for this recital to the oral information of that gentleman. These three remarks are alone sufficient to create a suspicion respecting the pretended _animal zibethicum Americanum_, but what completely proves the error, Fernandes, in his description of the animals of America, flatly contradicts Bolivar, and affirms that the civet was not a native of America, but that, in his time, they had began to transport some of them from the Philippine Islands to New Spain. In fine, if we add this positive testimony of Fernandes, to that of all the travellers, who mention that civets are very common in the Philippine Islands, in the East Indies, and in Africa, not one of whom intimates having seen this animal in America, every doubt will vanish of what we advanced in our enumeration of the animals of the two continents, and it will be admitted that the civet is not a native of America, but an animal peculiar to the warm climates of the old continent, and that he was never found in the new, until after he had been transported thither. Had I not guarded against such mistakes, which are too frequent, I should have described my civet as an American animal, from its having been sent to me from St. Domingo, and not directly from Guinea, the place of its nativity, of which I was, however, assured by the letter from M. Pages which accompanied the animal. These particular facts I consider as confirmations to the general position, that there is a real difference between all the animals of the southern parts of each continent. [Footnote S: Novæ Hisp. Anim. Nardi Antonii Recchi Imagines & Nomina, Joannis Fabri Lyncei Expositione, p. 539.] [Footnote T: _Ibid._ p. 465.] Both the civet and zibet are then animals of the old continent, nor have they any other external differences, besides those already pointed out; and as to their internal differences, and the structure of their reservoirs which contain the perfume, they have been so accurately described by Messrs. Morand and Peyronnie, in the Memoirs of the Academy for 1728 and 1731, that I could do little more than give a repetition of their accounts. With regard to what remains to be further observed of those two animals, as the few facts are hardly more applicable to the one than the other, and as it would be difficult to point out the distinction, I shall collect the whole under one head.