Besides the fossil remains which have been found of numerous quadrupeds, named by the Romans in their sports, they employed the following, bones of which have not been detected:—Indian dogs, white bears, camels (one found), dromedaries, camelopards, wild asses, zebras, quaggas, oryxes (unicorns), Ethiopian sheep, Arabian sheep, the crocotta (bred from a dog and wolf), crocuta (from a hyæna and lioness), little dragons, ostriches. The gnu was known to the Romans; and probably the nyl-ghau and the om-kergay (quite harmless, and the size of a rhinoceros). In this list several of the fossil kinds described as the ancient wild beast with a thick skin (palæotherium), and the beast without weapons, or unarmed (anoplotherium), may be found, and also those of the genus canis, and a carnivorous beast[117].
Such is a short notice of this most extensive subject, to which the writer’s attention has been attracted by the concurrence of [p370] historical relations with the locality of fossil remains. It is offered for the consideration of the reader, not in a spirit of controversy, but with a desire to ascertain an important truth in natural history, whether his speculations be confirmed or refuted. Whichever way a decision is awarded, it will add to the interest attached to zoological pursuits, and the reader will be, by these remarks, enabled to form a judgment whether the laborious and ingenious works which have been published, since the conviction that elephants are not human giants, (a notion seriously maintained so recently as in Clavegero’s History of Mexico, written since that of Robertson) are descriptions of the quadrupeds of a former world, or of the world which is now in existence. It is necessary to remark that these particular researches relate only to animals connected with Roman and Mogul history; and if it should be conceded that it may justly be inferred, that quadrupeds hitherto deemed extinct are still to be found in the undiscovered parts of Africa, Asia, and America, not half of either region being yet scientifically known, it will give an interest to zoology and osteology ten fold more attractive than a blank and unsatisfactory hypothesis of their having all perished before the creation of man, as is often alleged. It is perhaps the most remarkable circumstance in literature, that naturalists so rarely allude to the astonishing number of beasts slain in the Roman games, although the list of them is, generally speaking, so similar to that of the fossil remains. Erroneous notions concerning fossil bones, those of elephants, in particular, being the most plentiful, began in very early ages when they were considered to be human; and James the First (of Britain) sent Lord Herbert of Cherbury to Gloucester, to ascertain if a skeleton, dug up at that place, was really that of a giant. There were found mingled with it horns and bones of oxen and sheep, and the tusks of a boar. Lord Herbert, Dr. Clayton, and the celebrated Harvey, thought the bones were those of one of the Roman elephants; and Bishop Hakewill received a letter from my lord of Gloucester, mentioning that “he was not confident that the grinder was the tooth of a man[118].” This discovery, perhaps, put an end in England to the notion of giants’ bones. [p371]
The next fanciful origin was, that these fossil remains were those of an extinct monster, called Mammoth by the native Siberians, their name for the walrus; but which was transferred and confounded with the bones of whales, elephants, and buffalos, found in that country, and such erroneous opinions will long be entertained in those quarters.
The diluvian origin was imagined by many to be the true one, but later careful examinations proving that the animals died on the spot where they are found broken, and the bones scattered about, that hypothesis could not in such instances be maintained, and recourse was had to the supposition, that Britain was in former ages a tropical country; but the mixed fossil remains, being those both of hot and cold climates, and of beasts peculiar only to Africa, or to Asia, this theory appears to be quite as objectionable as the others. The last, and the most specious, of all the hypothetical proofs of the origin is, that the teeth not often corresponding with those of the living specimens which have been seen, they must be the remains of extinct quadrupeds. There are, perhaps, fifty large regions where elephants abound, and the teeth of very few indeed of the animals of those countries have yet been seen. This last appears to be, defective as it is, the strongest objection that can be urged against the historical origin; and the few remarks in this essay will contribute materially to weaken this remaining hypothesis. The reader who feels any interest in zoology will, by their means, be assisted in his endeavours to untie or cut this gordian knot. After he has decided either that these beasts are in existence, or all extinct.
“In his reflections, then, what scenes shall strike!
Adventures thicken! novelties surprise!
What webs of wonder shall unravel there[119]!”
[53] Count Bournon; Phil. Mag., vol. lvii., p. 458.
[54] Strahlenberg, p. 405.
[55] Dr. Plott’s History of Oxf., p. 161.