Dogs, whose races are so varied, and so numerously diffused, were not found in America, unless in a few rude resemblances, which it is difficult to compare with the species at large. At St. Domingo, says Garcilasso, there were little animals called gosques, not unlike little dogs; but there were no dogs like those of Europe. He adds, that the latter, on being transported to Cuba and St. Domingo, had become wild, and diminished the number of cattle which had become wild also; that they committed their devastations in troops of ten or twelve, and were more destructive than wolves. According to Joseph Acosta, there were no real dogs in the West Indies, but only an animal resembling small dogs, called by the Peruvians alcos, which attach themselves to their masters, and seem to have nearly the same dispositions as the dog. If we may believe Father Charlevoix, who quotes no authority, “The goschis of St. Domingo were little mute dogs, which served as an amusement to the ladies, and were also employed in the chace of other animals. Their flesh was good for eating, and they were of great benefit to the Spaniards during the first famines, which these people experienced, so that they would have been exhausted, had there not been numbers of them afterwards brought from the continent. Of this animal there were several sorts; of some the hair was straight, others had their bodies covered with a wool exceedingly soft; but the greatest number had only a thin covering of tender down. In colours they exceeded the varieties in the European dogs, forming an assemblage of all colours, the most lively not excepted.”
If this species of the goschis ever existed, especially as described by Father Charlevoix, why have other authors never mentioned it? why does it no longer exist? or if in existence, by what means has it lost all its beautiful peculiarities? It is most likely that the goschis of Charlevoix, and of which he never found the name but in Father Pers, is the gosques of Garcilasso; and it is also probable that these gosques of St. Domingo, and the alcos of Peru, are the same animal; for certain it is, that of all American animals this has the most affinity to the European dog. Several authors have considered it as a real dog; and Laet expressly says, that when the West Indies were discovered they in St. Domingo employed a small dog in hunting, but which was absolutely dumb. We observed, in the history of the dog, that he loses the faculty of barking in hot countries, but instead thereof they had a kind of howl, and are not like these American animals, perfectly mute. European dogs have thriven equally well in the hot and cold climates of America, and of all animals they are held in the highest estimation by the savages; but they have undergone essential changes, for in hot countries they have lost their voice, in cold ones they have decreased in size, and in general their ears have become straight. Thus they have degenerated, or rather returned to their primitive species, the shepherd’s dog, whose ears are erect, and who barks the least. From whence we may conclude, that the dog belongs to the old continent where their nature has been developed in the temperate regions only, and where they appear to have been varied and brought to perfection by the care of man, for in all uncivilized countries, and in very hot or cold climates they are ugly, small, and almost mute.
The Hyæna, which is nearly the size of the wolf, was known to the ancients, and I have myself seen a living one. It is remarkable for having an opening between the anus and tail, like the badger, and from which issues a humour that has a strong smell; also for a long bristly mane which runs along its neck; and for a voracity which prompts it to scrape up graves and devour the most putrid bodies.
This horrid animal is only to be found in Arabia, and other southern provinces of Asia; it does not exist in Europe and has never been found in the New World.
The jackall, which of all animals not excepting the wolf makes the nearest approach to the dog though differing in every essential characteristic, is very common in Armenia and Turkey, and is very numerous in several other provinces of Asia and Africa; but it is absolutely unknown in the new world. It is about the size of the fox, and of a very brilliant yellow; this animal has not extended to Europe, nor even the northern parts of Asia.
The Genet, being a native of Spain, would doubtless have been noticed had he been found in America, but that not being the case, we may consider him as peculiar to the old continent; he inhabits the southern parts of Europe, and those of Asia under the same latitude.
Though it has been said the Civet was found in New Spain, I am of opinion it was not the African, or Indian Civet, which yields the musk that is mixed and prepared with that of the animal called the Hiam of China; this civet I conceive to belong to the southern part of the old continent, has never extended to the north, and consequently would not have found a passage to the New World.
Cats as well as dogs were entire strangers to the New Continent, and though I formerly mentioned that a huntsman had taken to Columbus a cat which he had killed in the woods of America, I am now convinced that the species did not then exist there. I was then less aware of the abuses which had been made in names, and I acknowledge I am not yet sufficiently acquainted with animals to distinguish them with precision in the fictitious and misapplied denominations given them by travellers. Nor is this to be wondered at, since the nomenclators, whose researches were directed to this object, have rendered it more dark and intricate by their arbitrary names and arrangements. To the natural propensity of comparing things which we see for the first time, with those already known, and the almost insuperable difficulty of pronouncing the American names being added, we are to impute this misapplication of names which have since been productive of so many errors. It is much more easy, for example, to call a new animal, a wild boar, than to pronounce its name at Mexico, quab-coya-melt; to call another American fox, than to retain its Brasilian appellation, tamandua-guacu; to give the name of Peruvian sheep, or camel, to those animals which in the language of Peru are called pelon ichiath oquitli. It is the same with almost all the other animals of the New World, whose names were so strange and barbarous to the Europeans, that they endeavoured to apply others to them, from the resemblance they had to those of the old continent, but they were often from affinities too remote to justify the application. Five or six species of small animals were named hares, or rabbits, merely because their flesh was palatable food. They called cow and elk an animal without horns, although it had no affinity to either, except a small resemblance in the form of the body. But it is unnecessary at present to dwell upon the false denominations which have been applied to the animals of America, because I shall endeavour to point out and correct them when we come to treat of each of those animals in particular.