Buffon's Natural History. Volume 05 (of 10) / Containing a Theory of the Earth, a General History of Man, of the Brute Creation, and of Vegetables, Minerals, &c. &c

by comte de Georges Louis Leclerc Buffon

Aristotle was the first who divided quadrupeds into whole-hoofed, cloven-footed, and digitated, and he allows, that the hog is of an ambiguous species; but the only reason he gives is, that in Illyria, Pæonia, and some other places there are hogs with whole hoofs. This animal is also a kind of exception to the two general rules of nature, namely, that the larger the animals the less young they produce, and that digitated animals are the most prolific. The hog, though far above the middling size, produces more than any other quadruped. By this fertility, as well as by the formation of the ovary of the female, it even seems to form the extremity of the viviparous species, and to approach the oviparous. In short, the hog seems to be of an equivocal nature, or rather appears so to those who suppose the hypothetical order of their ideas to be the same as the common order of Nature, and who only perceive, in the infinite chain of beings, some apparent points to which they would refer every natural occurrence.

It is not by circumscribing the sphere of Nature that we can become perfectly acquainted with her: we cannot judge of her by making her act with our particular views; nor is it by ascribing our ideas to her Author that we can penetrate into His designs. Instead of confining and limiting the powers of Nature, we should extend them to immensity; we ought to look on nothing as impossible, but that every thing which may be, really has existence. Ambiguous species, and irregular productions, would then cease to surprise, and appear equally as necessary as others in the infinite order of things; they fill up the intervals, form the immediate points, and mark the extremities of the chain. These beings present to the human understanding curious examples, where Nature, appearing to act less conformably to herself, makes a greater display of her powers, and enables us to trace singular characters, which indicate that her designs are more general than our confined views, and that if she does nothing in vain, neither is she regulated by the designs we attribute to her.

Should we not reflect on this singular conformation of the hog? He appears not to have been formed on an original and perfect plan, since he is composed of parts peculiar to other animals, and has evidently parts of which he makes no use, particularly the toes above described, notwithstanding the bones are perfectly formed. Nature is therefore far from being influenced by final causes in the conformation of beings; why may she not sometimes give redundant parts, since she so often withholds those which are essential? How many animals are deficient both in senses and members? Why should we suppose, that in each individual every part is useful to others, and necessary to the whole? Is it not sufficient that they are found together, that they are not hurtful, can grow without hindrance, and unfold without obliterating each other? All things which are not hostile enough to destroy each other certainly can subsist together; and perhaps there are, in most beings, fewer relative, useful, or necessary parts, than those which are indifferent, useless, or superabundant; but as we would always refer things to a certain end, when parts have no apparent uses, we either suppose they have hidden ones, or invent relations which have no foundation, and only serve to lead us into errors. We do not consider that we alter the philosophy, and change the sense of the object, when instead of inquiring how Nature acts, we endeavour to divine the end and cause of her acting. This general prejudice, which is too frequently adopted, serves only to cover our ignorance, and is both useless and opposite to the inquiry after, and discovery of, the effects of Nature. Without quitting our subject we can give other examples, where the intentions we so vainly ascribe to Nature are evidently contradicted. It is said the phalanges are formed merely to produce fingers or toes, yet in the hog they are useless, since they do not form toes which the animal can make any advantage of; and in cloven-footed animals there are small bones which do not form phalanges.[K] If then it was the design of Nature to produce toes, it is evident that in the hog she has not more than half executed her purpose, and in the others she has scarcely began it.

[K] M. Daubenton was the first who made this discovery.

The allantois is a membrane which is found in the f[oe]tus of the sow, mare, cow, and many other animals. This membrane adheres to the bladder of the f[oe]tus, and is said to be placed there for the purpose of receiving its urine while it is in the belly of the mother; and at the instant of birth, indeed, an inconsiderable quantity of liquor is found in the allantois; in the cow, where perhaps it is most abundant, it never amounts to more than a few pints; and the extent of the membrane is so great, there is not any proportion between that and the liquor. This membrane, when filled with air, forms a kind of double packet, in the shape of a crescent, thirteen or fourteen inches long, and from nine to twelve inches broad. Can it require a vessel capable of containing several cubic feet to receive three or four pints of water? The bladder of the f[oe]tus itself, if not pierced at the bottom, would suffice to contain this liquor, as it does in mankind, and those animals where the allantois has not been discovered; it is, therefore, plain this membrane is not designed to receive the urine of the f[oe]tus, nor for any purpose we are capable of imagining, for if it was to be filled it would form a bulk as large as the body in which it was contained; besides, as it bursts at the moment of birth, and is thrown away with the other membranes which envelop the f[oe]tus, it is certainly as useless then as it was before.

