256 



investigations into the crucial zoological characters of the 

 animal they are dealing with : — 



(1) McCoy says, "It was certain that the native dogs of 

 Continental Asia were not clearly related, to the extent of 

 specific identity, with the Australian one, nor could any near 

 analogies be found elsewhere." 



(2) Lucas and Le Souef state that "in the anatomy of his 

 teeth and skeleton he seems to be intermediate between the 

 wild dogs of South America and the dogs and wolves of the 

 Old World." Unfortunately the skeletal and dental char- 

 acters by which this comparison was arrived at are not stated, 

 and the particular wild dogs of South America, with which 

 the comparison was made, are not specified. 



(3) Ogilby pictured it as a wild dog which was the 

 ancestor of all domesticated dogs, and Mr. C. M. Woodford 

 gave it as his opinion that "the Dingo is probably the pro- 

 genitor of the domestic dog of all the Pacific Islanders." 



(4) Beddard assumes a non-committal attitude and calls 

 the Dingo "an interesting and somewhat mysterious species 

 of dog or wolf." 



[D] That the Dingo is some sort of a dog is practically 

 the only point upon which all writers have agreed. But it 

 is one thing to agree that the Dingo is a dog, and another 

 to agree as to what, zoologically speaking, a dog is. Before 

 precise anatomical points were studied as the criteria for 

 specific distinctions, a vast amount of speculative literature 

 was woven about the problem of the origin of the dog as a 

 domesticated animal. In Darwin's Animals and Plants 

 under Domestication (1868) will be found a very good account 

 of the opinions that had been put forward up to the time 

 of writing this great work. It had been claimed that the 

 domestic dog had his origin in the jackal, in the wolf, or 

 in some species no longer extant. It had been claimed that 

 the domesticated races were polyphyletic — that some had 

 arisen from one wild stock and some from another. It had 

 been claimed also that the origin was a mixed one, and that 

 domestic dogs had arisen by the crossing of various wild 

 stocks living or extinct. This uncertainty still exists in most 

 accounts of the origin of the dog; even our best text- 

 books still hesitate concerning the wild progenitor of the 

 domestic dogs, and most seek safety in hints at polyphyletism. 

 Most of the uncertainty that prevails is due to emphasis laid 

 upon such variable characters as coat colour, and texture,, 

 tail and ear carriage, and such other external and conspicuous 

 but highly plastic features. Again, the relative fertility of 

 domestic races with local feral races, or true wild species, 

 has confused the issue. 



