« PreviousContinue »
less rather improbable, that such an animal as the Tennu may have escaped observation there even to this time. But it might not extend its range into the peninsula (as in the instance of the large Siarnang Gibbon, which is peculiar to Sumzitra) ; and not very much has been accomplished in the investigation of the zoology of the great island of Sumatra since the time of Rafiies. At all events, I think the present opportunity a meet one to recal the subject to notice.
Baron Cuvier long ago remarked, I think in his Lecons dans Z’A1~zatomie Comparée, that even then it was not probable that any more existing large quadrupeds remained to be discovered: and it is worthy of notice that no remarkable genus of large quadruped has been since brought to light, though additional species have been discriminated of several of the old genera. The small HIPPOPOTAMUS LIBEBIENSIS of the late Dr. Morton is scarcely an exception; although since raised to generic rank by Dr. Leidy, by the name C11(EROPBIs.* Of the three genera containing the most bulky of existing land quadrupeds, additional species have been distinguished; though, for the most part, they may not yet be universally accepted. Of ELEPHAS, the E. SUMATRANUS, Temminck and Schlegel (to which Sir J. Emerson Tennent refers the Ceylon Elephanti"). Of Rhinoceros, a
‘ Journ. Plzilad. Acad., n. s., I, 231, II, 207.
1' The grinders of Emzrnss sumsrnanus are said to be intermediate in form. to those of the Indian and African species; and I have just purchased a pair of table-weights, formed each of a thick horizontal section of an Elephant/a molar-tooth, which seem to me to be of this species. The little boxes formed of sections of Elephant's molars, which are commonly brought from Galle, are (so far as I have seen) of the Indian species; but these are not necessarily from Cinghalese individuals. It is worthy of remark, however, that whilst among the Elephants of Sumatra and Borneo fine tuskers would appear to be common (and the ivory is an article of export from both islands, as I am assured by a gentleman who has collected the article in Borneo), they are exceedingly rare among the Elephants of Ceylon; where, nevertheless, it has been suggested that tuskers are so much sought after that they are seldom permitted to develope their ivories.
With reference to Sir J. E. Tennent’s speculation regarding the former continuity of land between Sumatra and Ceyl0n—and Africa, of which the intermediate character of the Emrass snmarnanns is one of his presumptive proofs, it may be remarked that the two-horned Rnmocanos SUMATRANUS (with its only slight skin-folds) interposes a link between the two~horned and smooth-skinned African and the single-horned and mail-clad Asian species; but (not to allude further to the alleged existence of a single-horned African species) the presence of'the second horn in RH. SUMATBANUS is much less remarkable, when we bear in mind the several fossil two-horned species of Europe and Asia, to which moreover the existing two-horned Asiatic Rhinoceros is much more nearly akin than it is to the different African two-horned species, as before remarked.
second black African species, the RH. KEITLOA, A. Smith (long previously indicated by Sir J. Barrow by the name Jckloa), and a. second white African Rhinoceros, the (RH. OSWELLII, Elliot),— besides the RH. Cnossn, Gray (founded on the horn only, and the habitat of which is unknown); and of HIPPOPOTAMUS, the species of N. and S. Africa, respectively, are distinguished by Dr. Leidy and others (sinking H. senegalens-is, auct., as a synonyme of the former), and there is also the H. or Cnrnnorsis LIBEBIENSIS, which is a most undoubted species, considered—as \ve have seen-—entitled to generic rank by Dr. Leidy. l'Vhether external differences exist between the great Hippopotami of N. and S. Africa, remains to be shewn; as also in the case of the European and American Beavers, which Owen separated on account of differences in the configuration of the skull: in another animal first so discriminated, the PHASCALOMYS LATIFRONS, Owen, good external distinctions have since been discovered, which characterize it well apart from the PH. WOMBAT. Of other Pacfiydermata of Ouvier, more EQUI (of the Asinine type) have been added to the list; and several species of Swine. Among the Bovine ruminants, the three species of flat-horned Taurinc cattle proper to S. E. Asia have only recently been properly distinguished ;* also the Benanus nnnonxcnnos of intertropical Africa ; and there are others (as I believe) not yet sufliciently established, and more species also of large Deer and Antelopes. Among the Oarnivora, no animal worthy of much note, unless Phocidce (as might have been-expected) ; and ditto with Cetacea-—my BALENOPTEBA. INDICA for example (which is perhaps the largest of existing animals,—but these latter
Prof. Owen, in his late minute-—"On a National Museum of Natural History,‘ (which I have only seen since penning the above-,) writing of this genus, remarks—“ There is also a two-horned Rhinoceros in Sumatra; and the Rhinoceros of continental India is one-horned, as is that of the island of Java.” He would appear thus to consider the RH. SONDAICYUS and RH. SUMATBANUS as exclusively insular species. He further adds that—-—“ The two-horned Rhinoceros of Sumatra offers, of all living Rhinoceroses, the nearest resemblance to certain fossil kinds found in Europe. When half-grown, this Rhinoceros retains a conspicuous coat of short, straight, bristly hair. It is generally known that one, at least, of the extinct European Rhinoceroses [REL TICHOBHINUS] was covered with hair when full-grown. =3‘ * * What I have said of the Rhinoceros applies to the Elephant. Bishop Heber’s first announcement of the young hairy Elephant which he met with iu the Himalaya mountains excited much surprise. This character, transitional in the modern Elephant, was persistent in the Mammoth, or northern Europeo-Asiatic Elephant." The RHINOCEROS T10110RHINUS, it may however be noticed, is stated to have had no skin~folds.
