No. XVIII.

No. XIX.

No. XX.

ZOOLOGY.
No. XXI.

Sparman[82] took the Fennec to be of the species he has called Zerda, a little animal found in the sands of Cambeda, near the Cape of Good Hope; and Pennant and Gmelin have called Bruce’s animal, after Sparman, Canis cerdo; Brander considered it as a species of fox; Blumenbach rather as belonging to the Viverræ. Illiger quotes Lacépède as having made a distinct genus of it, Fennecus[83], and has himself placed it as one, under the name of Megalotis, in the order Falculata, in the same family with, and immediately preceding the genera Canis and Hyena.

M. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, assuming Bruce’s account to be imperfect and inaccurate, supposes that the Fennec is neither more nor less than a Galago; but M. Desmarest differs from him in opinion, and places it in a situation analogous to that assigned it by Illiger, at the end of the Digitigrades, in the order Carnassiers. Cuvier merely takes the following short notice of this animal in a note, “Le Fennec de Bruce que Gmelin a nommé Canis cerdo, et Illiger Megalotis, est trop peu connu pour pouvoir être classé. C’est un petit animal d’Afrique, dont les oreilles égalent presque le corps en grandeur, et qui grimpe aux arbres, mais on n’en a descrit ni les dents ni les doigts.” (Reg. Anim. I. 151. note). This eminent zoologist appears from the above to hold our countryman’s veracity, or at least his accuracy of observation, and fidelity of description, in the same low estimation as M. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire; or he would hardly have talked of the ears of the Fennec being nearly as large as its body[84], or have asserted that neither the teeth nor toes have been described. But the illustrious foreigners of whom we have, in no offensive tone we hope, just spoken, are not the only persons who have hesitated to place implicit confidence in all that Bruce has given to the world: his own countrymen have shown at least an equal disposition to set him down as a dealer in the marvellous. Time, however, and better experience, are gradually doing the Abyssinian traveller that justice which his cotemporaries were but too ready to deny him.

M. Desmarest considers all the characters which Bruce has given of the Fennec as correct, “not conceiving it possible, that he could have assumed the far too severe tone he adopted in speaking of Sparman and Brander, if he had not been perfectly sure of his facts.”

Mr. Griffith has given the figures of two animals, both, as he conceives, belonging to this genus; one of them came from the Cape of Good Hope, and is now in the Museum at Paris; it is named by Cuvier Canis megalotis, and is described by Desmarest in his Mammalogie, (Ency. Meth. Supp. p. 538): Major Smith has called it Megalotis Lalandii, to distinguish it from Bruce’s Fennec. The other animal is from the interior of Nubia, and is preserved in the Museum at Frankfort. Both the figures are from the accurate and spirited pencil of Major Hamilton Smith. The first animal is as large as the common fox, and decidedly different from Bruce’s Fennec; the second, Major Smith considers to be Bruce’s animal.

In the fifth volume of the Bulletin des Sciences, sect. 2. p. 262., is an extract from a memoir of M. Leuckart, (Isis, 2 Cahier, 1825), on the Canis cerdo, or Zerda of naturalists, in which it is stated that M. M. Temminck and Leuckart saw the animal in the Frankfort Museum, which had been previously drawn by Major Smith, and recognized it for the true Zerda; and the former gentleman, in the prospectus of his Monographies de Mammalogie, announced it as belonging to the genus Canis, and not to that of Galago. M. Leuckart coincides in opinion with M. Temminck, and conceives that the genus Megalotis, or Fennecus, must be suppressed, “the animal very obviously belonging to the genus Canis, and even to the subgenus Vulpes.” He adds, “that it most resembles the C. corsac; the number of teeth and their form are precisely the same as those of the fox, which it also greatly resembles in its feet, number of toes, and form of tail. The principal difference between the fox and the Zerda consists in the great length of the ears of the latter and its very small size.”

The singular controversy, not even yet decided, that has arisen respecting this little animal, has induced us to preface our description of the individual before us, by this sketch of its history.

