both have degenerated in America: and 4. That on the whole it exhibits fewer ſpecies. And the reaſon he thinks is, that the heats of America are leſs, that more waters are ſpread over its ſurface by nature, and fewer of theſe drained off by the hand of man. In other words, that heat is friendly, and moiſture adverſe to the production and developement of large quadrupeds. I will not meet this hypotheſis on its firſt doubtful ground, whether the climate of America be comparatively more humid? Becauſe we are not furniſhed with obſervations ſufficient to dicide this queſtion. And though, till it be decided, we are as free to deny, as others are to affirm the fact, yet for a moment let it be ſuppoſed. The hypotheſis, after this ſuppoſition, proceeds to another; that moiſture is unfriendly to animal growth. The truth of this is inſcrutable to us by reaſonings á priori. Nature has hidden from us her modus agendi. Our only appeal on ſuch queſtions is to experience; and I think that experience is againſt the ſuppoſition. It is by the aſſiſtance of heat and moiſture that vegetables are elaborated from the elements of earth, air, water, and fire. We accordingly ſee the more humid climates produce the greater quantity of vegetables. Vegetables are mediately or immediately the food of every animal; and in proportion to the quantity of food, we ſee animals not only multiplied in their numbers, but improved in their bulk, as far as the laws of their nature will admit. Of this opinion is the Count de Buffon himſelf in another part of his work;[1] “en general il paroit ques les pays un peu froids convíennent mieux á nos boeufs que les pays chauds, et qu'ils ſont
- ↑ viii. 134.
