OCR Text |
Show 386 MR. O. THOMAS O N UNGULATES. [June 16, the wild and domestic forms of Lama bear to each other, the generally received view l being that the large burden-bearing Llama (Lama glama, Linn.) is the domestic race of the large wild species, the Huanaco (Lama huanachus, Mol.2), and that the smaller wool-bearing Alpaca (Lama pacos, L.) bears a similar relationship to the Vicugna (Lama vicugna, Mol.3). After a careful study of the external characters, skulls, and teeth of all the four forms, I have come to the conclusion that this suggestion is untenable in one respect, namely as to the origin of the Alpaca, which appears really to be, like the Llama, a descendant of the Wild Huanaco4. Its size, although less than that of the Llama, is far greater than that of the Vicugna; its skull and teeth wholly agree with those of the former, and the naked patches on the legs, so distinctive of the Huanaco as compared with the Vicugna, are very often, although not always, present, the exceptions being easily explainable in the case of an animal bred and selected for generations solely with an eye to the thickness and extent of its furry covering. The occasional growth of the fur over the patches is not therefore to be wondered at. The probabilities also are much in favour of the Peruvians having domesticated one wild species only rather than two, and of their having gradually developed two races out of it, the one large, strong, and suitable for the carriage of burdens, and the other smaller in size but exceptional in its capacity for producing a quantity of useful wool. As to the nomenclature of the different races, it may be claimed that as the Llama, Alpaca, and Huanaco are all looked upon zoologically as one species, the earliest name for any of them (Camelus glama, L.) should be used for that species as a whole. It appears, however, to be infinitely better that in this, as in other similar cases, the original name should be used for the domestic race, to which it was originally given, whether the wild race of the same species is afterwards discovered with certainty or not. Thus Capra hircus, Linn. (1766), antedates C.cegagrus, Gmel. (1789), but it would only bea source of confusion, without any benefit, were the Linnean name applied to the genuine Wild Goat. On this principle therefore the different members of the Llama group should be :- 1 Vide Burmeister, Republ. Argent, iii. pp. 457-8 (1879); and Flower, Encycl. Brit. (9) xiv. p. 738 (1882). 3 Sagg. S. N. Chili, ed. 1, p. 317 (1782). s Tom. cit. p. 313. 4 This conclusion has been (with m y entire knowledge and consent) utilized in Messrs. Flower and Lydekker's recent work on the "Mammalia (p. 303). I think it better, however, still to publish the notes that I had previously written on the subject, as giving the reasons for an opinion which I am glad to have confirmed by two such able authorities. The same view was also suggested (with a query) by Sundevall (K. Vet. Ak. Handl. 1845, p. 292); but as he had not even seen a specimen of the Alpaca, his suggestion must be looked upon as a lucky ehot. |