50 ZOOLOGY. 



feature gives an appearance of breadth that is deceptive ; the real width 

 being both absolutely and relatively less than in the pointer. But the width 

 across the ears of the pointer (six inches instead of four) is largely produced 

 by the drooping of these organs down the side of the head. The lips are 

 thin and scant, ordinarily showing the teeth, always parting after the animal 

 is dead. There is something peculiar about the eyes ; they seem to look 

 more directly forward than those of the pointer. They are set very near 

 together, the inner angles being only about an inch and a half apart ; yet the 

 obliquity carries the outer canthi over three inches apart. The ears are 

 very large, triangular, pointed, upright, with very stiff cartilage. When 

 pressed apart, their tips form with the point of the snout a nearly equilateral 

 triangle. In fine, the pointer's physiognomy differs from the Coyote's mainly 

 in its special engrafted features, and these produce a discrepancy much 

 greater than that existing between the Coyote" and many mongrel dogs. 



" It is unnecessary to compare the skulls of the animals. There are no 

 differences of moment, at least viewing the immense discrepancies existing 

 in the crania of different breeds of dogs. Nor does an ' average ' dog's 

 skull differ from a Coyote's by anything like as much as do the skulls of C. 

 latrans and C. lupus. 



" It appears, then, that the pointer, though a highly-specialized case of 

 the domestic dog, is identical in essential structural points with the Coyote ; 

 differs less in size than Coyotes vary among themselves ; differs no more in 

 pelage than it does from many other dogs ; and, in details of form and 

 physiognomy, differs vastly less than various dogs do among themselves. 

 It appears, furthermore, that close as the likeness is, it is less than that sub- 

 sisting between the Coyote and various kinds of dogs domesticated by the 

 Indians. 



" For example, there is nothing in Audubon's description of the Hare- 

 Indian dog specifically inapplicable to the Coyote*. Even the colors are the 

 same; the difference in pattern (masses of blackish instead of brindling) is 

 not of the least consequence, since it is entirely unstable. Richardson noted 

 close traits of resemblance, even to the remarkable mode of outcry a few 

 short, sharp barks, followed by a prolonged, shrill howl. The fact that this 

 particular strain of dog is bred beyond the present distribulion of the Co\ otr 

 is, ot course, not to the point in the general question. Hut we have much 



