ORIGIN OF THE DOG. 5 
and another also partially tamed in South America, which deserve 
attention. And it is found that these races, in different degrees, 
and in a greater degree as they are more wild, exhibit the lank and 
gaunt form, the lengthened limbs, the long and slender muzzle, 
and the great comparative strength which characterise the wolf; 
and that the tail of the Australian dog, which may be considered 
as the most remote from a state of domestication, assumes the 
slightly bushy form of that animal. 
‘“We have here a remarkable approximation to a well-known 
wild animal of the same genus, in races which, though doubtless 
descended from domesticated ancestors, have gradually assumed 
the wild condition ; and it is worthy of especial remark that the 
anatomy of the wolf, and its osteology in particular, does not differ 
from that of the dog in general, more than the different kinds of 
dogs do from each other. The cranium is absolutely similar, and 
so are all, or nearly all, the other essential parts; and, to strengthen 
still further the probability of their identity, the dog and wolf will 
readily breed together, and their progeny is fertile. The obliquity 
of the position of the eyes in the wolf is one of the characters in 
which it differs from the dog; and although it is very desirable not 
to rest tco much upon the effects of habit on structure, it is not 
perhaps straining the point to attribute the forward direction of the 
eyes in the dog to the constant habit, for many successive genera- 
tions, of looking forward to his master, and obeying his voice.” * 
Such is the state of the argument in favour of the original 
descent. from the wolf, but, as far as it is founded upon the breed- 
ing together of the wolf and dog, it applies also to the fox, which 
is now ascertained occasionally to be impregnated by the dog; but 
in neither.case, we believe, does the progeny continue to be fertile 
if put to one of the same cross, and as this is now ascertained to 
be the only reliable test, the existence of the first cross stands for 
nothing. Indeed, experience shows us more and more clearly every 
year, that no reliance can be placed upon the test depending upon 
fertile intercommunion, which, especially in birds, is shown to 
be liable to various exceptions. Still it has been supported by 
respectable authorities, and for this reason we have given insertion 
to the above extract. 
* Bell’s British Quadrupeds, pp. 196, 197. 