Fennecus. Dentium formula.—Dentes primores 6—66—6, laniarii 1—11—1, molares 6—67—7?

F. supra rufescenti-albus, subtus pallidior; maculâ suboculari rufâ; caudæ maculâ sub-basali nigrescenti-brunneâ, apice nigro.

The general colour is white, slightly inclining to straw-yellow; above, from the occiput to the insertion of the tail it is light rufous brown, delicately pencilled with fine black lines, from thinly scattered hairs tipped with black; the exterior of the thighs is lighter rufous brown; the chin, throat, belly, and interior of the thighs and legs are white, or cream colour. The nose is pointed, and black at the extremity; above, it is covered with very short, whitish hair inclining to rufous, with a small irregular rufous spot on each side beneath the eyes; the whiskers are black, rather short and scanty; the back of the head is pale rufous brown. The ears are very large, erect, and pointed, and covered externally with short, pale, rufous-brown hair; internally, they are thickly fringed on the margins with long greyish-white hairs, especially in front; the rest of the ears, internally, is bare; externally, they are folded or plaited at the base. The tail is very full, cylindrical, of a rufous-brown colour, and pencilled with fine black lines like the back; its colour is rather deeper above than on the under part, and there is a small dark brown spot, at about an inch below its insertion on the upper side; the ends of the hairs at the extremity of the tail are black, forming a black tip about three quarters of an inch long. The anterior feet are pentadactylous, the posterior tetradactylous, and both are covered to the claws with moderately long whitish hairs, slightly inclining to straw-yellow; the claws are of a yellowish-white, or light horn-colour, moderately hooked, very much compressed, and very sharp; those on the hinder toes are most compressed, longest, and least arched. The fur is very soft and fine; that on the back, from the forehead to the insertion of the tail, as well as that on the upper part of the shoulder before, and nearly the whole of the hinder thigh, is formed of tri-coloured hairs, the base of which is of a dark lead colour, the middle white, and the extremity light rufous brown.

The teeth of our animal are much worn, apparently by age; the incisors in the upper jaw are nearly even, the second pair rather broader than the rest; of those in the lower jaw, the outer pair are considerably the largest.

The imperfect state of the teeth, and the difficulty of examining them accurately without having the skull detached, forbids us to be confident as to the number of grinders in either jaw. From the most careful inspection, however, that we could make in the actual state of the specimen, we are inclined to believe that the system of dentition closely, if not exactly, resembles that of the dog. In the present state of uncertainty, whilst opinions of the highest authority are so discordant as to the genus to which this animal should be referred, we do not feel ourselves at liberty to disturb the arrangement adopted by Lacépède, Illiger, and Desmarest, but leave the ultimate decision of the question to future naturalists, who may possess more unequivocal data for its solution. One thing, indeed, is pretty obvious, namely, that if Major Denham’s animal be not the identical species described by Bruce, it certainly belongs to the same genus; for as it does not appear that Bruce himself ever possessed a detached skull of the Fennec, it is very easy to imagine that he could not accurately ascertain the number of molar teeth in the head of a living animal of such vivacity and quickness, and which was so impatient of being handled, that he could not obtain a correct measurement of its ears, or even count the number of paps on its belly. With such an animal it is not unlikely, moreover, that the two last tubercular grinders should escape the notice of any one attempting to examine the mouth under circumstances so disadvantageous, those teeth being in some measure concealed by the large projecting carnivorous tooth immediately before them. That it cannot be a Galago, as M. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire imagines, is sufficiently evident; and M. Desmarest has given no less than six distinct, and, we think, conclusive reasons against that opinion, through which, however, we must not follow him at present. The subject has already grown under our hands to a far greater bulk than we intended, and we conclude it by taking leave to question the validity of M. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire’s argument respecting the general veracity of Mr. Bruce, and consequently to enter our protest against his Fennec being classed with the Quadrumana.

