ALLKX: DOliS OF 'lllK V.MKKUAN AHOKKilXKS. 4(».') 



Although <iviu'r:ill> associated with the Indians of liritisli ("olunibia 

 and nciglihorinji- parts of the northwcstrrn Tnitcfi States, it seems 

 likely that this or a similar breed may have been much more widely 

 distributed over northern North America, as far east and south as 

 Quebec, New Ejigland, and New York, if not farther. An excellent 

 l)hoto{i;raph s^iven me by Mr. \V. H. (\d)ot (Plate 5, fi<i;. 1) was ob- 

 tained a few years since among the Bersimis Indians, Quebec, and 

 seems to represent a dog of the same general type. The large head, 

 erect ears (somewhat laid back in the photograi)h), long hea\-\' body, 

 short, straight legs, up-turned tail, agree well with other descriptions. 

 This particular individual has the spiritless air of an old dog. 



That this breed of dog was found at least as far south as the south- 

 ern coast of New England, may possibly be inferred from the account 

 by Livermore (1S77, p. 58) of the dogs of the Block Island Indians, 

 of Rhode Island. This isolated colony of Indians numbered some 300 

 individuals up to the year 1700, but by 1774 was reduced to only 51. 

 In 187G, there was known to be but a single one living on the island. 

 According to tlu> author just mentioned, "the 'dogs' of Block Island 

 belonging to the Manisseans before the English came have their 

 descendants here still, it is believed. They are not numerous, but 

 peculiar, differing materially from all the species which we have 

 noticed on the mainland, both in figure and disposition. They are 

 below^ a medium-size, with short legs but powerful, broad l)reasts, 

 heavy quarters, massive head unlike the bulldog, the terrier, the hound, 

 the mastiff, but resembling mostly the last; with a fierce disposition 

 that in some makes but little distinction betw^een friend and foe." 

 The description here given, unsatisfactory though it be, impli(>s a dog 

 much like that shown in fig. 1, Plate 5. 



Skeletal Remains. — I am unaware of the existence in any museum, 

 of bones that may be definitely associated with the Short-legged 

 Indian Dog. But,, as pointed out by Loomis and Young (.1912), 

 there are in the prehistoric shell-heaps of the New England coast 

 remains of a larger and a smaller Indian Dog, the latter of which on 

 the strength of the evidence just given as to the former presence of the 

 short-legged breed in eastern Canada and New^ England, may tenta- 

 tively be referred to this animal. The authors mentioned liaN e char- 

 acterized the lower teeth of this smaller dog on the basis of jaws from 

 the ]Maine shell-heaps and through the kindness of Professor Loomis 

 I have had opportunity to study the specimens. 



The mandibles are all more or less broken, but include several in 

 fairl\- good condition. They differ from those of the Larger or Com- 



