feathers, and tail, were all of 
a pale ruffet curioully ftreaked, fomewhat like the upper 
parts of a hen-partridge. It was at firft thought to have 
been a fpurious hen-bird, bred between-a cock-pheafant 
and fome domeftic fowd : but, on enquiring more mi¬ 
nutely into particulars, it was at laft difcovered that.?, 
pea« 
