FLESH-EA TING MAMMALS. 67 



an exceedingly inappropriate one, because it is just this particular group of 

 dog-like animals which differs more from ordinary dogs than do most others 

 of the larger Canidie. It would indeed be far better if wolves and jackals 

 were spoken of as "wild dogs," since it is those members of the family 

 which come closest to our domestic dogs, of some of which they are probably 

 the parent stock. In such cases, however, it is utterly hopeless for the 

 naturalist to attempt to fight against popular usage, and we must accordingly 

 be content to accept the ordinary names for the animals under consideration. 



All who have ever seen an Indian wild dog, whether in the flesli or stufied, 

 will not be likely to mistake it for any other member of the canine family. 

 In size it is somewhat larger than a jackal of average dimensions, and is 

 characterised by the generally ruddy colour of the hair, and especially by the 

 black tip of the moderately long and bushy tail. Moreover, tlie muzzle 

 and legs are relatively rather short in comparison with the size of the head 

 and body ; while the profile of the face differs from that of other canine 

 animals by being slightly convex instead of concave or straight. 



The reader may ask whether such characteristics as the above offer any 

 justification for the objection to the term wild dog as applied to these ani- 

 mals; and if it were these alone on which naturalists rely, he would be 

 perfectly justified in so doing. To obtain, however, any true ideas as to the 

 relationships of an animal, we are compelled not only to study its colour and 

 proportions, but likewise to take into consideration its skeleton and other 

 parts of its organisation. Now, if we take the skull of a wild dog and com- 

 pare the number of teeth in the lower jaw with those of a wolf, jackal, or 

 fox, we shall find an important point of difference. In the lower jaws of all 

 the three animals last mentioned, and also in those of domestic dogs, we 

 shall find that there are 11 teeth on each side ; the eleventh being the 

 smallest of all those situated beliind the tusk. If, on the otlier hand, we 

 examine the lower jaw of any wild dog, we shall find that the small eleventh 

 tooth is wanting, so that there are only 10 lower teeth. A wild dog has, 

 indeed, only 10 teeth on each side of both the upper and lower jaws, where- 

 as in dogs, wolves, jackals, and foxes there are 10 upper and 11 lower 

 teeth. We have here, therefore, an easily recognised point of distinction 

 between a wild dog and most other members of the family. There are, how- 

 ever, two African and one South American representatives of the family, 

 which, while differing from the ordinary type as regards the number of their 

 teeth, have no intimate connection with the wild dogs. A difference of one 

 tooth more or less in the lower jaws of different members of the family may 

 not appear a very important one — and to a certain extent it is not so. But 

 it at any rate serves to show that wild dogs cannot possibly be the parents of 

 any of our domestic breeds of dogs, since it is a well ascertained fact that 

 when once a tooth has been lost in any group of animals it never reappears 

 (unless it may be as an occasional abnormality) in their descendants. An- 

 other point of distinction between wild dogs and other members of the family 

 is that there are either 12 or 14 teats in place of the usual 10. 



Relying on the two points of difference last noticed, many naturalists have 

 considered that wild dogs ought not to be included in the same genus as 

 wolves and jackals, and the former have accordingly been described under a 

 separate generic title, as Cuon, or more correctly Cyan, from the Greek name 

 for a dog. Such a distinction appears, however, unnecessary, and it is pre- 

 ferable to include wolves, jackals, foxes, and wild dogs under the common 

 title of Canis, 



