Many are the reasons against admitting this animal, mentioned by scripture, to be the rabbit. We know that this last was an animal peculiar to Spain, and therefore could not be supposed to be either in Judea or Arabia. They are gregarious indeed, and so far resemble each other, as also in point of size, but in place of seeking houses in the rocks, we know the cuniculus’ desire is constantly sand. They have claws, indeed, or nails, with which they dig holes or burrows, but there is nothing remarkable in them, or their frequenting rocks, so as to be described by that circumstance; neither is there any thing in the character of the rabbit that denotes excellent wisdom, or that they supply the want of strength by any remarkable sagacity. The saphan then is not the rabbit, which last, unless it was brought to him by his ships from Europe, Solomon never saw. It was not the rabbit’s particular character to haunt the rocks. He was by no means distinguished for feebleness, or being any way unprovided with means of digging for himself holes. On the contrary, he was armed with claws, and it was his character to dig such, not in the rocks, but in the sands. Nor was he any way distinguished for wisdom, more than the hare, the hedge-hog, or any of his neighbours. Let us now apply these characters to the Ashkoko. He is above all other animals so much attached to the rock, that I never once saw him on the ground, or from among large stones in the mouth of caves, where is his constant residence; he is gregarious, and lives in families. He is in Judea, Palestine, and Arabia, and consequently must have been familiar to Solomon. For David describes him very pertinently, and joins him with other animals perfectly known to all men: “The hills are a refuge for the wild goats, and the rocks for the saphan, or ashkoko[63].” And Solomon says, “There be four things which are little upon the earth, but they are exceeding wise[64]:”--“The saphannim are but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks[65].” Now this, I think, very obviously fixes the Ashkoko to be the saphan, for this weakness seems to allude to his feet, and how inadequate these are to dig holes in the rock, where yet, however, he lodges. These are, as I have already observed, perfectly round; very pulpy, or fleshy, so liable to be excoriated or hurt, and of a soft fleshy substance. Notwithstanding which, they build houses in the very hardest rocks, more inaccessible than those of the rabbit, and in which they abide in greater safety; not by exertion of strength, for they have it not, but are truly as Solomon says, a feeble folk, but by their own sagacity and judgment, and are therefore justly described as wise. Lastly, what leaves the thing without doubt is, that some of the Arabs, particularly Damir, say, that the saphan has no tail; that it is less than a cat, and lives in houses, that is, not houses with men, as there are few of these in