Johann Daniel Meyer’s mysterious ‘wild American hound’
Here’s an odd little conundrum for you to cogitate upon at your leisure, should you be so inclined. During an online surfing session a few days ago, I happened upon the curious illustration presented above.
Details concerning it are sparse in the extreme, but here is what I have been able to uncover so far. Measuring 12 inches by 8 inches, the image has a German title that translates as ‘wild American hound’, and is a hand-coloured copperplate engraving by Johann Daniel Meyer that appeared in his Angenehmer und nützlicher Zeit-Vertreib mit Betrachtung curioser Vorstellungen allerhand kriechender, fliegender und schwimmender, auf dem Land und im Wasser sich befindender und nährender Thiere etc - a three-volume wildlife tome published between 1748 and 1756 in Nuremberg, Germany.
As can be readily perceived from this engraving, however, whatever the creature depicted by it may be, it is certainly not a hound, nor, indeed, a canid, of any kind (wild and/or American notwithstanding!). So what is it?
When I first looked at it, I initially thought of the Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana, because the engraved creature does bear a degree of overall resemblance to this largest and most famous of modern-day New World marsupials. I even found an online photo of the Virginia opossum, reproduced here, that vaguely recalls it.
Virginia opossum
Even so, Meyer’s mystery beast can be readily differentiated by its wholly brown colouration, in particular its dark face and its body’s extremely short, uniformly brown fur – in stark contrast to the white face and the longer, shaggy, grey body fur of the Virginia opossum. Meyer’s beast may have a bare tail, which, if so, likens it to the latter species, but, equally, it may simply have very short fur – the engraving does not make this clear.
Engraving of kinkajou
In addition to the Virginia opossum, I have also considered those uniformly brown-furred, Neotropical raccoon cousins known respectively as the kinkajou Potos flavus and the olingos (a quintet of Bassaricyon species). Again, as shown here, superficially these are somewhat similar to Meyer’s beast, but none of them is native to North America.
Olingo (Fiona Reid – Field Guide to Mammals of Central America)
So unless the ‘American’ in ‘wild American hound’ was being used in its very broadest sense, i.e. appertaining to anywhere within the entire New World, rather than its much more common and more specific usage as a contraction of the United States of America, I have once again come to a halt in my search for this mystifying mammal’s taxonomic identity – unless, gentle readers, you could offer any suggestions or additional information? If so, please post details here, as I’d very greatly welcome them!
Posts
If it's 1750ish for the date of this piece, it cannot be referring to America as the United States. The United States of America didn't exist as a country until the Treaty of Paris in 1783. And even then, each former colony was part of a confederation until the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The Constitution didn't get ratified until 1788.
ReplyDeleteThe term "American" in 1748 didn't refer to the country (that didn't even exist) or solely to North America.
BTW, North America is everything from Panama to the Arctic Ocean-- not just the US and Canada. When Panama was part of Colombia, it was considered part of South America, but now that it is its own nation, it is typically considered the southernmost country in North America.
My guess is that it is a procyonid of some sort-- olingo or kinkajou.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is "hound" is a mistranslation of "Hund." Hund and hound are cognates, but Hund is the generic word for dog in German. Hound in English has a more specific meaning-- dogs that run down prey using their noses or eyes, like foxhounds or greyhounds.
Raccoons were originally though of as a species of dog, which you can see in their name Procyon lotor and in the family named Procyonidae.
The name probably is referring to either an olingo or kinkajou as a "wild American dog."
Another possibility is the Coatyl (sp) of the Yucatan
ReplyDeleteGood point re the USA not existing at the time of these books' publication! I missed that one! Re North America stretching down as far as Panama, however, this is a controversial issue, as generally all of the countries occupying the isthmus, from Mexico at the northernmost end to Panama at the southernmost end, are classified collectively as Central America. Indeed, until around a century ago, when Panama became independent from Colombia, Panama was officially part of South America, and is thus the only country in modern times to have 'moved' continents.
ReplyDeleteI discounted the coati because its snout is more prolonged than that of this mystery beast, whose tail is unbanded (most, though admittedly not all, coati species have conspicuously banded tails), and the latter beast's body seems burlier than that of the coati.
