One day, near Banstead, a bad deer, after running a short ring, got into a garden, to which there were four outlets. Through one of these we were desirous of driving our quarry, but he on the other hand persisted in refusing to go, and making a rush at another point where a negro servant was shouting and capering with all his might in order to terrify him, he lifted Blackey from the ground, and actually threw him to a considerable distance, where he fell heavily, flat on his back. We all at first thought the man was killed, and it was with no small pleasure that I saw him move a leg afterwards: for I did not then know that the nigger tribe were "so hard to kill," as was lately exemplified in the case of the nigger boy, who having been knocked by the train on the Charleston and Columbia Railroad, jumped up again, and "put his thumb unto his nose, and spread his fingers out, with "ah! dah! massa ingin, you won't kill dis nigger dat time no how."

All things are much changed, since the events occurred to which these reminiscences relate. The "Old Derby Arms" has long since passed into other hands. The Merstram kennel is numbered with the things that were. Old Meager has departed to the bourne from whence no traveller, nor huntsman e'er returns, his splendid little pack are all dispersed; and the Derby Staghounds are now hunting wild pigs in the North of Germany!

Oh what a falling off was there, my countrymen.

WILDRAKE.

DOGS:

THEIR ORIGIN, VARIETIES, AND USES.

THE dog has in every age of the world rendered himself so invaluable to man, and that too in such a diversity of ways, that to attempt retracing his history to his origin would appear to require to retrace that of man himself to the primitive ages of pastoral and patriarchal innocence.

In the absence of all historical record as to the origin of the dog, abundant room is left for every ingenious theory.

There are two suppositions respecting the origin of this faithful and useful animal which have obtained considerable respect among naturalists and the public generally. The first of these states the dog not to have been originally created, but to have sprung from the domestication of the wolf, jackall, or fox. The second maintains that the dog is indeed of original creation, but that one variety only was originally formed by the Almighty, and that from this have sprung all the others with which we are now acquainted.

The chief points upon which the latter of these theories seems to rest, are, firstly-the fact that the Almighty originally created but one variety of each species of animal; and secondly-that animals belonging to different species will not willingly engender with one another, or that if they be accidentally or otherwise induced to do so, that their offspring will be mules, incapable of extending such a mixed breed further.

I cannot, for the life of me, conceive what pleasure or amusement writers on natural history can have derived from endeavouring to deprive the poor dog of all claim to antiquity of descent; and why they have so zealously striven to prove him to be a mere mushroom-a shabby upstart—“a fellow of yesterday," referring his origin to the rapacious wolf, that "grim felon," the foul-feeding jackall, that scavenger of the east, or the crafty and plotting fox, maintaining that he had no place in the great and glorious work of creation, but that he owes his origin to the effects of climate, to the reclaiming power of human reason, and a train of very improbable adventitious circumstances long subsequent to that event. These are the persons who love to prate about that "glorious never-to-be-forgotten conquest of reason over instinct." Conquest indeed! If the dog were really but an accidental variety arising from the wolf, fox, or jackall, what evidence have we to prove that he would not have remained wild and irreclaimable still. Have we not the only evidence possibly to be adduced, analogy, to disprove such a monstrous supposition? How does it happen that the wolf still prowls in his native forests-that the fox still ravages our poultry yards the obscene jackall still howls beneath our walls? if a little trouble bestowed on attempting to reclaim them, offered any prospect of success" what man has done, man may do." If man ever reclaimed the dog, let him now reclaim the wolf.

A clever writer in Lardner's Encyclopædia so perfectly coincides with me in this opinion, and expresses my sentiments so fully, that I shall take the liberty of extracting the passage.

"The group we have now entered upon, has, as might be expected, engaged the attention of several naturalists; for popular interest will always be more excited respecting such animals as are daily around us, than such as are only seen occasionally. How much more so, then, with regard to one which has been endowed by the Creator with that peculiar instinct of attaching itself to man, defending his person, and guarding his property? We can feel no astonishment that sceptical writers should term this wonderful instinct the work of man; but we must confess our surprise at finding this inconsiderate assertion countenanced by translators, who unthinkingly repeat, that the subjugation and domestication of the dog by man may be called 'REASON'S CONQUEST OF NATURE.'"

"[C'est la conquête, la plus compléte, la plus singulière, et la plus utile, que l'homme a fait.'-REGNE ANIMAL.] And echo back the opinion, that This is the most complete, singular, and useful conquest man has made.-(Vide Griffith's Cuvier, I. 149.)'

"What does this mean, but that man has the power of conquering natural instincts or dispositions, and of making an animal, naturally created savage or ferocious, domestic and familiar at his own good will and pleasure? Now, in the first place, how is this borne out by fact? If such a power had been given to man, how is it, that with hundreds of animals which we are continually attempting to domesticate, our greatest and most persevering efforts are continually foiled? Why has not the zebra, the most elegant and beautiful of all quadrupeds, long since become as familiar to our pastures as the dull-coloured ass-an animal of the same natural genus, the same habits, and a native of the same country? Why has the bison ever continued a wild and savage wanderer on the plains of America, while the ox peacefully followed the tents of the primeval patriarchs? Why does the beautiful gazelle, reared from its youth by the fostering hand of man, pine and die unless it breathe the air of the desert; while the goat, having all the same instincts in regard to food and situation, follows the herdsman to the fold?

