Though the existing Carnivora as at present restricted[422] form a very natural and well-defined order among the Mammalia, it is difficult to find any important common diagnostic characters by which they can be absolutely separated; so that, as in the case of so many other natural groups, it is by the possession of a combination of various characters that they must be distinguished. Thus they are all unguiculate, and never have less than four well-developed toes on each foot, with nails more or less pointed, rarely rudimentary or absent. The pollex and hallux are never opposable to the other digits. They are regularly diphyodont and heterodont, and their teeth are always rooted.[423] Their dentition consists of small pointed incisors, usually three in number, on either side of each jaw, of which the first is always the smallest and the third the largest, the difference being most marked in the upper jaw; strong conical, pointed, recurved canines; cheek-teeth variable, but generally, especially in the anterior part of the series, more or less compressed, pointed, and trenchant; if the crowns are flat and tuberculated they are never complex or divided into lobes by deep inflexions of enamel. The condyle of the lower jaw is a transversely placed half-cylinder working in a deep glenoid fossa of corresponding form. The brain varies much in relative size and form, but the hemispheres are never destitute of well-marked convolutions (Fig. 23, p. 71). The stomach (Fig. 234) is always simple and pyriform. The cæcum is either absent or short and simple (Fig. 235), and the colon is not sacculated, or greatly wider than the small intestine. Vesiculæ seminales are never present. Cowper’s glands are present in some, absent in other groups. The uterus is bicornuate. The mammæ are abdominal, and very variable in number. The placenta is deciduate, and almost always zonary. The clavicle is often entirely absent, and when present is never complete. The humerus often has an entepicondylar foramen. The radius and ulna are distinct. The scaphoid and lunar bones are united into one, and there is never a distinct os centrale in the adult. The fibula is always a distinct slender bone.

Several of these characters are, however, not applicable to all the members of the extinct group of Carnivores for which the name Creodonta has been proposed, as will be noticed in the sequel.

The large majority of the species composing this order subsist chiefly upon some variety of animal food, though many are omnivorous, and some few chiefly, though not entirely, vegetable eaters. The more typical forms live altogether on recently killed warm-blooded animals, and their whole organisation is thoroughly adapted to a predaceous mode of life. In conformity with this manner of obtaining their subsistence they are generally bold and savage in disposition, though some species are capable of being domesticated, and when placed under favourable circumstances for the development of such qualities exhibit a very high degree of intelligence and fidelity. The existing representatives of the order are naturally divided into two suborders, the members of the one being the more typical, and mainly terrestrial in their mode of life; while those of the other are aberrant, having the whole of their organisation specially modified for living habitually in water. These are called respectively the True, or Fissiped, and the Pinniped Carnivora.

Suborder Carnivora Vera.

Generally adapted for terrestrial progression and mode of life, though some may be partially aquatic in their habits. The fore limbs never have the first digit, or the hind limbs the first and fifth digits, longer than the others. Incisors ³⁄₃ on each side, with very rare exceptions. Cerebral hemispheres more or less elongated; always with three or four gyri on the outer surface forming arches above each other, the lowest surrounding the Sylvian fissure. The molar series of teeth have not the uniform characters of those of the Pinnipedia. There is always one tooth in each jaw which is specially modified, and to which the name of “sectorial” or “carnassial” tooth has been applied. The teeth in front of this are more or less sharp pointed and compressed; while those behind it are broad and tuberculated. The characters of the carnassial teeth deserve special attention, as, though fundamentally the same throughout the suborder, they are greatly modified in different genera. The upper carnassial is the most posterior of the teeth which have predecessors, and is therefore reckoned as the last premolar (p ⁴⁄ of the typical dentition). It consists essentially of a more or less compressed blade supported on two roots and an inner tubercle supported by a distinct root (see Fig. 220). The blade when fully developed has three cusps or lobes (1, 2, and 3), but the anterior is always small, and often absent. The middle lobe is conical, high, and pointed; the posterior lobe has a compressed straight knife-like edge. The inner tubercle (4) varies very much in extent, but is generally placed near the anterior end of the blade, though sometimes it is median in position. In the Ursidæ alone both the inner tubercle and root are wanting, and there is often a small internal and posterior cusp (5) without root. In this aberrant family also the carnassial is relatively to the other teeth much smaller than in the rest of the Carnivora. The lower carnassial (see Fig. 221) is the most anterior of the teeth without predecessors in the milk-series; it is therefore reckoned the first true molar (m ¹⁄). It has two roots supporting a crown, consisting when fully developed of a compressed bilobed blade (1 and 2), a heel, or talon (4), and an inner cusp (3). The lobes of the blade, of which the hinder (2) is the larger, are separated by a notch, generally prolonged into a linear fissure. In the most specialised Carnivora, as the Felidæ (I), the blade alone is developed, both talon and inner cusp being absent or rudimentary. In others, as Meles (V) and Ursus (VI), the heel is greatly developed, broad, and tuberculated. The blade in these cases is generally placed obliquely, its flat or convex (outer) side looking forwards, so that the two lobes are almost side by side, instead of anterior and posterior. The inner cusp (3) is generally conical, pointed, and placed to the inner side of the hinder lobe of the blade. The special characters of these teeth are more disguised in the Sea Otter (Latax) than in any other form, but even in it they can be traced.

