| OCR Text |
Show 426 DR. M. WATSON ON THE MALE [Apr. 16, but that the genus was well known before his time is proved, first, by the fact that Herodotus1 (B.C. 484) speaks of the animal as being met with in the Libyan desert, and, secondly, that the view in accordance with which each individual was bisexual, was current before the time of Aristotle, who takes pains to show its absurdity. At a later date Pliny2 reasserts the bisexual nature of these animals; and his assertion is repeated by iElian3. As, however, with one exception, to which I shall by-and-by refer, the observations of the last two historians do not contain any thing of importance which had not been previously stated by Aristotle, we may confine ourselves to a criticism of the writings of the latter ; and by doing so I think we shall throw some light on the origin of the view in question. Aristotle says4:-"The Hyaena resembles a Wolf in colour, but is more shaggy, and its back is provided with a mane. It is said that it has the genital organs of both sexes at once ; but this is not the case. Its male organ resembles that of the Wolf and Dog ; and it has what resembles a female organ under the tail. But this last, although similar to the female organ in form, is imperforate. Underneath this again is the faecal passage. The female Hyaena has this same so-called female organ situated as in the male, just under the tail; but it is imperforate. Next to this is the faecal passage ; and under this again is the true female organ. The female Hyaena, moreover, possesses an uterus like other female animals. The female Hyaena is rarely caught. Hunters maintain that for ten males they catch but one female." With regard to this passage, the first question that arises is as to the particular species of Hyaena which Aristotle himself examined. There can, I think, be no doubt that it was either H. brunnea or H. striata, but most probably the latter. His description of the female organs is such as enables us to decide that it was certainly not H. crocuta, inasmuch as he says that the gland-pouch had been mistaken for the female organ, showing that the former had some resemblance to the latter. But the female organ of H. crocuta bears no resemblance whatever to the gland-pouch; therefore it must have been the female organ of another species to which he referred. In favour of H. striata is (1) his observation that the animal is provided with a mane, which, as we know, is more evident in the Striped Hyaena than in H. brunnea; arM (2) the geographical distribution of the two species-the Striped Hyaena being found in abundance in Northern Africa, with the topography and productions of which the Greeks were well acquainted, whilst H. brunnea is confined to the central and southern districts of that continent, districts with which the Greeks were by no means so familiar. But if we come to the conclusion that either H. striata or H. brunnea formed the subject of Aristotle's investigation, I would point out that in denying, as the result of his observations, the bisexual character of either of these animals, he is attempting to refute a hypothesis the origin of which (as referring to them) it is impossible to explain, seeing that the male and female external organs of 1 Rawlinson's Herodotus, vol. iii. p. 172. 2 Pliny, viii. 30. 3 ' Historia Animalium.' i. 25. 4 Loc. cit. |
