Natural History of the Mammalia of India and Ceylon Part 1

Natural History of the Mammalia of India and Ceylon.

by Robert A. Sterndale.

PREFACE.

This work is designed to meet an existing want, viz.: a popular manual of Indian Mammalia. At present the only work of the kind is one which treats exclusively of the Peninsula of India, and which consequently omits the more interesting types found in a.s.sam, Burmah, and Ceylon, as well as the countries bordering the British Indian Empire on the North. The geographical limits of the present work have been extended to all territories likely to be reached by the sportsman from India, thus greatly enlarging the field of its usefulness.

The stiff formality of the compiled "Natural Histories" has been discarded, and the Author has endeavoured to present, in interesting conversational and often anecdotal style, the results of experience by himself and his personal friends; at the same time freely availing himself of all the known authorities upon the subject.

INTRODUCTION.

In laying before the public the following history of the Indian Mammalia, I am actuated by the feeling that a popular work on the subject is needed, and would be appreciated by many who do not care to purchase the expensive books that exist, and who also may be more bothered than enlightened by over-much technical phraseology and those learned anatomical dissertations which are necessary to the scientific zoologist.

Another motive in thus venturing is, that the only complete history of Indian Mammalia is Dr. Jerdon's, which is exhaustive within the boundaries he has a.s.signed to India proper; but as he has excluded a.s.sam, Cachar, Tena.s.serim, Burmah, Arracan, and Ceylon, his book is incomplete as a Natural History of the Mammals of British India. I shall have to acknowledge much to Jerdon in the following pages, and it is to him I owe much encouragement, whilst we were together in the field during the Indian Mutiny, in the pursuit of the study to which he devoted his life; and the general arrangement of this work will be based on his book, his numbers being preserved, in order that those who possess his 'Mammals of India' may readily refer to the noted species.

But I must also plead indebtedness to many other naturalists who have left their records in the 'Journals of the Asiatic Society' and other publications, or who have brought out books of their own, such as Blyth, Elliott, Hodgson, Sherwill, Sykes, Tickell, Hutton, Kellaart, Emerson Tennent, and others; Col. McMaster's 'Notes on Jerdon,' Dr.

Anderson's 'Anatomical and Zoological Researches,' Horsfield's 'Catalogue of the Mammalia in the Museum of the East India Company,'

Dr. Dobson's 'Monograph of the Asiatic Chiroptera,' the writings of Professors Martin Duncan, Flowers, Kitchen Parker, Boyd Dawkins, Garrod, Mr. E. R. Alston, Sir Victor Brooke and others; the Proceedings and Journals of the Zoological, Linnean, and Asiatic Societies, and the correspondence in _The Asian_; so that after all my own share is minimised to a few remarks here and there, based on personal experience during a long period of jungle life, and on observation of the habits of animals in their wild state, and also in captivity, having made a large collection of living specimens from time to time.

As regards cla.s.sification, Cuvier's system is the most popular, so I shall adopt it to a certain extent, keeping it as a basis, but engrafting on it such modifications as have met with the approval of modern naturalists. For comparison I give below a synopsis of Cuvier's arrangement. I have placed Cetacea after Carnivora, and Edentata at the end. In this I have followed recent authors as well as Jerdon, whose running numbers I have preserved as far as possible for purposes of reference.

Cuvier divides the Mammals into nine orders, as follows. (_The examples I give are Indian ones, except where stated otherwise_):--

_Order I_.--BIMANA. Man.

_Order II_.--QUADRUMANA. Two families--1st, Apes and Monkeys; 2nd, Lemurs.

_Order III_.--CARNARIA. Three families--1st, _Cheiroptera_, Bats; 2nd, _Insectivora_, Hedgehogs, Shrews, Moles, Tupaiae, &c.; 3rd, _Carnivora_: Tribe 1, _Plantigrades_, Bears, Ailurus, Badger, Arctonyx; 2, _Digitigrades_, Martens, Weasels, Otters, Cats, Hyaenas, Civets, Musangs, Mongoose, Dogs, Wolves and Foxes.