The homology of the various parts of the Carnivorous carnassial with the primitive tritubercular type (p. 30) is indicated in the figures. It may be observed, however, that the anterior lobe of the three-lobed upper carnassial is an element added on to the more primitive two-lobed type. When the talon of the lower carnassial, as in Canis, consists of a large outer and small inner cusp, the latter (not seen in the figure) is the entoconid.

The toes are nearly always armed with large, strong, curved, and tolerably sharp claws, ensheathing the ungual phalanges, and held more firmly in their places by broad laminæ of bone reflected over their attached ends from the bases of the phalanges. In some forms, most notably the Felidæ, these claws are retractile; that is to say, the ungual phalanx, with the claw attached, folds back in the fore foot into a sheath by the outer or ulnar side of the middle phalanx of the digit, being retained in this position when the animal is at rest by a strong elastic ligament. In the hind foot the ungual phalanx is retracted on to the top, and not the side of the middle phalanx. By the action of the deep flexor muscles, the ungual phalanges are straightened out, the claws protruded from their sheath, and the soft “velvety” paw becomes suddenly converted into a most formidable weapon of offence. The habitual retraction of the claws preserves their points from wear in ordinary progression.

The skeleton of the Lion represented in Fig. 15 (p. 45) illustrates the digitigrade mode of progression of the Felidæ, as well as the essential characters of the bony framework of a typical Carnivore.

The Fissipedal Carnivora were divided by Cuvier into two groups, according to the position of the feet in walking,—the Plantigrada, or those that place the whole of the soles to the ground, and the Digitigrada, or those that walk only on the toes; and the difference between these groups was considered of equal importance to that which separated the Pinnigrada or Seals from both of them. The distinction is, however, quite an artificial one, since every intermediate condition exists between the extreme typical plantigrade gait of the Bears and the truly digitigrade walk of the Cats and Dogs; in fact, the greater number of the Carnivora belong to neither one form nor the other, but may be called “subplantigrade”; often when at rest applying the whole of the sole to the ground, but keeping the heel raised to a greater or less extent when walking.

An amended classification of the existing forms is into three distinct sections, of which the Cats, the Dogs, and the Bears may be respectively taken as representatives, and which are hence called Æluroidea, Cynoidea, and Arctoidea. This division is founded mainly on characters exhibited by the base of the skull, but is corroborated by the structure of other parts.[424] The presence or absence of a bridge of bone, covering the external carotid artery in a part of its course by the side of the alisphenoid bone, and enclosing the “alisphenoid canal” (see Fig. 8, p. 38), a character to which the late Mr. H. N. Turner first drew attention, might seem unimportant at first sight, but it is curiously constant in certain groups, which we have other reasons, derived often from a combination of less easily definable characters, to regard as natural. It is therefore generally mentioned in the following family definitions.

It must, however, be stated that while the arrangement is a convenient one as regards the existing Carnivores, it will not hold good when the fossil forms are included. Thus there is ample evidence to show that the Dogs and Bears were formerly so intimately connected that in a palæontological classification the Canidæ cannot be satisfactorily separated from the Ursidæ; while in another direction the Canidæ were closely allied to the ancestral Viverridæ. The most important objection against this classification is, however, the apparent intimate connection exhibited by fossil forms between the Viverridæ and the Mustelidæ, which, so far as the present evidence goes, tends to show that the latter are derived from the former. If this be eventually fully proved, it would seem to indicate that the Arctoidea are not a natural group; and that the resemblances between the Ursidæ and Mustelidæ have been independently acquired, in the course of the descent of the one family from a Canoid, and of the other from a Viverroid stock.

Section Æluroidea.