* Dr. S. Miller unites the three in his description of B05 SONDAICU8l
are not four-limbed). Among the Quadrumana, the grandest of all— the huge Gorilla-—has been re-discovered; for its reputed existence was regarded as fabulous by Baron Cuvier. Lastly, in the bird class, it is most remarkable that the number of brcvipermate species has quite recently been more than quadrupled* :—-still, however, no remarkable new genus, excepting the New Zealand Moa ; and of this at least two species have just been discovered to maintain a lingering existence, as I have learned from a letter recently received from Mr.
E. L. Layard, who is at present in New Zealand as Private Secretary to Governor Sir G. Grey. One of these, of comparatively small size (about 3% ft. high), has actually been killed and eaten by a famishing party of explorers and fifteen others seen. Of the other, one of the large Moas, only the fresh foot-steps (15 in. long) have been traced, as Mr. Layard states by a party who had lost themselves; and therefore the instance does not appear to be the same as that lately recorded in the Zoologist (p. 784:7). Both of these living species
inhabit the little explored Middle Island.1' March 1st, 1862.
* Tide J. A. 5'. XXX, note to p. 92. Even a sixth Cassowary has since been added by the Baron von Rosenberg of Amboyna. It is from the island of Salawatti; and has no wattles, as in all the others. He terms it Cssusarus K.-mm. Vide Ibis, July, 1861, p. 312. The BAL/ENICEPS nnx must be considered as a remarkable discovery among large birds; and this is quite a new genus.
1- The notice in the Zoologist is copied from the Nelson Examiner of J uly 12th, 1861. It is as follows :—-“ About three weeks ago, while Mr. Brunneri, Chief Surveyor of the province, and Mr. Maling, of the Survey Department, accompanied by a native, were engaged in surveying on the ranges between the Rewaki and Tnkura rivers, they observed one morning, on going to their work, the foot-prints of a large bird, whose tracks they followed for a short distance, but lost them at length among rocks and shrub. The size of the foot-prints, which were well defined wherever the ground was soft, was fourteen inches in length, with a spread of eleven inches at the points of the three toes. The footprints were about thirty inches apart. On examining the bones of a foot of a
(on in the museum, we find the toe to measure, without integuments, eight inches and 0. half, and those evidently form part of a. skeleton of a vcry large bird: the length of the impression of the toe of the bird in question was ten inches. The native who was in company with Messrs. Brunner and Maling was utterly at a loss to conjecture what bird could have made such a footprint, as he had never seen anything of the kind bcfore. On a. subsequent morning similar marks were again seen, and, as a proof that they had been made during the night, it was observed that some of them covered the foot-prints of those which the party made the preceding cvcning. The size of these footprints, and the great stride of the supposed bird, has led to a belief that a solitary Mos [why one only P] may yet be in existence. The district is full of limestone caves of the same character as those in which such a quantity of Moo bones were found, about two years ago, in the neighbouring district of Asrerc. We believe that it is the intention of the Government to take steps to asccrluin the character of this gigantic bird, whether Moe or not, which keeps watch in these solitudes.”
P. S. No. 1. In a letter dated May 10th, from Bangkok, just received from Sir R. H. Schomburgk, he writes—“ Will you believe me, I have never met with an example of that formidable animal, the Rhinoceros ! They are more towards the east, in Cambodia and Anam, although they are likewise to be met with in the north; for, amongst the remarkable events of 1860, Dr. Bradley notes, in his ‘ Siamese Calendar’ under April 5th, that—‘ A Rhinoceros was brought to the city from the north. Though a great curiosity, it was little thought after, because of a prevalent notion that his way had been heralded by the cholera, and that the efiiuvia from his body was almost sure to give that disease.’ They are strange people, these Siamese :
Mr. Layard further writes, that-—“ The fabulous Otter of the natives [qu. a species of ORNITHORIIYNCIIUS P] has also been seen and shot at by Europeans ; and a new large green Ground Parrot ; also a huge land shell (not HELIX BUS~ mm), on the tops of fir-trees on the same island.”