_Order IV_.--MARSUPIATA. Implacental Mammals peculiar to America and Australia, such as Opossums, Dasyures, Wombats, and Kangaroos.

We have none in India.

_Order V_.--RODENTIA. Squirrels, Marmots, Jerboas, Mole-Rats, Rats, Mice, Voles, Porcupines, and Hares.

_Order VI_.--EDENTATA, or toothless Mammals, either partially or totally without teeth. Three families--1st, _Tardigrades_, the Sloths, peculiar to America; 2nd, _Effodientia_, or Burrowers, of which the Indian type is the Manis, but which includes in other parts of the world the Armadillos and Anteaters; 3rd, _Monotremata_, Spiny Anteaters or Echidnas, and the Ornithorynchus.

_Order VII_.--PACHYDERMATA, or thick-skinned Mammals. Three families--1st, _Proboscidians_, Elephants; 2nd, _Ordinary Pachyderms_, Rhinoceroses, Hogs; 3rd, _Solidungula_, Horses.

_Order VIII_.--RUMINANTIA, or cud-chewing Mammals. Four families--1st, _Hornless Ruminants_, Camels, Musks; 2nd, _Cervidae_, true horns shed periodically, Deer; 3rd, _Persistent horns_, Giraffes; 4th, _Hollow-horned Ruminants_, Antelopes, Goats, Sheep and Oxen.

_Order IX._--CETACEA. Three families--1st, _Herbivorous Cetacea_, Manatees, Dugongs; 2nd, _Ordinary Cetacea_, Porpoises; 3rd, _Balaenidae_, Whales.

ORDER BIMANA.

Some people have an extreme repugnance to the idea that man should be treated of in connection with other animals. The development theory is shocking to them, and they would deny that man has anything in common with the brute creation. This is of course mere sentiment; no history of nature would be complete without the n.o.blest work of the Creator. The great gulf that separates the human species from the rest of the animals is the impa.s.sable one of intellect.

Physically, he should be compared with the other mammals, otherwise we should lose our first standpoint of comparison. There is no degradation in this, nor is it an acceptance of the development theory. To argue that man evolved from the monkey is an ingenious joke which will not bear the test of examination, and the Scriptural account may still be accepted. I firmly believe in man as an original creation just as much as I disbelieve in any development of the Flying Lemur (_Galeopithecus_) from the Bat, or that the habits of an animal would in time materially alter its anatomy, as in the case of the abnormal length of the hind toe and nail of the Jacana. It is not that the habit of running over floating leaves induced the change, but that an all-wise Creator so fas.h.i.+oned it that it might run on those leaves in search of its food. I accept the development theory to the extent of the multiplication of species, or perhaps, more correctly, varieties in genera. We see in the human race how circ.u.mstances affect physical appearance. The child of the ploughman or navvy inherits the broad shoulders and thick-set frame of his father; and in India you may see it still more forcibly in the difference between Hindu and Mahomedan races, and those Hindus who have been converted to Mahomedanism. I do not mean isolated converts here and there who intermarry with pure Mahomedan women, but I mean whole communities who have in olden days been forced to accept Islam.

In a few generations the face a.s.sumes an unmistakable Mahomedan type.

It is the difference in living and in thought that effects this change.

It is the same with animals inhabiting mountainous districts as compared with the same living in the plains; constant enforced exercise tells on the former, and induces a more robust and active form.

Whether diet operates in the same degree to effect changes I am inclined to doubt. In man there is no dental or intestinal difference, whether he be as carnivorous as an Esquimaux or as vegetarian as a Hindu; whereas in created carnivorous, insectivorous, and herbivorous animals there is a striking difference, instantly to be recognised even in those of the same family. Therefore, if diet has operated in effecting such changes, why has it not in the human race?

"Who shall decide when doctors disagree?" is a quotation that may aptly be applied to the question of the cla.s.sification of man; Cuvier, Blumenbach, Fischer, Bory St. Vincent, Prichard, Latham, Morton, Aga.s.siz and others have each a system.