The Æluroidea or Cat-like Carnivores include the Felidæ, Viverridæ, Proteleidæ, and Hyænidæ. The existing representatives of this section present the following common features. Auditory bulla (Fig. 222) much dilated, rounded smooth, thin-walled, and (except in the Hyænidæ) divided into two chambers, by a septum. Bony auditory meatus short. Paroccipital process applied to, and spread over the hinder part of the bulla (Fig. 222). Mastoid process never very salient, and often obsolete. Carotid canal (Fig. 8, p. 38, car) small, sometimes very inconspicuous. Condyloid and glenoid foramina concealed or wanting. Cæcum small, rarely absent. Os penis generally small and irregular (large in Cryptoprocta). Cowper’s glands present; prostate distinctly lobed. Some details of the anatomy of the soft parts will be found under the head of Genetta.

Family Felidæ.

In all the forms, both recent and fossil, which can be included in this family the canines are strongly developed, there are never more than one upper and two lower molars, and the three lower incisors are placed in the same horizontal line. With one exception, the humerus has an entepicondylar foramen.

The following characters are common to all the existing members. True molars reduced to one above and below, that of the upper jaw very small and transversely extended. Only two inferior premolars. Upper carnassial with three lobes to the blade; lower without talon or inner cusp. Auditory bulla not externally constricted. No alisphenoid canal. Carotid canal very minute. Digits 5-4. Dorsal vertebræ 13.

Felis.[425]—The whole structure of the animals of this genus exhibits the Carnivorous type in its fullest perfection. Dentition: i ³⁄₃, c ¹⁄₁, p ³⁄₂, m ¹⁄₁; total 30. A distinctly cusped inner tubercle to the upper carnassial. Claws completely retractile. The upper anterior premolar (p. 2), always small, and may be absent without any other modification in the dental or other structures. Such a variation should not therefore be considered as of generic importance. Incisors very small. Canines large, strong, slightly recurved, with trenchant edges and sharp points, and placed wide apart (Fig. 223). Premolars compressed and sharp pointed. The most posterior in the upper jaw (the carnassial), a very large tooth, consisting of a subcompressed blade, divided into three unequal lobes supported by two roots, with a very small inner tubercle placed near the front end of the tooth and supported by a distinct root (Fig. 220). The upper true molar a very small tubercular tooth placed more or less transversely at the inner side of the hinder end of the last. In the lower jaw the true molar (carnassial) reduced to the blade alone, which is very large, trenchant, and much compressed, divided into two subequal lobes. Occasionally it has a rudimentary talon, but never an inner cusp. The skull is generally short and rounded, though proportionally more elongated in the larger forms. The facial portion is especially short and broad, and the zygomatic arches are very wide and strong. The auditory bullæ are large, rounded, and smooth. Vertebræ: C 7, D 13, L 7, S 3, C 13-29. Clavicles better developed than in other Carnivora, but not articulating with either the scapulæ or sternum. Limbs digitigrade. Anterior feet with five toes, the third and fourth nearly equal and longest, the second slightly and the fifth considerably shorter; the pollex still shorter, not reaching as far as the metacarpo-phalangeal articulation of the second. Hind feet with only four toes. The third and fourth the longest, the second and fifth somewhat shorter and nearly equal; the hallux represented only by the rudimentary metatarsal bone. The claws all very large, strongly curved, compressed, very sharp, and exhibiting the retractile condition in the highest degree. The tail varies greatly in length, being in some a mere stump, in others nearly as long as the body. Ears of moderate size, more or less triangular and pointed. Eyes rather large. Iris very mobile, and with a pupillary aperture which contracts under the influence of light in some species to a narrow vertical slit, in others to an oval, and in some to a circular aperture. Tongue thickly covered with sharp-pointed, recurved horny papillæ. Cæcum small and simple.

As in structure so in habits, the Cats may be considered the most specialised of all the Carnivora. All the known members of the genus feed, in the natural state, almost exclusively on warm-blooded animals which they have themselves killed. One Indian species (F. viverrina) preys on fish and even (it is said) on freshwater molluscs. Unlike the Dogs, they never associate in packs, and rarely hunt their prey in open ground, but from some place of concealment wait until the unsuspecting victim comes within reach, or with noiseless and stealthy tread, crouching close to the ground for concealment, approach near enough to make the fatal spring. In this manner they frequently attack and kill animals considerably exceeding their own size. They are mostly nocturnal, and the greater number, especially the smaller species, more or less arboreal. None are aquatic, and all take to the water with reluctance, though some may habitually haunt the banks of rivers or pools, because they more easily obtain their prey in such situations.