The number of teats, it has been said, in every species of animals, corresponds with the number of young which the female can produce and suckle. Why then has the male, which never produces, usually the same number of teats as the female? and why should the sow, which sometimes produces eighteen or twenty pigs, never have more than twelve teats, and sometimes less? Does not this prove that it is not by final causes that we can judge of the works of Nature, and that we ought not to determine but by examining how she acts, and by employing the physical reasons which present themselves in the immense variety of her productions? Allowing that this method, which is the only one that can conduct us to real knowledge, is more difficult than the other, and that there are an infinity of facts in Nature, which, like the preceding, cannot be applied with success, instead of searching for the use of this great capacity in the allantois, we ought to inquire into those physical relations which may indicate the origin of its production; by observing, for example, that in animals, whose stomachs and intestines are not very large, the allantois is either very small or does not exist, and that consequently the production of this membrane has some connection with the size of the intestines, &c. By considering, in the same manner, that the number of teats is not equal to those of the young, admitting only that the most prolific animals have the greatest number of teats, we may conceive that this numerous production depends on the conformation of the interior parts of generation, and the teats being also the external dependencies of the same parts, there is between the number and arrangement of those parts and that of the paps a physical relation, which we should endeavour to investigate.

But I here only endeavour to point out the right path, without entering into a discussion; yet I must observe, that numerous productions depend more upon the internal construction of the parts of generation than any other cause. It certainly does not depend upon the quantity of semen emitted, otherwise the horse, stag, ram, and goat, would be more prolific than the dog, cat, and other animals, who produce a great number of young, though they have but very little in proportion to their size; neither does the number of young depend upon the frequency of coition, for once coupling of the hog and the dog is sufficient to produce a great many young; the length of time occupied in the emission has no effect in this respect, for the dog remains long only because he is retained by an obstacle in the conformation of the parts; and though the boar has not this obstacle yet he remains longer coupled than most animals, but no conclusion can be drawn from that in favour of the numerous productions of the sow, since a cock requires not more than an instant to fecundate all the eggs an hen will produce in a month. I shall have occasion to unfold the ideas I have accumulated, with a view to prove that a simple probability, or doubt, when founded on physical relations, produces more light and advantages than all the final causes put together.

To the singularities already related we shall add some others. The fat of the hog differs from that of almost every other quadruped, not only in its consistence and quality, but its position in the body of the animal. The fat of man, and those animals which have no suet, such as the dog, horse, &c. is pretty equally mixed with the flesh; the suet of the sheep, goat, deer, &c. is found only at the extremities of the flesh; but the fat of the hog is neither mixed with the flesh nor collected at its extremities, but covers the animal all over, and forms a thick, distinct, and continued layer between the flesh and the skin. This peculiarity also attends the whale, and other cetaceous animals. A still greater singularity is, that the hog never sheds any of his cutting teeth, like man, the horse, ox, sheep, &c. but they continue to grow during life. He has six cutting teeth in the under jaw, and a corresponding number in the upper, but, by an irregularity, of which there is not another example in Nature, the bottom ones are of a very different form from the upper, for instead of being incisive and sharp, the latter are long, cylindrical, blunt at the points, and form an angle almost even with the upper jaw, so that their extremities apply to each other very obliquely. It is only the hog, and two or three other species of animals, which have the canine teeth very long; they differ from other teeth by coming out of the mouth, and growing during their whole lives. In the elephant, and sea-cow, they are cylindrical, and some feet in length; in the wild boar, and male hog, they are partly bent in the form of a circle, and I have seen them from nine to ten inches long; they are deep in the socket, and, like those of the elephant, have a cavity at the superior extremity; but the elephant and sea-cow have these tusks only in the upper jaw, and are without canine teeth in the under; while the male hog, and wild boar, have them in both jaws, and those of the under are the most useful to the animal; they are also the most dangerous, as it is with the lower tusks the wild boar wounds those he attacks.