The Mermaid of Early Writers. og 7 
. The first paper published by Sir Everard Home on the.dugong, 
had the express object of stating the discovery, (upon which, by 
the way, much overweening stress was laid,) that the first class of 
tusks we have described were the mi/k tusks, and the second class 
the permanent tusks of the same animal. And it did not appear 
necessary to the author.to account for the cranium of the yeung 
animal being larger than that of the adult, according to his spe- 
culation, which, as shown by Dr. Knox, would be actually the 
ease. ‘The main argument supplied by Sir Everard, in support of 
his supposition, is, that ‘“ the whole of its (the tooth’s) substance, 
was found to be solid, showing that it had arrived at its full 
growth, and was therefore only a milk tusk,’ (Phil. Trans. 1820, 
-p. 146.) The true conclusion to be deduced, was, as I presume, 
that as this tooth, at its full growth, was not so much developed as 
the tusk in other heads, it was therefore not the same as the latter ; 
but the fact might as well be the indication of a variety in the spe- 
cies, or of a sexual difference, as of the presence of a milk tusk. 
A forcible argument used by Dr. Knox against this hypothesis, is 
obtained from the observation, that no appearance of any germ 
which might afterwards be perfected in the form of a permanent 
tooth, can be discovered behind .this supposed milk tusk, nor is 
there any indication of an approaching change in the shape of the 
tooth. And additional proof might be drawn from the fact, that 
the bone of the skull which immediately incloses the root of the 
tusk, is absorbed, from the long-continued pressure of that rough 
crest which surrounds the extremity of the tooth. 
There seems, however, to have been a general impression in fa- 
vour of the existence of two species or varieties of the dugong. 
The Malays believe that two varieties frequent their shores, and 
have given them the names of busban and buntal, “ the latter 
much shorter and thicker in proportion.”* M. F. Cuvier and Les- 
‘son are both inclined to the conjecture that there are two species ; 
and Dr. Knox employs this method of accounting for the disere- 
pant statements of naturalists. 3 
But after carefully comparing the different specimens which 
shave lain before me, and after considering the analogies which 
might be derived from other animals, (though I am sufhciently con- 
vinced that the opinion of Sir E. Home must be erroneous,t) I 
cannot induce myself to accord with this latter supposition. It has 
occurred to me, from the recollection that a corresponding difference 
is observable between the male and female elephants of Asia, (the 
‘tusks in some females being so small as not to appear beyond the 
* Sir Stamford Raffles, in Phil. Trans. 1820, p. 180. i : 
+ If the specimen in the Royal Society, and that similar one figured in Phil. 
-Trans. 1820, Pl. 12, be the young, in comparison with the adult skeleton in tne 
College Museum, and with the other specimen described in Phil. Trans. 1820, 
p- 153, (which from their relative size is inadmissible 3) the young skeleton in 
the College Museum, like the specimen engraved in Phil. Trans. 1821, Pl. 20, 
cannot also be the young of the same species. 