The numerous species of the genus are very widely diffused over the greater part of the habitable world, though most abundant in the warm latitudes of both hemispheres. No species are, however, found in the Australian region, or in Madagascar. Although the Old-World and New-World Cats (except perhaps the Northern Lynx) are all specifically distinct, no common structural character has been pointed out by which the former can be separated from the latter. On the contrary, most of the minor groups into which the genus has been divided have representatives in both hemispheres.

Notwithstanding the considerable diversity in external appearance and size between different members of this extensive genus, the structural differences are but slight, and so variously combined in different species that the numerous attempts hitherto made to subdivide it are all unsatisfactory and artificial. The principal differences are to be found in the form of the cranium, especially of the nasal and adjoining bones, the completeness of the bony orbit posteriorly, the development of the first upper premolar and of the inner tubercle of the upper carnassial, the length of the tail, the form of the pupil, and the condition and coloration of the fur, especially the presence or absence of tufts or pencils of hair on the external ears. Writing in 1881 Professor Mivart[426] gave the number of existing species of Felis as 48, but by Mr. Blanford’s reduction of the number of Indian species[427] the list may now be diminished to some 41. The following account is chiefly devoted to some of the more important and better known species.

A. Old World Species.—The Lion (F. leo, Fig. 224) has been well known to man from the earliest historic times. Its geographical habitat made it familiar to all the races among whom human civilisation took its origin, and its strongly marked physical and moral characteristics have rendered it proverbial, perhaps to an exaggerated degree, and have in all ages afforded favourite types for poetry, art, and heraldry. The literature of the ancient Hebrews abounds in allusions to the Lion; and the almost incredible numbers that are stated to have been provided for exhibition and destruction in the Roman amphitheatres (as many as six hundred on a single occasion by Pompey, for example) show how abundant these animals must have been within accessible distance of the capital of the world.

The geographical range of the Lion was once far more extensive than at present, even within the historic period covering the whole of Africa, the south of Asia, including Syria, Arabia, Asia Minor, Persia, and the greater part of Northern and Central India, and also the south-eastern portion of Europe, as shown by the well-known story told by Herodotus of the attacks by Lions on the Camels which carried the baggage of the army of Xerxes on its march through the country of the Pæonians in Macedonia. The very circumstantial account of that historian shows that the animal in his time ranged through the country south of the Balkans, through Roumania to the west of the River Carasu, and through Thessaly as far south as the Gulf of Lepanto and the Isthmus of Corinth, having as its western boundary the River Potamo and the Pindus mountains. The whole of the evidence relating to the existence of Lions in Europe, and to their retreat from that continent shortly before the commencement of the Christian era, has been collected in the article on “Felis spelæa” in Boyd Dawkins and Sandford’s British Pleistocene Mammalia (1868). Fossil remains attest a still wider range, as it is shown in the same work that there is absolutely no osteological or dental character by which the well-known Cave Lion (F. spelæa), so abundantly found in cave-deposits of the Pleistocene age in Western Europe, can be distinguished from the existing F. leo.

At the present day the Lion is found in localities suitable to its habits, and where not exterminated (as it probably was in Europe) by the encroachments of man, throughout Africa from Algeria to the Cape Colony, and in Mesopotamia, Persia, and some parts of the north-west of India. According to Blanford,[428] Lions are still very numerous in the reedy swamps bordering the Tigris and Euphrates, and also occur on the west flanks of the Zagros mountains and the oak-clad ranges near Shiraz, to which they are attracted by the immense herds of swine which feed on the acorns. The Lion nowhere exists in the table-land of Persia, nor is it found in Baluchistan. In India, where it is verging on extinction, it appears now to be confined to parts of Kattywar and Rajputana, though within the present century its range extended through the north-west part of India, from Bahawalpur and Sind to at least the Jumna (about Delhi), southward as far as Khandesh, and in Central India through the Saugor and Narbada territories, Bundelkund, and as far east as Palamau. It was extirpated in Harriana about 1824. One was killed at Rhyli, in the Dumaoh district, Saugor and Narbada territories, so late as in the cold season of 1847-48; and one was shot in 1810 near Kot-Deji, Sind.[429]

The great variations in external characters which different Lions present, especially in the colour and the amount of mane, has given rise to the idea that there are several species, or at all events distinct varieties peculiar to different localities. It was at one time supposed, on the authority of Captain Walter Smee,[430] that the Lion of Gujerat differed essentially from that of Africa in the absence of a mane, but subsequent evidence has not supported this view, which was probably founded upon young specimens having been mistaken for adults. Lions from that district as well as from Babylonia, which have lived in the gardens of the London Zoological Society, have had as fully developed manes as any other of the species. Mr. F. C. Selous[431] has shown that in South Africa the so-called Black-maned Lion and others with yellow scanty manes are found, not only in the same locality, but even among individuals of the same parentage.