ReplyDeleteI look at this engraving and the first thing to come to mind is "Otter" mostly because of the tail. Although the coloring depicted is a much lighter brown than those I've seen in nature, the coloring suggests weasel or could even be mink.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit that I personally can't see an otter for this image, but it is an interesting idea, because otters are often referred to as water hounds - in Ireland, for instance. So could this be a somewhat distorted image of an otter, possibly prepared from a verbal description rather than from firsthand sightings of living or preserved specimens?
ReplyDeletemost likely a weasel. possibly american mink.
ReplyDeleteThe limbs are too long and, the hind limbs especially, too powerful for it to be a mink. Also, Europe already has a species of mink, so mink would surely have been readily recognisable to the artist, and therefore would not have elicited such an odd, unsuitable name (for a mink) as 'wild American hound'.
ReplyDeletei would also like to point out that it looks very much like the coyotes with mange...recently thought to be the chupacabra....
ReplyDeletealso could be a toy peruvuan hairless or Xoloitzcuintle dog. Both come in a toy size and can be brown. The Xoloitzcuintle actually features a furred and hairless version. Also these dogs have been around for thousands of years so the time frame is correct. The Xoloitzcuintle ranges into Northern Mexico and the US traditionally.
ReplyDeleteThe stance of the engraving's creature is totally wrong for a canid species, I feel, and its fur is too uniform for it to be suffering from mange. Also, if it were a xoloitzcuintl, which is a pet dog, it seems strange that it was referred to as a wild hound.
ReplyDeleteif i may, good doctor. endeavor to the dialectic.first of note is the chest cavity.large.with the belly ecaving in to the hindquarters.second the teeth are monodont. i suspect the person had problems drawing the legs.due to the roundness so if you allow i discount that. i am however interested in the detail he showed in the paws.(dexterity?)
ReplyDeletethe nose ridge makes it not really possible to be any kind of primate.-something all us anthro students learn :)
the eyes are large too. long tail.large nasal cavity.lithe body (flexible). playful stance.
the only thing that throws me off, is the roundness of the back of the head.(that is if i was to claim that it is a weasel/ermine)
i am wondering, if they referred to a litter of weasels or its type as pups?
maybe, it is as you said, a misinterpretation of the name to the animal.
If not a weasel, what about a larger mustelid, the fisher (Martes pennanti)? It was first described in 1765, so a 1750s illustration could be based on a second-hand report, or a pelt.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Wikipedia notes 'Early Dutch settlers noted its similarity to the European polecat', in some areas the fisher is called the 'fisher cat', so perhaps it is an animal whose taxonomy is not always clear to a casual observer.
Yes, the fisher is somewhat cat-like in superficial appearance, but its fur is normally very dark, almost black - indeed, a common colloquial name for it is 'black cat', and it has been suggested that sightings of this large mustelid may even be responsible for certain sightings of alleged black panthers in North America. So in terms of pelage colouration, the beast in the engraving is too pale for a fisher identity to be very plausible, unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteI would lean toward it being a Virginia opposum. If you look at two illustrations he did of other opossums you will see that they also have the short coats and brown colouration, again not true to life. You can see them both, plus the mystery one, on this page for comparison. http://www.lastersfineart.com/antique%20prints%20p08.htm
ReplyDeleteThe illustrations have the same similarities to each other and the same dissimilarities to the real animals. Enough for me to be fairly certain it's an opossum.
If you could gain access to the book you could no doubt rule out the possibilities by finding them elsewhere in the book. If there's no Virginia opossum I'd say you've solved your mystery :)
Why call it a hound? It could be referring to it as being ‘dog like’ in appearance or behaviour, rather than be calling it an actual dog.
Better image of it here showing hair on tail http://www.trocadero.com/stores/dvlaster/items/402673/en1.html Tails on the other illustrations look hairy too.
Could be a member of the weasel family or possibly a muskrat or otter. The artist may have gotten the colors wrong if they had been going from a description, or the colors may have faded. As an artist myself I know that colors can fade over a very short period of time.
ReplyDelete