■i>»-i lU l.l.K'llN: MISKIM OK { DMPA UATf^ (•'. Zt)(>I.Ot;V. 



SllOHT-LECiGKD InDIAX DoCi. 



I'lati' 5. fit,r. 1. 



1829. Cnnisfamiliarix var. d. iiorac caledoniac Richardson, Fauna Bonvili- 



Ainer., 1, p. 82. 

 (?) 1912. Cotiis familiaris, minor Indian dofi, Looniis and Voutifi, Anier. 



journ. sci., ser. 4, 34, p. 26, fig. 4, D. - 



Vhiiraricrs. — Ears erect, liead laro;e in proportion, and body long-; 

 the legs relatively short but not distorted as in our Turnspits. Fur of 

 the body short and sleek, that of the tail longer. This is possibl\- a 

 derivative of the Common or Larger Indian Dog. 



Dixirihution. — It is hardly possible to trace the former distriljution 

 of this type of dog. It was found by Richardson in southern British 

 Columbia, and a dog apparently similar is known from Quebec, and 

 perhaps formerly in New England and New York. Probably it was 

 found among canoe-using or forest-living tribes in the North, hence 

 was infreciuent or absent in plains country. 



Notes and Descriptions. — Apparently Richardson (1829) was the 

 first to take special note of this breed. He found it among the Attnah 

 or Carrier Indians of "New Caledonia," (now British Columbia) and 

 it seems to have been bred as well by neighboring tribes as far south at 

 least as northern California. For Gibbs (Suckley and Gibbs, 18()0y 

 p. 112) makes particular mention of seeing "one peculiar looking dog 

 on Eel River, in the interior of northern California, among very wild 

 Indians. It had short legs and long body, like a tumspit." Suckley 

 in the same work, briefly says that " the Indian dogs about the Dalles 

 of the Columbia [Oregon] are so varied in appearance that no special 

 description can be given. We might, however, make two types. The 

 large * * * and the small, resembling the ' ixirnspit kind ' of whicli Mr. 

 Gibbs speaks. The latter are generally white, or spotted liver and 

 white, or black and white. This kind is kept more as a playmate for 

 the children and a pet for the women." 



It is significant that Suckley mentions the "varied" appearance of 

 the Oregon tlogs, so that it was possible to refer them in general to 

 but two types. This may have been a result in part of the inter- 

 breeding of the larger and the smaller types, and in part perhaps of a 

 mixture as Suckley suggests with European breeds already intro- 

 duced. 