The Lion belongs to a well-defined group, containing the largest members of the genus, and differing from the others in the well-marked character that the anterior cornu of the hyoid arch is but little ossified, so that this arch is connected with the cranium by a long ligament, instead of by a continuous chain of bones, and by the less important one that the pupil of the eye, when contracted, is a circular hole, instead of a vertical slit as in the cat. The Lion agrees with the Tiger and the Leopard in these respects, but differs from them in its uniform style of colouring, and from all the other Felidæ in the arrangement of its hairy covering; thus the hair of the top of the head, chin, and neck, as far back as the shoulder, is not only very much longer, but also differently disposed from the hair elsewhere, being erect or directed forwards, and so constituting the characteristic ornament called the mane. There is also a tuft of elongated hairs at the end of the tail, one upon each elbow, and in most lions a copious fringe along the middle line of the under surface of the body, wanting, however, in some examples.[432] It must, however, be observed that these characters are peculiar to the adults of the male sex only, and that young lions show indications of the darker stripes and mottlings so characteristic of the greater number of the members of the genus.

The usual colour of the adult is yellowish-brown, but it may vary from a deep red or chestnut brown to an almost silver gray. The mane, as well as the long hair of the other parts of the body, sometimes scarcely differs from the general colour, but it is usually darker and not unfrequently nearly black. The mane begins to grow when the animal is about three years old, and is fully developed at five or six.

In size the Lion is only equalled or exceeded by the Tiger among the existing Felidæ; though both species present great variations, the largest specimens of the latter appear to surpass the largest Lions. A full-sized South African Lion, according to Selous, measures slightly less than 10 feet from nose to tip of tail, following the curves of the body. Harris gives 10 feet 6 inches, of which the tail occupies 3 feet. The Lioness is about a foot less. The tongue, like that of the other species of the genus, is long and flat, and remarkable for the development of the papillæ of the anterior part of the dorsal surface, which (except near the edge) are modified so as to resemble long, compressed, recurved, horny spines or claws; these, near the middle line, attaining the length of one-fifth of an inch. They give the part of the tongue on which they occur the appearance and feel of a coarse rasp, and serve the purpose of such an instrument in cleaning the flesh from the bones of the animals on which the Lions feed.

The habits of the Lion in a state of nature are fairly well known from the united observations of numerous travellers and sportsmen who have explored those districts of the African continent in which it is still common. It lives chiefly in sandy plains and rocky places interspersed with dense thorn-thickets, or frequents the low bushes and tall rank grass and reeds that grow along the sides of streams and near the springs where it lies in wait for the larger herbivorous animals on which it feeds. Although it is occasionally seen abroad during the day, especially in wild and desolate regions, where it is subject to but little molestation, the night is, as in the case of so many other predaceous animals, the period of its greatest activity. It is then that its characteristic roar is chiefly heard, as thus graphically described by Gordon Cumming:—

“One of the most striking things connected with the Lion is his voice, which is extremely grand and peculiarly striking. It consists at times of a low, deep moaning, repeated five or six times, ending in faintly audible sighs; at other times he startles the forest with loud, deep-toned, solemn roars, repeated in quick succession, each increasing in loudness to the third or fourth, when his voice dies away in five or six low muffled sounds very much resembling distant thunder. At times, and not unfrequently, a troop may be heard roaring in concert, one assuming the lead, and two, three, or four more regularly taking up their parts, like persons singing a catch. Like our Scottish stags at the rutting season, they roar loudest in cold frosty nights; but on no occasions are their voices to be heard in such perfection, or so intensely powerful, as when two or three troops of strange Lions approach a fountain to drink at the same time. When this occurs, every member of each troop sounds a bold roar of defiance at the opposite parties; and when one roars, all roar together, and each seems to vie with his comrades in the intensity and power of his voice. The power and grandeur of these nocturnal concerts are inconceivably striking and pleasing to the hunter’s ear.”

