3 Ok Indian Dogs. 



from thofe of the old world. \Tliis c^ueftion is well worthy 

 of the attention of the naturalift, and is even entitled to the 

 notice of the civil hiftorian of tlie new world. 



Tecbicbiy or Alco, 



In Mexico and in South America there was a fniall fpecies 

 of dog, which the Mexicans called t»chichi, and the Peruvians 

 allco, or alco. This is particularly mentioned by the jefuit 

 Jofeph Acofta*, and other of the earlier vifitors of America. 

 The alco had a melancholy afpeft, and was perfeftly mute, 

 or dumb. Hernandez fpeaks of it as being fimilar in nature 

 and manners to the common dogs of Europe, and not very 

 different in form t- It 's remarkable that Linnaeus has taken 

 no notice of this fpecies. though he fo frequently refers to 

 the work of Hernandez. Mr. de Buffon has confounded it 

 with the itzcuintcpetxotli, or next fpecies, from which, how- 

 ever, it appears to \\a.\*z been diftinft;];. Gmelin, who has 

 fallen into a fimilar miftake (though the words of Hernandez 

 are fufficiently plain), confiders the alco as a variety of the 

 canis familiaris, or faithful dog. He calls it canis fami- 

 liaris, Americanus. Although I have little doubt that the 

 alco was a true canis §, I think it is too (lightly mentioned 

 or defcribed to enable us to determine, with as much cer- 

 tainty as the naturalift could wiih, whether it was merely a 

 variety of the common dog, or an entirely diftinft fpecies. 

 It is to be regretted, indeed, that the naturalifts who vifited 

 America in the fixteenth century, whilft the alco was ftill a 

 common animal, have left us fo much in the dark concern- 

 ing its origin and nature. Owing to their negligence, we 

 are, at this diftance of time, only permitted to fay, with fome 

 degree of probability, what it was not. I do not, with Mr. 

 Pennant, think it probable that it was derived from the wolt. 

 Its entire mutenefs is, I think, greatly oppofed to this ideaj 



* The Naturall and Morall Hiftorie of the Eaft and Weft Indies, &:c. 

 f. 301, 302. Englifh tranflation. London 1604. 



t Hiftoriae Animalium et Mineralium Novae Hifpaniae Libcf Unku.-, 

 2tc. p. 6, 7. 



X Hilloire Naturclle, &c. torn. xxx. p. zoo, &c. 



§ .Independent of the teftimoi-.y of Hernandez, there would feem to oc. 

 very little doubt that the alco was a true fpecies of canis, and, indeed, 

 very fimiUr to fome of our fmall houfc-dogs. The Spaniards, according 

 to Clavigero, garc it the uanneof /'crro, which fignifies a dog; and Acofta 

 obferves, that the Indians called all the dogs which were brought from 

 Spain ijA<?, fiom the refemblanc between thcni and their native animal. 

 It is probable that the Indians in fome parts of South America had after- 

 wards (peihaps when the ulro became either very rare, or cxtin('l) adopted 

 the Spanilh word pfro for dog. The Jaioi, in Guiana, uftd this word 

 at leaft as early aj 1633. Do Lace's Novus Orbis, p. 643. 



as 