"Have not many and great efforts been made to reclaim these naturally untameable animals? Upon what foundation, then, can we make this boast about reason's conquest of nature?' If this power really had been given to us in the sense which the assertion evidently implies, the instinct of animals would be under the controul of man, instead of having been immutably fixed by the ALMIGHTY,- that Power to which man himself is indebted for his faculty of reason-not, indeed, that it might be made, as in this instance, his idle and arrogant boast, but that it should be used to give honour and reverence to his Maker. The more the wondrous works of the Creator are studied, the more will this truth become incontestable: that it is He only who has given to certain animals or to certain tribes, an innate propensity to live, by free choice, near to the haunts of man, and to submit themselves cheerfully and willingly to his domestication."

Now I think it highly improbable that the sacred historians would have overlooked so important an event as the sudden acquisition of so valuable an ally as the dog. Holy writ makes frequent mention of the dog, but never makes the slightest allusion to his having been accidentally reclaimed. The domestication of the dog would surely have been fully as an important an event in the history of God's providence as the discovery of the mules-and yet we are informed by Moses even of the name of him who "found the mules in the desert, whilst tending the asses of his father."

NO. XIV.-VOL. III.-NEW SERIES.

In the latter part of the book of Genesis, we find Jacob, when blessing his twelve sons, comparing Benjamin to a ravenous wolf." Near the commencement of the second book of Moses, the dog is mentioned in the most familiar manner-speaking of the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, it is said, "Nor shall a dog open his mouth," or as some have rendered it, "nor shall à dog make a noise." Now the interval which elapsed between Jacob's blessing his sons, and the above announcement of the departure of the Israelites from bondage, was only about three hundred and fifty years, a period of time, which in those days of longevity, was barely equal to three generations, besides which, Moses, the author or writer of the account, mentions both animals familiarly, and as if they were common and generally well known to his readers. If the dog had been procured by reclaiming a wild animal, say a sort of wild wolf, or wild dog, it appears utterly improbable that Moses, otherwise so accurate and minute in his accounts, would have omitted to mention the fact.

When the sons of Israel left Egypt, it is evident that they brought some of these animals with them, as we afterwards find the dog mentioned amongst those creatures which, straying about the camp, might heedlessly approach the mountain of Sinai: in which case, we read that the priest had orders to "stone it, or run it through with a dart."

In the Book of Psalms, David seems to dwell most upon his fierceness, and thus, in general, employs the word dog to denote a fierce and relentless foe. "Deliver my darling from the power of the dog." In the twenty-fourth chapter of Proverbs, Solomon displays his minute acquaintance with the habits of this animal, wherein he compares a foolish, or wicked person, to the dog who "returns to his own vomit again."

The habits and appearance of the fox, wolf, and jackal, differ essentially from those of the dog, and they likewise, and more especially the fox, present anatomical points of difference, as the form and position of the eye, the length, &c. of the intestine, and likewise in the skeleton, which, though by many denied, will be certainly confessed after a careful course of comparative dissections. With what appearance of probability then can we seek to ascribe the origin of the dog to the animals I have named? Is it because they are somewhat like each other in external form, and because they bear considerable resemblance to each other in internal conformation? But let me ask, are not the leopard, the jaguar, the panther, and the cheetah, not to mention the tiger, the lion, the puma, and the common cat, as like each other, both externally and anatomically, as the wolf, dog, fox, and jackal?

Yet" hold there." I think I hear my sceptical reader saying, is not the cheetah domesticated? Has it not within, I may say, our own

knowledge, been reclaimed from a wild state, and broken in to the sports of the field? Do not the Brahmins of India tame tigers, and make them follow them about as tamely and harmlessly as dogsbesides, what do you say to the falcon, which is daily reclaimed by man from a state of utter wildness? To this I reply by another question

Is the cheetah reclaimed (I use the word in the strictest acceptation of which it is capable), Is the cheetah reclaimed? Are the tigers of the Brahmins reclaimed? Are the falcons reclaimed? Can the mere application of certain natural instincts within certain limits, to our own use and advantage, be termed reclaiming. Will not these animals, all of them, escape if they can, and will they not speedily become again as wild and savage as their untutored compeers of the wilderness.

The next point to be considered is, whether animals of different species will breed together or not. This point presents, I must acknowledge, considerable difficulties, and a vast deal may be said both pro and con. This is likewise a question of vital importance, in so far as the theories I have mentioned are concerned. Those who maintain that the dog is descended from the wolf, fox, and jackal, adduce as their main, nay, I may say, their only argument, the fact that these animals are all capable of breeding together, whilst animals of different species never do this; therefore they are of the same species, and therefore the dog is an accidental production, and not an animal of original creation? Such is the hasty conclusion at which this party of zoologists arrive.

(To be continued.)

THE TURF IN AMERICA

Batesville, Arkansas, Nov. 23rd, 1841. NOTWITHSTANDING the irregularities of the mails, I have received in this remote region, your September Number as early as the 6th of October.

You will have gathered from that able and spirited work, "The New York Spirit of the Times," the unexpected intelligence of Boston's defeat-John Blount, the winner of the heat in which "old white nose" was put behind the distance pole, can boast a rich pedigree,— his dam produced Mary Blount, the "game 'un," who made Mingo cut out a third heat in 7 min, 47 sec.-John's sire is also the sire of the dam of Wagner, and Col. Hampton's Fanny (never yet beaten). The winner of the race in which Boston was beaten, is a fine filly, named Fashion, by that splendid imported horse, Trustee (own brother