“The usual pace of a Lion,” C. J. Andersson[433] says, “is a walk, and, though apparently rather slow, yet, from the great length of his body, he is able to get over a good deal of ground in a short time. Occasionally he trots, when his speed is not inconsiderable. His gallop—or rather succession of bounds—is, for a short distance, very fast—nearly or quite equal to that of a horse. Indeed, unless the steed has somewhat the start when the beast charges, it will be puzzled to escape. Many instances are on record of horsemen who have incautiously approached too near to the Lion, prior to firing, who have been pulled down by him before they could get out of harm’s way. Happily, however, the beast soon tires of the exertion of galloping, and unless his first rush succeeds he, for the most part, soon halts and beats a retreat.” “The Lion, as with other members of the feline family,” the same writer tells us, “seldom attacks his prey openly, unless compelled by extreme hunger. For the most part he steals upon it in the manner of a cat, or ambushes himself near to the water or a pathway frequented by game. At such times he lies crouched upon his belly in a thicket until the animal approaches sufficiently near, when, with one prodigious bound, he pounces upon it. In most cases he is successful, but should his intended victim escape, as at times happens, from his having miscalculated the distance, he may make a second or even a third bound, which, however, usually prove fruitless, or he returns disconcerted to his hiding-place, there to wait for another opportunity.” His food consists of all the larger herbivorous animals of the country in which he resides—buffaloes, antelopes, zebras, giraffes, or even young elephants or rhinoceroses, though the adults of these latter he dare not attack. In cultivated districts the cattle, sheep, and even human inhabitants are never safe from his nocturnal ravages. He appears, however, as a general rule, only to kill when hungry or attacked, and not for the mere pleasure of killing, as with some other carnivorous animals. Moreover, he by no means limits himself to animals of his own killing, but, according to Selous, often prefers eating game that has been killed by man, even when not very fresh, to taking the trouble to catch an animal himself. All books of African travel and sport abound with stories, many of which are apparently well authenticated, of the lion’s prodigious strength, as, exemplified by his being able to drag off a whole ox in his mouth to a long distance, even leaping fences and dykes with it.

The Lion appears to be monogamous, a single male and female continuing attached to each other irrespectively of the pairing season. At all events the Lion remains with the Lioness while the cubs are young and helpless, and assists in providing her and them with food, and in educating them in the art of providing for themselves. The number of cubs at a birth is from two to four, usually three. They are said to remain with their parents till they are about three years old. The following account by an eye-witness gives a good idea of Lion family life[434]:—

“I once had the pleasure of, unobserved myself, watching a lion family feeding. I was encamped on the Black Umfolosi in Zululand, and towards evening, walking out, about half a mile from camp, I saw a herd of zebra galloping across me, and when they were nearly 200 yards off, I saw a yellow body flash towards the leader, and saw him fall beneath the lion’s weight. There was a tall tree about 60 yards from the place, and anxious to see what went on, I stalked up to it, while the lion was still too much occupied to look about him, and climbed up. He had by this time quite killed the beautifully striped animal, but instead of proceeding to eat it, he got up and roared vigorously, until there was an answer, and in a few minutes a lioness, accompanied by four whelps, came trotting up from the same direction as the zebra, which no doubt she had been to drive towards her husband. They formed a fine picture as they all stood round the carcase, the whelps tearing it and biting it, but unable to get through the tough skin. Then the lion lay down, and the lioness driving her offspring before her did the same four or five yards off, upon which he got up, and, commencing to eat, had soon finished a hind leg, retiring a few yards on one side as soon as he had done so. The lioness came up next and tore the carcase to shreds, bolting huge mouthfuls, but not objecting to the whelps eating us much as they could find. There was a good deal of snarling and quarrelling among these young lions, and occasionally a stand-up fight for a minute, but their mother did not take any notice of them, except to give them a smart blow with her paw if they got in her way.... There was now little left of the zebra but a few bones, which hundreds of vultures were circling round waiting to pick, while almost an equal number hopped awkwardly about on the ground within 50 or 60 yards of it, and the whole lion family walked quietly away, the lioness leading, and the lion, often turning his head to see that they were not followed, bringing up the rear.”

Though not strictly gregarious, Lions appear to be sociable towards their own species, and often are found in small troops, sometimes consisting of a pair of old Lions, with their nearly full-grown cubs, but occasionally of adults of the same sex; and there seems to be good evidence that several Lions will associate together for the purpose of hunting upon a preconcerted plan. As might be supposed, their natural ferocity and powerful armature are sometimes turned upon one another; combats, often mortal, occur among male Lions under the influence of jealousy; and Andersson relates an instance of a quarrel between a hungry Lion and Lioness over the carcase of an Antelope which they had just killed, and which did not seem sufficient for the appetite of both, ending in the Lion not only killing, but even devouring his mate. Old Lions, whose teeth have become injured with constant wear, often become “man-eaters,” finding their easiest means of obtaining a subsistence in lurking in the neighbourhood of villages, and dashing into the tents at night and carrying off one of the sleeping inmates. Lions differ from most of the smaller Felidæ in never climbing trees; indeed, as mentioned before, they are rarely found in forests.