We retain, provisionally, the generic name of Fennecus, first proposed by Lacépède, and the specific one of Cerdo, adopted by Gmelin; but should the animal ultimately prove to be a different species from Canis cerdo, M. Desmarest’s specific appellation of Brucii may with propriety be assigned to it.

Species 2.—Ryzæna tetradactyla.

This animal was found on the banks of the rivers in the neighbourhood of Lake Tchad.

Species 3.—Gulo capensis.

The natives, from whom Major Denham had all the following particulars, informed him, that during the rutting season the Ratel is very fierce, not hesitating to attack a man. Each male has two or three females, whom he scarcely suffers to be a moment out of his sight; if either of them escape his jealous vigilance, and leave him for a short time, she is sure to receive severe chastisement at her return. This animal is very easily killed; a single blow on the nose, which seems peculiarly sensible of the slightest injury, instantly despatches him.

Species 4.—Cercopithecus ruber.

Species 5.—Camelopardalis Giraffa.

The Giraffes were found on the south-eastern side of Lake Tchad, generally in parties of from two to five or six. They are tolerably numerous, but not very common. The motion of these animals is not elegant; their pace is a short canter, in which they seem to drag their hind legs after them, in an awkward fashion: their speed, however, is such as to keep a horse at a pretty smart gallop. The skin brought home by Major Denham is that of a young animal, not above a year and a half or two years old; the colours are very much lighter than on the skin of an adult animal. In its wild state, the Giraffe carries its head remarkably erect; a character which, Major Denham remarks, is not faithfully preserved in any figure he has seen of this animal.

Species 6.—Antilope Senegalensis.

Only the head and horns of this animal were brought home by Major Denham; it was found on the plains of central Africa. The natives call this species Korrigum.

Species 7—Antilope bezoartica.

Linnæus’s description of Capra bezoartica speaks of the horns as being “entirely annulated;” but Brisson, to whom Linnæus refers, says they are annulated nearly to the end. In our specimens, a considerable extent from the apex is without the rings. This difference may probably arise from age. In other respects, the horns before us perfectly answer the description of those of Linnæus’s Capra bezoartica. M. Gmelin seems to have made some confusion between the Capra Gazella and C. bezoartica of Linnæus. He has changed the specific name of Gazella into that of oryx, and he has made Linnæus’s bezoartica the Gazella of himself.

Only two horns of this species, and those apparently not fellows, were sent home. This animal was found on the south side of the River Shary, in central Africa.

Species 8.—Antilope cervicapra.

We have only the horns of this animal. Its African name is El Buger Abiad, or the White Cow.

Species 9.—Bos taurus.

Major Denham brought home a pair of horns of enormous size, belonging evidently, from their form, texture, and mode of insertion, to a variety of the common Ox, of which he states that two kinds exist in central Africa, one with a hump before, and very small horns; the other altogether of a larger size, also with a hump, and immense horns.

The circumference of one of the horns before us, at the largest part near the base, is twenty-three inches and a quarter; its length, following the line of curvature, three feet, six inches and a half. It has two curves; and weighs six pounds and seven ounces. Internally it is extremely cellular, or rather cavernous.

Species 10.—Bos bubalis.

We possess the head, with the horns. The name by which the native Africans call this animal is Zamouse.

Species 11.—Rhinoceros bicornis.

Here again we have the horns only. The local name of this animal is Gargatan.

Species 12.—Sciurus Dschinschicus.

Our species agrees exactly with M. Desmarest’s account of his S. albovittatus, except that the tail is rather more decidedly distich than that of the individual he describes; but the dried state of the skin before us prevents our ascertaining its form very minutely. M. Desmarest refers to pl. 89 of Sonnerat’s Voyage, vol. ii. for a figure of his Ecurieul de Gingi, which he quotes as a variety of this species; on looking into Sonnerat, we do not find any figure at all of this animal referred to by that author. Plate 89 is a figure of the Maquis à Bourres.

Species 13.—Hystrix cristata.

Species 1.—Vultur fulvus.