ai.i.kn: dogs ok iiik amkhk an VHOUKMNKS. 435 



While some naturalists have thus souj^ht to derive the Domestic Dog 

 from Wolf, Jackal, Coyote, or Fox, or from a mixture of two or three 

 of these, others have maintaine<l that it is quite as well entitled to be 

 considered a distinct species with its various artificial breeds. BufYon 

 was one of the first to support this view. Pictet (1858, 1, p. 203-210) 

 believed that dog-remains from cave-deposits in Europe probabls' 

 represented the wild ancestor of domestic dogs, and to this wild 

 species he gave the name Canis famiUaris fosailw. In this he was 

 followed by liourguignat (1875) who regarded the Prehistoric Dog as 

 a species, related to the Wolf but coexistent with it in a wild state. 

 He applied to it the name Canis f cms, and concluded from the relative 

 scarcit}- of its remains in the earlier strata of human culture, that it 

 was at first seldom domesticated by tlie early cave-men. Remains of 

 Pliocene canids from central France have been suggested by Boule 

 (1889) as representing the progenitors of the Domestic Dog. 



Although the recent and more exact studies of Miller (1912, p. 313) 

 and Gidley (1913, p. 99) have shown that the Domestic Dog may be 

 distinguished by dental characters from Co\ote, Jackal, and Fox, its 

 close relationship to the wolves is shown, as they point out, by the 

 shorter and narrower heel of the lower carnassial in proportion to the 

 length and width of the remaining part, the general bluntness and 

 plumpness of the premolar and molar teeth and their cusps, as well 

 as by the shorter and blunter canines. Other less constant but 

 average distinctions are tabulated by the latter author. A noticeable 

 character of the lower tooth-row in Wolf and Dog may also be men- 

 tioned, namely, its distinctly outward bend at the junction of the 

 molar and premolar series, whereas in the Coyote and the Jackal, the 

 axis of the tooth-row is much more nearly a straight line. The 

 presence of a minute second posterior cusp in addition to the cingu- 

 lum in the fourth lower premolar is characteristic of Jackal and Coyote. 



The relationship of the Domestic Dog ha^■ing thus l)een found to 

 be wholly with the Wolf, and not with Jackal, or Coyote, it remains 

 for future investigation to show what wolf-like ancestor was its ^-ild 

 progenitor. This, however, lies outside the scope of the present 

 paper. Yet it may be said that no evidence has hitherto been ad- 

 duced that clearly indicates the origin of the Dog from any of the 

 large wolves of circumboreal distribution. In general the skull of 

 the Dog is at once distinguished from that of the Wolf, apart from its 

 usually smaller size, by the higher forehead of the fomier. That this, 

 however, is due to greater development of tlie cerebrum through 

 domestication has been suggested by Hammeran (1895), notwith- 