With regard to the character of the Lion, those who have had opportunities of observing it in its native haunts differ greatly. The exaggerated accounts of early writers as to its courage, nobility, and magnanimity have led to a reaction, which causes some modern authors to speak of it in language quite the reverse, and to accuse it of positive cowardice and all kinds of meanness. Livingstone goes so far as to say, “Nothing that I ever learned of the lion could lead me to attribute to it either the ferocious or noble character ascribed to it elsewhere,” and he adds that its roar is not distinguishable from that of the ostrich. Of course these different estimates depend to a great extent upon the particular standard of the writer, and also upon the circumstance that Lions, like other animals, undoubtedly show considerable individual differences in character, and behave differently under varying circumstances. They are certainly not so reckless as to be entirely devoid of the instinct of self-preservation, and if one, perhaps satiated with a good meal the night before, unexpectedly disturbed in the daytime, will occasionally retreat when confronted, even by an unarmed man, that is scarcely a reason for assigning cowardice as one of the characteristics of the species. The latest authority, Selous, while never denying the daring courage of the Lion when hungry or provoked, and vindicating the awe-inspiring character of the roar of several Lions in unison, when heard at close quarters, as the grandest sound in nature, says with regard to its outward aspect:—

“It has always appeared to me that the word ‘majestic’ is singularly inapplicable to the lion in its wild state, as when seen by daylight he always has a stealthy furtive look that entirely does away with the idea of majesty. To look majestic a lion should hold his head high. This he seldom does. When walking he holds it low, lower than the line of his back, and it is only when he first becomes aware of the presence of man that he sometimes raises his head and takes a look at the intruder, usually lowering it immediately, and trotting away with a growl. When at bay, standing with open mouth and glaring eyes, holding his head low between his shoulders, and keeping up a continuous low growling, twitching his tail the while from side to side, no animal can look more unpleasant than a lion; but there is then nothing majestic or noble in his appearance.”

Notwithstanding this evidently truthful description of the animal when seen under what may be called unfavourable circumstances, no one with an eye for beauty can contemplate the form of a fine specimen of a Lion, at all events in a state of repose, even though in the confinement of a menagerie, without being impressed with the feeling that it is a grand and noble-looking animal.

The Tiger (F. tigris) is so closely related to the Lion that it is chiefly by external characters that the two species are distinguished. There are, however, slight distinctions in the proportionate size of the lower teeth, the general form of the cranium, and the relative length of the nasal bones and ascending processes of the maxillaries by which the skull of the Lion and Tiger can be easily discriminated by the practised observer.

Although examples of both species present considerable variations in size, and reliance cannot always be placed upon alleged dimensions, especially when taken from skins stripped from the body, it seems well ascertained that the length of the largest-sized Bengal Tiger may exceed that of any Lion. According to Mr. W. T. Blanford,[435] adult males measure from 5½ to 6½ feet from the nose to the root of the tail; the tail itself measuring some 3 feet in length. Measured along the curves of the head and back to the tip of the tail, males usually give a length of from 9 to 10 feet, but some specimens reach to 12 feet. The female is somewhat smaller, and has a lighter and narrower head. The Tiger has no mane, but in old males the hair of the cheeks is rather long and spreading. The ground colour of the upper and outer parts of the head, body, limbs, and tail is a bright rufous fawn, and these parts are beautifully marked with transverse stripes of a dark, almost black colour. The markings vary much in different individuals, and even on the two sides of the same individual. The under parts of the body, the inside of the limbs, the cheeks, and a large spot over each eye are nearly white. The Tigers which inhabit hotter regions, as Bengal and the south Asiatic islands, have shorter and smoother hair, and are more richly coloured and distinctly striped than those of Northern China and Siberia, in which the fur is longer, softer, and lighter coloured.

The Tiger is exclusively Asiatic, but has a very wide range in that continent, having been found in almost all suitable localities south of a line drawn from the river Euphrates, passing along the southern shores of the Caspian and Sea of Aral by Lake Baikal to the Sea of Okhotsk. Its most northern range is the territory of the Amur, its most southern the islands of Sumatra, Java, and Bali. Westward it reaches to Turkish Georgia and eastward to the island of Saghalin. It is absent, however, from the great elevated plateau of Central Asia, nor does it inhabit Ceylon, Borneo, or the other islands of the Indo-Malayan Archipelago, except those above mentioned. Its absence from Ceylon leads Mr. Blanford to conclude that the Tiger has only recently migrated into Southern India.

