90 INTRODUCTION. 
the first division of his arrangement, where he refers 
to the wolf; and thus far left the argument of 
identity and filiation untouched.* 
All we as yet know of the Dhole or Quihoe 
would lead us to a contrary conclusion.t The Dingo 
is indeed better known: his conformation in general, 
and the fact of his being in a country of marsupial 
animals, as yet almost the only true mamiferous 
animal found in a state of nature, offers a fairer 
field for presuming his identity with domestic dogs ; 
but the failure of mixing his race with the Euro- 
* In the plate of heads of dogs in Mr Griffith’s Animal 
Kingdom, representing wild varieties of the deg taken from 
Colonel Hamilton Smith’s drawings, the engraver has err«- 
neously marked the numbers. Head, No. 1, is that of the 
Dhole; 2, of the South American wolf or dog; 3, of thie 
Dingo; and 4, of a specimen formerly in the possession of 
Mr G. Astor of New York, which he denominated, and by 
comparison with numerous skins, proved to be of the wolf of 
the Falkland Islands. 
+ If Mr Bell, in referring to the Dhole of Asia, had in 
view the observations of Mr Frederick Cuvier (in the Dic- 
tionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, at the word Chien), it will 
appear that, on this occasion, that learned and attentive 
observer quoted from Captain Williamsen’s Oriental Field 
Sports, probably without referring to the text ; for he cites 
the plate where some Pariah dogs have driven a panther into 
a mango tree, and not that where Dholes attack a tiger. On 
consulting Captain Williamson’s text, he speaks of the Dhole 
as a wild dog, but he does not say that this animal is de- 
scended from a domestic breed. The context would lead to 
a different conclusion. As for the plate, it was Colonel 
Hamilton Smith who made the sketch of the Dholes, not 
very correctly reproduced in the plate. 
