October 1, 1897.] 



KNOWLEDGE. 



245 



be respectively descended from the wild pigeons of Europe 

 and the jungle fowls of Asia. A peculiarity of most 

 domestic dogs is their power of barking, which, according 

 to the late Mr. A. D. Bartlett, is entirely unknown among 

 all wild members of the family CatiidcB. And even the 

 somi-domesticated dogs of the Eskimo are unable to bark, 

 as are the dingos of Australia ; but if kept among 

 barking dogs, both these breeds, and apparently also wolves 

 and jackals, will soon learn to bark in a more or less 

 thorough manner. Barking is, therefore, evidently an 

 acquired habit ; but that it afifords no argument against 

 the derivation of the domesticated breeds from the wild 

 races is evident not only from the above instance, but also 

 from the circumstance that the Asiatic jungle fowl are 

 quite unable to crow in the manner characteristic of their 

 domesticated descendants. Several traits — such as turning 

 round several times on a hearthrug in order to make a 

 hale before lying down, and scratching up earth with their 

 fore feet and throwing it backwards with the bind pair — 

 common to wolves and jackals, are inherited by even 

 the most domesticated of domestic dogs ; and these are 

 evidently of great value in helping to trace the ancestry. 

 A German writer, the late Prof. L. Fitzinger, considered 

 that domestic dogs might be divided into seven well-marked 

 groups, which included close upon a couple of hundred of 

 more or less well-marked breeds and varieties. Other 

 authorities are, however, of opinion that the number of 

 main groups might be reduced to half a dozen, these 

 including wolf-like dogs, such as the Eskimo breed, the 

 various kinds of greyhounds, spaniels, hounds, mastiffs, 

 and lastly terriers. 



All who have written on the subject are in accord in 

 regardii g all domesticated dogs, with the exception of the 

 Austral an dingo, as constituting but a single species — the 

 Canis familiaris of LinnKUS. But if it be true, as seems 

 probably the case, that domesticated dogs trace their 

 ancestry to more than a single wild species, it will be obvious 

 that Cattis familiaris cannot in any sense be regarded 

 as equivalent to an ordinary wild species ; and that, 

 properly speaking, if this were possible, the various tame 

 breeds ought to be affiliated to the wild species from which 

 they are respectively derived. Still, for practical purposes, 

 the ordinary classification may be accepted, if it be 

 remembered that Canis faniilidris, like Fclis dumestica, is 

 in all probability a " convergent" species. 



By naturalists all the members of the dog tribe are 

 included in the great family Canidce, which thus embraces 

 wolves, jackals, foxes, wild dogs, the African hunting-dog, 

 the long-eared fox of the Cape, and the bush-dog of truiaiu. 

 Somewhat different views are entertained as to how many 

 of these should be included in the typical genus ('anis, but 

 this is a matter which needs no consideration here, and we 

 may accordingly proceed to eliminate from the list those 

 groups which have certainly no claim to be on the ances- 

 tral line of the domesticated breeds. 



First of all we may dismiss the rare South Americin 

 bush-dog (Speotlius), which is a small somewhat fox-like 

 creature, with a short tail, and teeth of a quite peculiar 

 type. Equally far removed from the line are the long- 

 eared Cape fox {<itoci/on) and the African hunting-dog 

 {Lycaiyn), the former having more teeth than the 

 domesticated breeds, while the latter has fewer toes. Next 

 we may eliminate the wild dogs of Asia, which are 

 frequently separated from the other members of the family 

 under the name of ' >/«, as all these have one pair less of 

 molar teeth in the lower jaw, and therefore obviously 

 cannot be the ancestral stock, as an organ once lost cannot 

 be replaced. Somewhat nearer to the domesticated races 

 are the foxes and fennecs {Vulpes), exclusive of the South 



American species commonly so called ; but if we examine 

 the skull of the British or any other species of true 

 fox, an important difference will be found between 

 it and the skull of any domesticated dog, wolf, or 

 jackal. The difference is best displayed in the shape 

 of the projecting process of bone forming the hinder 

 border of the socket of the eye ; this process in a fox 

 being distinctly concave, whereas in all the others it is 

 highly convex. 



We thus arrive at the conclusion that the only existing 

 members of the family that can possibly be the ancestors 

 of the domesticated breeds are wolves, jackals, the 

 Australian dingo, and certain South American species 

 which, although commonly termed foxes, are really more 

 closely allied to the jackals and wolves ; and it is further 

 obvious that the only extinct species which can claim a 

 place in the line of descent are those having skulls and 

 teeth of the wolf type — in other words, species of the 

 genus Canis in its restricted sense. 



Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned in con- 

 firmation of the foregoing views that in all Mr. Bartlett's 

 long experience at the " Zoo" he never met with a well- 

 authenticated instance of a fox interbreeding with either 

 a dog, wolf, or jackal ; and although newspaper reports 

 have subsequently mentioned a hybrid between a fox and 

 a dog, it is obvious that such crosses are, at the most, of 

 extreme rarity. 



On the other hand, when suitably matched, there is no 

 sort of difficulty in obtaining crosses between wolves and 

 jackals and domesticated dogs ; and it is a well-known 

 fact that the Eskimo are constantly in the habit of crossing 

 their sledge-dogs with wolves in order to impart strength 

 and stamina to the breed. Indeed, Eskimo dogs are so 

 closely related to wolves that there can be no question 

 that they are descended from them, Mr. Bartlett remarking 

 that they are undoubtedly " reclaimed or domesticated 

 wolves." 



This being so, Eskimo dogs should properly be called 

 Canis- lupus instead of Canis familiaris : and if it could be 

 shown that all domesticated dogs have the Sime ausestor, 

 the former name should stand for all. On the other hand, 

 as was long since pointed out by that acute observer the 

 late Sir John Richardson, the Hare Indians of North 

 America, who inhabit a zone lying considerably to the 

 south of Eskimo territory, have dogs very closely 

 resembling the small American prairie-wolf, or coyote, 

 which is the wild species most commonly met with in 

 their territory. And it may be affirmed with a con- 

 siderable degree of confidence that the Hare ludiau dog 

 presents the same relationship to the coyote as is borne by 

 the Eskimo dog to the wolf. Accordingly, if we base our 

 nomenclature on descent, the former breed ought to be 

 called Canis latrans. 



We have now arrived at the conclusion that domestic 

 dogs trace their descent back to at least two wild species, 

 and we may quote once more from Mr. Bartlett, who writes 

 as follows : — " All wolves, if taken young and reared by man, 

 are tame, playful, and exhibit a fondness for those who 

 feed and attend to them. The same may be said for all 

 the species of jackals. This being so, it is highly probable 

 that both wolves and jackals were for many ages in the 

 company of man, and that owing to this association the 

 different species of these animals may have bred together 

 and become domesticated." 



This introduces the various speaies of jackals into the 

 problem ; and since there is a decided similarity between 

 certain domesticated breeds of dogs and jackals, while 

 the native domestic dogs of nearly every country present a 

 more or less markedly striking likeness to one or other of 