The principal food of the Tiger in India is cattle, deer, wild hog, and pea-fowl, and occasionally human beings. The regular “man-eater” is generally an old Tiger whose vigour is passed, and whose teeth are worn and defective; it takes up its abode in the neighbourhood of a village, the population of which it finds an easier prey than the larger or wilder animals named above. Though chiefly affecting grassy plains or swamps, it is also found in forests, and seems to be fond of haunting the neighbourhood of old ruins. As a rule, Tigers do not climb trees; but when pressed by fear, as during an inundation, they have been known to do so. They take to the water readily and are good swimmers. The Tigers of the Sundarbans (Ganges delta) continually swim from one island to the other to change their hunting-grounds for deer. The following extract on the habits of the Tiger is taken from Sir J. Fayrer’s Royal Tiger of Bengal (1875):—

“The tigress gives birth to from two to five, even six cubs; but three is a frequent number. She is a most affectionate and attached mother, and generally guards and trains her young with the most watchful solicitude. They remain with her until nearly full grown, or about the second year, when they are able to kill for themselves and begin life on their own account. Whilst they remain with her she is peculiarly vicious and aggressive, defending them with the greatest courage and energy, and when robbed of them is terrible in her rage; but she has been known to desert them when pressed, and even to eat them when starved. As soon as they begin to require other food than her milk, she kills for them, teaching them to do so for themselves by practising on small animals, such as deer and young calves or pigs. At these times she is wanton and extravagant in her cruelty, killing apparently for the gratification of her ferocious and bloodthirsty nature, and perhaps to excite and instruct the young ones, and it is not until they are thoroughly capable of killing their own food that she separates from them. The young tigers are far more destructive than the old. They will kill three or four cows at a time, whilst the older and more experienced rarely kill more than one, and this at intervals of from three or four days to a week. For this purpose the tiger will leave its retreat in the dense jungle, proceed to the neighbourhood of a village or gowrie, where cattle feed, and during the night will steal on and strike down a bullock, drag it into a secluded place, and then remain near the ‘marrie,’ or ‘kill,’ for several days, until it has eaten it, when it will proceed in search of a further supply, and, having found good hunting ground in the vicinity of a village or gowrie, continue its ravages, destroying one or two cows or buffaloes a week. It is very fond of the ordinary domestic cattle, which in the plains of India are generally weak, half-starved, under-sized creatures. One of these is easily struck down and carried or dragged off. The smaller buffaloes are also easily disposed of; but the buffalo bulls, and especially the wild ones, are formidable antagonists, and have often been known to beat the Tiger off, and even to wound him seriously.”

In many districts of India the number of Tigers has been very considerably diminished of late years. In some other countries they appear, however, to be on the increase; thus according to one of the administration reports of Java laid before the Dutch Chambers, portions of that island are being depopulated through Tigers. In 1882 the population of a village in the south-west of the Bantam province was removed and transferred to an island off the coast in consequence of the trouble caused to the people by Tigers. These animals have now become an intolerable pest in parts of the same province. The total population is about 600,000, and, in 1887, sixty-one were killed by Tigers, and in consequence of the dread existing among the people, it has been proposed to deport the inhabitants of the villages most threatened to other parts of the country where Tigers are not so common, and where they can pursue their agricultural occupations with a greater degree of security. At present they fear to go anywhere near the borders of the forest. The people seem disinclined, or they lack the means and courage, to attack and destroy their enemy, although considerable rewards are offered by Government for the destruction of beasts of prey. In 1888 the reward for killing a Royal Tiger was raised to two hundred florins. It appears also that the immunity of the Tiger is in part due to superstition, for it is considered wrong to kill one unless he attacks first or otherwise does injury.

The Leopard (F. pardus, Fig. 226), although belonging to the same restricted group as the two preceding species, is distinguished from both by its inferior size, and its coloration. The animal now commonly known as the Leopard was called Pard (πάρδος and πάρδαλις) or Panther (πάνθηρ) by the ancients. Leopard (leo-pardus) is a later term, originally applied, it is believed, to the Cheeta or Hunting Leopard, upon the supposition that it was a creature intermediate between the Lion and the true Pard. If so it has been completely transferred to the more common species, and though in this sense a perfectly unnecessary and unmeaning term, has gradually superseded those by which this was originally known. Pard, so commonly used by Elizabethan authors, is now nearly obsolete in the English language, and Panther has either become synonymous with Leopard, or is used vaguely for any similar large feline animal, even the Puma of America.