The horns of the giraffe being solid, and their substance similar to those of the stag, there could be no doubt of his ranking in the same genus, especially if he sheds his horns annually of which, however, we are still uncertain; but we may safely assert he ought to be separated from that of the ox, and all those animals whose horns are hollow; and, indeed, until the contrary be proved to be the fact, we cannot do otherwise than consider the giraffe as a peculiar species, in the same manner as the elephant, rhinoceros, the hippopotamus, forming a species which has no collaterals, and which seems to be a privilege conferred by Nature simply on those which are of the largest magnitude.
In the description of M. Allemand we freely acknowledge that he has displayed much accuracy, and a perfect intimacy with the subject; but yet I apprehend that the longest of the horns he did me the favour to transmit does not belong to a giraffe, for the short one is very thick, and that quite thin, comparatively with their different lengths. In an anonymous description which I received from Holland of this animal it is stated, that the horns of a full-grown giraffe are a foot long, and as thick as a man’s arm; according to which the horn we are now considering being six inches long, it ought to be full twice as thick, as it is, in reality; and, indeed, it so perfectly resembles the first horns of a young stag, that we can have little doubt of its belonging to that animal.
As to the nature of the giraffe’s horns I feel no hesitation in coinciding with the opinion of M. Allemand. The protuberance on the front is osseous, and may be considered as a third horn; and as the horns adhere to the cranium, they should be considered as osseous prolongations of the head. In short the horn of the giraffe appears to be a bone, differing from that of the ox by its covering, the latter being entirely surrounded with a horny substance, and the former with hair and skin.
There are examples in every language, of two different names being applied to the same animal, one of which has a relation to its wild state, and the other to its domestic. The wild boar and the hog are the same animal, under two names, no ways relative to any difference in their natures, but to the condition of the species; one part of which is under the power of man and the other independent. It is the same with respect to the lamas and the pacos, which were the only domestic animals of the ancient Americans: these names belonged to them in their domestic state. The wild lama was called huanacus, or guanaco; and the wild pacos, vicuna, or vigogne.[AJ] I conceived this remark necessary to avoid the confusion of names. These animals are to be found only in he New World: they seem even to belong to some particular parts, beyond the limits of which they are never to be seen. They appear confined to that chain of mountains which stretches from New Spain to Terra Magellanica: they inhabit the highest regions of the globe, and seem to require a purer and more refined air than that of our highest mountains.
[AJ] The Peruvians yet call the lama by the name of runa, which signifies sheep. Lama is a generic word signifying animal, brute, and at this day they understand by the word runa llasna, an Indian sheep. A modern traveller observes, that the guanaco , and the chillebueque are animals quite distinct from the lama. It is therefore improperly that these names are found among these cited by Buffon as applied to the lama.
It is singular, that although the lama and the pacos are domestic in Peru, Mexico, and Chili, like the horses in Europe, or the camels in Arabia, we scarcely know any thing of them; and notwithstanding the Spaniards have had possession of those vast countries for above centuries, not one of their authors have given us complete histories, nor an exact description of these animals, which they are using every day! It is pretended indeed, that they cannot be transported into Europe, nor even be brought from their heights, without, at least, risking their lives in a short time; but at Quito, Lima, and many other towns, where persons of literature reside, they might have designed, described, and dissected these animals. Herrera says but very little about them, and Garcilassa only speaks from other authors. Acosta and Gregoire de Bolivar have made the greatest collections of facts relative to the natural dispositions of lamas, and the advantages to be derived from them; but they have left us in the dark as to their interior conformation, and of the length of time they go with young; whether the lama and the pacos are two species absolutely separate from each other; whether they mix together, or whether there are any intermediate breed, and a number of other facts necessary to render their history complete.
Although it is pretended these animals die if they are removed from their native country, yet it is certain that after the conquest of Peru, and for a long time after, some of them were transported into Europe. The animal spoken of by Gesner, by the name of allocamelus, and of which he has given a figure, is a lama, which was brought alive from Peru to Holland in 1558. It is the same with that Matthiolus mentions by the name of elaphocamelus, the description of which he has given with great care and accuracy. The pacos, and, perhaps, also the lamas, have been often transported into Spain, to endeavour to naturalize them. We ought, therefore, to be better informed of the nature of these animals, which might prove very useful to us; for, probably, they would thrive as well upon the Pyrenean and Alpine mountains as on the Cordeliers.