150 
ORIGIN OF LIFE IN AMERICA 
independently in two different continents, the genus Canis 
must have originated either in America or Europe. Dr. 
Matthew* directs attention to the fact that the modern repre¬ 
sentatives of the Canidae living in the Oriental region and in 
South America are more akin to the Oligocene and lower 
Miocene species than are the true wolves, jackals and foxes. 
Assuming the original centre of evolution to have been some¬ 
where in Europe or North America, we might argue that the 
older types of dog-like creatures spread into distant parts and 
were preserved there, while they were superseded in their 
ancestral home by more modern types. 
But we are apt to forget that the two species of Canidae 
which live furthest from our hypothetical centre of origin 
are most nearly related to what we generally look upon as the 
most modern of the dog tribe. I am alluding to the wild dog 
of Australia (Canis dingo) and to the Falkland island wolf 
(Canis antarcticus). It is a most remarkable fact that the 
latter is not nearly related to a single South American species 
of the dog tribe, whereas it really belongs to the coyotes which, 
as we have noticed above, are confined to western North 
America. Similarly the Australian dog, which is now gene¬ 
rally considered a truly wild species and not a recent human 
introduction, is akin to one of the European Pleistocene dogs. 
There is a wild dog in the mountains of Java (Canis teng- 
gerana) which also appears to be nearly related to the dingo 
of Australia. These two anomalous cases do not seem to fit 
in with any of the existing theories. Dr. Wallace f main¬ 
tained that it must have been as far back as the Secondary 
Era of geological history that Australia was in actual con¬ 
nection with the northern continents, and received from the 
latter the ancestors of the present fauna. There was no 
subsequent land connection, according to Dr. Wallace, so that 
from that remote time until now the Australian lands have 
thenceforth evolved the various Marsupial and Monotreme 
types which we now find there. 
It is evident that Dr. Wallace did not believe in the indi¬ 
genousness of the Australian dog when he made these remarks. 
* Matthew, W. D., “ Lower Miocene Fauna from Dakota,” p. 180. 
t Wallace, A. R., “ Geographical Distribution,” I., p. 465. 