Cuvier recognises only three types--the Caucasian, the Mongolian, and the Negro or Ethiopian, including Blumenbach's fourth and fifth cla.s.ses, American and Malay in Mongolian. But even Cuvier himself could hardly reconcile the American with the Mongol; he had the high cheek-bone and the scanty beard, it is true, but his eyes and his nose were as Caucasian as could be, and his numerous dialects had no affinity with the type to which he was a.s.signed.

Fischer in his cla.s.sification divided man into seven races:--

1_st_.--_h.o.m.o j.a.peticus_, divided into three varieties--_Caucasicus_, _Arabicus_ and _Indicus_.

2_nd_.--_H. Neptunia.n.u.s_, consisting of--1st, the Malays peopling the coasts of the islands of the Indian Ocean, Madagascar, &c.; 2nd, New Zealanders and Islanders of the Pacific; and, 3rd, the Papuans.

3_rd_.--_H. Scythicus_. Three divisions, viz.: 1st, Calmucks and other Tartars; 2nd, Chinese and j.a.panese; and, 3rd, Esquimaux.

4_th_.--_H. America.n.u.s_, and

5_th_.--_H. Columbicus_, belong to the American Continent.

6_th_.--_H. AEthiopicus_. The Negro.

7_th_.--_H. Polynesius_. The _inland_ inhabitants of the Malay Peninsula, of the Islands of the Indian Ocean, of Madagascar, New Guinea, New Holland, &c.

I think this system is the one that most commends itself from its clearness, but there are hardly two writers on ethnology who keep to the same cla.s.sification.

Aga.s.siz cla.s.sifies by realms, and has eight divisions.

The Indian races with which we have now to deal are distributed, generally speaking, as follows:--

Caucasian.--(_h.o.m.o j.a.peticus_, Bory and Fischer). Northerly, westerly, and in the Valley of the Ganges in particular, but otherwise generally distributed over the most cultivated parts of the Peninsula, comprising the Afghans (Pathans), Sikhs, Brahmins, Rajputs or Kshatryas of the north-west, the Arabs, Pa.r.s.ees, and Mahrattas of the west coast, the Singhalese of the extreme south, the Tamils of the east, and the Bengalis of the north-east.

Mongolians (_H. Scythicus_), inhabiting the chain of mountains to the north, from Little Thibet on the west to Bhotan on the east, and then sweeping downwards southerly to where Tena.s.serim joins the Malay Peninsula. They comprise the Hill Tribes of the N. Himalayas, the Goorkhas of Nepal, and the Hill Tribes of the north-eastern frontier, viz. Khamtis, Singphos, Mishmis, Abors, Nagas, Jynteas, Khasyas, and Garos. Those of the northern borders: Bhotias, Lepchas, Limbus, Murmis and Haioos; of the a.s.sam Valley Kachari, Mech and Koch.

The Malays (_H. Neptunia.n.u.s_) Tipperah and Chittagong tribes, the Burmese and Siamese.

Now comes the most difficult group to cla.s.sify--the aborigines of the interior, and of the hill ranges of Central India, the Kols, Gonds, Bhils, and others which have certain characteristics of the Mongolian, but with skins almost as dark as the Negro, and the full eye of the Caucasian. The main body of these tribes, which I should feel inclined to cla.s.sify under Fischer's _H. Polynesius_, have been divided by Indian ethnologists into two large groups--the Kolarians and Dravidians. The former comprise the Juangs, Kharrias, Mundas, Bhumij, Ho or Larka Kols, Santals, Birhors, Korwas, Kurs, Kurkus or Muasis, Bhils, Minas, Kulis. The latter contains the Oraons, Malers, Paharis of Rajamahal, Gonds and Kands.

The Cheroos and Kharwars, Parheyas, Kisans, Bhuikers, Boyars, Nagbansis, Kaurs, Mars, Bhunyiars, Bendkars form another great group apart from the Kolarians and Dravidians, and approximating more to the Indian variety of the j.a.petic cla.s.s.