There may perhaps have been many other figures equally strange, either among such of these monuments as have not been able to resist the ravages of time, or in the temples of Ethiopia and Arabia, which have been destroyed by the religious zeal of the Mahometans and Abyssinians. The monuments of India teem with such figures; but the combinations in these are too extravagant to have deceived any one. Monsters with a hundred arms, and twenty heads all different from one another, are far too absurd to be believed. Nay, the inhabitants of Japan and China also have their imaginary animals, which they represent as real, and which figure even in their religious books. The Mexicans had them. In short, they are the fashion among all nations, whether at the periods when their idolatry has not yet been refined, or when the import of these emblematical combinations has been lost. But who would dare to affirm that he had found those productions of ignorance and superstition in nature? And yet it may have happened that travellers, influenced by a desire of making themselves famous, might pretend that they had seen those strange beings, or that, deceived by a slight resemblance, into which they were too careless to enquire, they may have taken real animals for them. In the eyes of such people, large baboons or monkeys may have appeared true cynocephali, sphinxes, or men with tails. It is thus that St Augustin may have imagined he had seen a satyr. Some real animals, inaccurately observed and described, may have given rise to monstrous ideas, which, however, have had their foundation in some reality. Thus, we can have no doubt of the existence of the hyena, although that animal has not its neck supported by a single bone[67], and although it does not change its sex every year, as Pliny alleges[68]. Thus, also, the carnivorous bull is perhaps nothing else than a two-horned rhinoceros erroneously described. M. de Weltheim affirms with probability, that the auriferous ants of Herodotus are _corsacs_.