Thus we find that these _atonoth_ are mentioned in Scripture, only in the possession of judges, patriarchs, and other great men; insomuch that where these are there is dignity, either expressed or implied. They were also a present for a prince; for Jacob presented Esau with twenty, Gen. xxxii, 15. What then shall we say of the wealth of Job, who possessed a thousand? Another word which is rendered “_wild ass_” by our translators, Job xxxix, 5, is ORUD; which seems to be the same, that in the Chaldee of Daniel, v, 21, is called _oredia_. Mr. Parkhurst supposes that this word denotes _the brayer_, and that PARA and ORUD are only two names for the same animal. But these names _may_ perhaps refer to different races, though of the same species; so that a description of the properties of one may apply to both, though not without some variation. Who sent out the _para_ free? Or who hath loosed the bands of the _orud_? Whose dwelling I have made the wilderness, And the barren land (salt deserts) his resort: The range of open mountains are his pasture, And he searcheth after every green thing. Gmelin observes that the _onager_ is very fond of salt. Whether the “deserts” of the above text were salt marshes, or salt deserts, is of very little consequence; the circumstance shows the correctness of the Hebrew poet. In Daniel we read that Nebuchadnezzar dwelt with the OREDIA. We need not suppose that he was banished to the deserts, but was at most kept safely in an enclosure of his own park, where curious animals were kept for state and pleasure. If this be correct, then the ORUD was somewhat, at least, of a rarity at Babylon; and it might be of a kind different from the PARA, as it is denoted by another name. May it not be the _Gicquetei_ of Professor Pallas, the wild mule of Mongalia which surpasses the _onager_ in size, beauty, and perhaps in swiftness.