and the reafon is very obvious. In a thinly peopled country, the fpontaneous pro- dudions of the forefls and wafte fields are fufficient to fupport indifferently the domeflic animals of the farmer, with a very little aid from him in the feverefl and fcarcefl feafon. He therefore finds it more convenient to receive them from the hand of nature in that indifferent flate, than to keep up their fize by a care and [ io8 ] nourifhment which would cofi: him much labour. If, on this low fare, thefe ani- mals dwindle, it is no more than they do in thofe parts of Europe where the pover- ty of the foil, or poverty of the owner, reduces them to the fame fcanty fubfiftence.
It is the uniform effect of one and the fame caufe, whether a6ling on this or that fide of the globe. It would be erring therefore againft that rule of philofophy, which teaches us to afcribe like effedls to like caufes, fliould we impute this diminution of fize in America to any imbecility or want of uniformity in the operations of nature. It may be affirmed with truth, that, in thofe countries, and with thofe individuals of America, where neceffity or curiofity has produced equal attention as in Europe to the nourifliment of ani- mals, the horfes, cattle, fheep and hogs of the one continent are as large as thofe of the other. There are particular in- ftances, well attefted, where individuals of this country have imported good breeders from England, and have improved their fize by care in the courfe of fome years.
To make a fair comparifon between the two countries, it will not anfwer to bring together animals of what might be deemed the middle or ordinary fize of their fpecies; becaufe an error in judging of that middle or ordinary fize would vary the refult of the comparifon. Thus Monf.