Question: What kind of animal does Pont-Audemer Spaniel and Jämthund have in common?

<P0-S0>  It originated in the nineteenth century from different breeds of water spaniels, and took more of a setter role in hunting than that of a traditional spaniel. <P0-S1>  Following the Second World War, the breed's numbers dropped so low that the breed club decided to allow cross breeding with other breeds because of fears of the existing stock becoming overly inbred. <P0-S2>  In 1980, the breed club was merged with that of the Picardy Spaniel. <P0-S3> The Pont-Audemer Spaniel or Epagneul Pont-Audemer is a rare breed of French gundog. <SEP> <P1-S0>  The Jämthund is eponymous to Jämtland, a province in the middle of Sweden. <P1-S1> The Jämthund, also called the Swedish Elkhound/Moosehound, is a breed of dog of the Spitz type that are found in Northern Europe. <P1-S2>  The dog is described as having a wolf-like appearance. <SEP> <P2-S0> The scienter action is a category within [tort] law in some[common law] jurisdictions which deals with the damage done by an animal directly to a human. <P2-S1>  It had a long history in English law, although it was abolished by the [Animals Act 1971]. <P2-S2>  An action in those common law jurisdictions where it has not been extinguished by statute, is in addition to the torts of negligence and nuisance, or more bespoke torts like cattle trespass. <P2-S3>  Where an animal is known to behave in a certain way, and that is expressed on a person causing injury, an action can be taken in this tort. <P2-S4>  This tort is not available in New South Wales, The Australian Capital Territory, South Australia or New Zealand. <P2-S5>  In these jurisdictions the actions involving animals need to be in nuisance or negligence. <P2-S6>  To be successful the plaintiff needs to take action against the person in control of the animal, and it is strict liability, requiring no more than proof of injury, that the animal had a problematic trait, and the person in control knew about the trait in the animal. <P2-S7>  Being strict liability, there is no need to argue fault in the form of wilful intent or negligence on the part of the animal or its controller. <P2-S8>  The only defence is if it can be proved the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by their actions, or if the plaintiff was the cause of the injury. <P2-S9>  It is common to distinguish between harmless animals and wild animals. <P2-S10>  No scienter is needed for wild animals. <P2-S11>  Animals are classed as wild or harmless on the basis of species or kind, not on the basis of being a tame individual. <P2-S12>  An elephant is considered wild irrespective of its use. <P2-S13>  The scienter action is referred to in Rylands v. Fletcher in that one who keeps a wild thing “must keep it at his peril” to make reference to part of Justice Colin Blackburn’s comment. <SEP> <P3-S0> The phrase and title There Was an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly—alternatively, "I Know an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly," or "There Was an Old Woman Who Swallowed a Fly," or "I Know an Old Woman Who Swallowed a Fly"—is a children's rhyme and song of a kind known as cumulative. <P3-S1>  The song tells the story of an old woman who swallowed increasingly large animals, each to catch the previously swallowed animal. <P3-S2>  There are many variations of phrasing in the lyrics, especially for the description of swallowing each animal. <P3-S3>  The spider and fly are described in each verse, but the other animals are only described when they are introduced starting with the bird. <P3-S4>  The absurdity stems from the increasingly improbable solutions that only worsen the initial problem and are more likely to cause the woman's death: the logic of swallowing of even more animals of preposterous sizes without dying, contrasted with the expected, matter-of-fact recounting of her death from swallowing an animal larger than herself, when in fact the swallowing of any animal as a solution was absurd.