no other concession. He admits no fewer than ten kinds of goats, visibly distinguishable, which also propagate together; but says, that these are varieties only, though permanent and unchangeable. No difficulty is unsurmountable, if words be allowed to pass without meaning. Nor does he even adhere to the same opinion: though, in distinguishing a horse from an ass, he affirms the mule they generate to be barren; yet afterward, entirely forgetting his rule, he admits the direct contrary *. At that rate, a horse and an ass are of the same species. Did it ever once enter into the mind of this author, that the human race would be strangely imperfect if they were unable to distinguish a man from a monkey, or a hare from a hedge-hog, till it were known whether they can procreate together?

But it seems unnecessary, after all, to urge any argument against the foregoing rule, which M. Buffon himself inadvertently abandons as to all animals, men and dogs excepted. We are indebted to him for a remark, That not a single animal of the torrid zone is common to the old world and to the new. But how does he verify his remark? Does he ever think of trying whether such animals can procreate together? They are," says he," of different kinds, having no such resem"blance as to make us pronounce them to be "of the same kind. Linnæus and Brisson," he adds.

*Vol. xii. p. 223.

66

adds, "have very improperly given the name "of the camel to the lama and the pacos of Pe66 ru. So apparent is the difference, that other "writers class these animals with sheep. Wool,

66

66

however, is the only circumstance in which a pacos resembles a sheep: nor doth the lama re"semble a camel, except in length of neck." He distinguishes, in the same manner, the true Asiatic tiger from several American animals, that bear the same name. He mentions its size, its force, its ferocity, the colour of its hair, the stripes black and white, that like rings surround alternately its trunk, and are continued to the tip of its tail : "Characters," says he, "that clearly distinguish "the true tiger from all animals of prey in the new "world; the largest of which scarce equals one "of our mastives." And he reasons in the same manner upon the other animals of the torrid zone *. Here truth obliges our author to acknowledge, that we are taught by nature to distinguish animals into different kinds by visible marks, without regard to his artificial rule. And if so, there must be dif ferent kinds of men; for certain tribes differ visibly from each other, no less than the lama and pacos from the camel or from the sheep, nor less than the true tiger from the American animals of that name. For proving that dogs were created of different

* See vol viii. sect. Of animals common to the two conti

nents.

No person thinks that all trees can be traced back to one kind. Yet the figure, leaves, fruit, &c. of different kinds, are

not

different kinds, what better evidence can be expected than that the kinds continue distinct to this day? Our author pretends to derive the mastiff, the bull-dog, the hound, the greyhound, the terrier, the water-dog, &c. all of them from the prickeared shepherd's cur. Now, admitting the progeny of the original male and female cur to have suf.. fered every possible alteration from climate, food, domestication; the result would be endless varieties, so that no one individual should resemble another. Whence then are derived the different species of dogs above mentioned, or the different races or varieties, as M. Buffon is pleased to name them? Uniformity invariable must be a law in their nature, for it never can be ascribed to chance. There are mongrels, it is true, among dogs, from want of choice, or from a depraved appetite: but as all animals prefer their own kind, mongrels are few compared with animals of a true breed. There are mongrels also among men: the several kinds however continue distinct; and probably will so continue for ever.

There remains an argument against the system of M. Buffon with respect to dogs, still more conclusive. Allowing to climate its utmost influence, it may possibly have an effect upon the size and figure; but surely M. Buffon cannot seriously think that the different instincts of dogs are owing to climate. A terrier whose prey burrows under

ground,

not more distinct, than the difference of figure, colour, &c. in the different races of men.

ground, is continually scraping the earth, and thrusting its nose into it. A hound has always its nose on the surface, in order to trace a hare by smell. The same instinct is remarkable in spaniels. It is by nature that these creatures are directed to be continually going about, to catch the smell, and trace their prey. A greyhound which has not the smelling faculty, is constantly looking about for its prey. A shepherd's dog may be improved by education, but nature prompts it to guard the flock. A house-dog makes its round every night to protect its master against strangers, without ever being trained to it. Such dogs have a notion of property, and are trusty guardians of their master's goods in his absence, no person dares lay hold of his hat or his great-coat. Waggoners employ dogs of that kind to watch during night the goods they carry. Is it conceivable, that such different instincts, constantly the same in the same species, can proceed from climate, from mixture of breed, or from other accidental cause?

The celebrated Linnæus, instead of describing every animal according to its kind, as Adam our first parent did, has wandered far from nature in classing animals. He distributes them into six classes, viz. Mammalia, Aves, Amphibia, Pisces, Insecta, Vermes. The Mammalia are distributed into seven orders, chiefly from their teeth, viz. Primates, Bruta, Fera, Glires, Pecora, Bellua, Geta. And the Primates are, Homo, Simia, Le

mur,

mur, Vespertilio. What may have been his purpose in classing animals so contrary to nature, I cannot guess, if it be not to enable us, from the nipples and teeth of any particular animal, to know where it is to be found in his book. It resembles the classing books in a library by size, or by binding, without regard to the contents: it may serve as a sort of dictionary; but to no other purpose. How whimsical is it to class together animals that nature hath widely separated, a man for example and a bat? What will a plain man think of a manner of classing, that denies a whale to be a fish. In classing animals, why does he confine himself to the nipples and the teeth, when there are many other distinguishing marks? Animals are no less distinguishable with respect to tails; long tails, short tails, no tails: nor less distinguishable with respect to hands; some having four, some two, some none, &c. &c. Yet, after all, if any solid instruction can be acquired from such classing, I shall listen, not only with attention, but with satisfaction.

Now, more particularly of man, after discussing other animals.-If the only rule afforded by nature for classing animals can be depended upon, there are different species of men as well as of dogs: a mastiff differs not more from a spaniel, than a white man from a negro, or a Laplander from a Dane. And if we have any belief in Providence, it ought to be so. Plants were created

of