Since transcribing the above, I find that a further notice of the existing great Mon appears in the ‘ Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society of London,’ Vol. V1 (1862), p. 25. It is a repetition ofthe account in the ‘ Nelson Examiner.’ Mr. T. H. Hood, Member of the Legislative Council of Queensland, writes to Lord Ashburton,~—“ There is said to be a possibility that the British Museum may still be adorned by a DINOBNIS : the footsteps of a gigantic bird, it is stated, were seen by a snrveyor’s party; they were 14 inches long, and 1]. in. wide on the spread, and they had been impressed during the night over the tracks of the men,made on the previous day. All the wingless birds existing in New Zealand are nocturnal in their habits; and the general impression from Maori tradition is, that the Mos was a gigantic Arrnnxx. The district is exceedingly rocky, and full of caves, in some of which it is just possible that a surviving individual may find its hiding-place. Exertions are being made (the last steamcr’s mail brings us intelligence) to ascertain the truth of the report, and, if correct, thoroughly to search the wild and unsettled districts where it is said to be. Certainly this would be a most interesting event to naturalists, should the search prove successful. I must say that I feel somewhat sanguine on the subject; as once, when in that part of the Middle Island, I heard of a very circumstantial account given by in man, who stated that he had seen a great bird go down into a rocky glen one morning at daybreak; but the story was not credited. The surveyor who now makes the statement is understood to be a'man of character.”
For a Report on the four ascertained living species of APTERYX, by Mr. P. L. Selater and Dr. F. von Hochstetter, vide ‘Natural History Review,’ October, 1861, p. 504»
“ Let me again refer,” remarks Prof. Owen, “to the ratio at which the zoologist’s knowledge of the class [Mammalia] has proceeded of late years; viz. from, say, 1,350 species in 1830, to 2,000 in 1855, and 2,500 in 1860. In one order, e. g. Marsupialia, the increase has been, from 50 species, recorded in 1830, to 350 species, in 1860. We should greatly over-estimate our present knowledge were we to rest upon it a conclusion that there remained but very few more forms of mammalia to provide room for in our museums. Look, for example, at the recent unexpected augmentation of ‘the species of the quadrumanous order, by the researches made by Dr. Savage and M. du Chnillu, in a limited, but previously unexplored, tract of tropical Africa,—species including the largest as well as the most highly-organized forms of the order that comes nearest to Man." (Athenzrum, July, 1861, p. 120.)
while the rasped horn and the coagulated blood of the animal are
considered remedies in various diseases, they consider its eflluvia as dangerous to the health.”
P. S. No. 2. I am just able to insert the following extract from a letter, posted at Galle, from Mr. W’. '1‘. Blanford (now on his voyage to Suez). He writes—“ It may be interesting to you at the present moment to know that the Rhinoceros of the Shan hills east
of Ava is one-horned. The people at the capital assured me that,
two-horned Rhinoceroses were [there] unknown. The Rhinoceros of the southern portion of the Arakan hills is two-horned. I am not sure that the one inhabiting the higher portion of the hills on the Pcgu side, and of which I once or twice saw tracks in the Henzada district, is identical. The tracks appeared to me to be larger [as those of Ru. SONDAICUS would be].
“I was told at Mandalé of a wild Horse (or a wild Ass) on the mountains of Theinin in the Shan states east of Ava. I at first thought that only the Nzemorhredus [osrnroonrus] was meant; as that animal is known in Pegu, but not in Upper Burma, as the ‘ wild Horse.’ My informant, ho\vcver, when I suggested this, said that he knew the ‘ wild Goat’ perfectly well; and that the animal he referred to was a wild Horse, or perhaps, he added, rafher a wild Ass Ihan a wild 1Iorse. Can this be the Kyany of Tibet ?”
P. S. No. 3. When I referred to the Ensrrms sunluinnrus in p. 165 aniea, I had not seen Prof. H. Schlegel’s paper on this animal, atranslation of which is published in the ‘Natural History Review’ for January, 1862. This I have chanced to light on, just in time to avail myself of it here. To Prof. Schlegcl is due the identification of the Cinghalese Elephant with that of Sumatra: and, according to this naturalist,-—-“ It is Well known that Sumatra is the only island of the Indian Archipelago, where Elephants are found wild. Magelhaens has informed us, that the Elephants which he saw in Borneo, were introduced there ; and that the animal is as little indigenous to that island as to J ziva.” From the information
which I have received, however the statement of Magelhaens may‘ hold true that the tame Elephants which he saw in Borneo were im
ported animals, it seems improbable that the race now wild upon that great island, and at this time sufliciently numerous in individuals