CANIS OCHROPUS ORCUTTI Merriam, J. C. 



Text figures 34 to 40 

 Canis orcutti Merriam, J. C, Univ. Calif. Publ. Bull. Dept. Geol. vol. 5, p. 391. 1910. 



Type specimen, no. 10842, University of California Collections in Vertebrate 

 Palaeontology. Prom the asphalt beds of Rancho La Brea, California. 



The specimens referred to this form are next in number to those repre- 

 senting Canis dirus in the beds at Rancho La Brea, but are relatively rare 

 compared with remains of that species. Though several factors may have 

 tended to keep the number of coyotes entangled in the asphalt down to a 

 percentage of the whole population somewhat less than in the case of the 

 great wolves, it is probable that the smallness of the number of coyotes recov- 

 ered is due mainly to an absolutely much smaller representation of these forms 

 in this region during the time of accumulation of the asphalt beds. 



It is hardly to be presumed that coyotes would avoid the flat land bordering 

 the hills to such an extent as to reduce tbe percentage of individuals entangled 

 much below that in the case of G. dirus, though this might be true of the timber 

 wolves. The principal factors which may have contributed to keep down the 

 percentage of coyotes captured by the asphalt seem to be, nature of the lure 

 attracting wolves, mode of hunting, and possible difference in intelligent recog- 

 nition of the danger encountered. Most of the carnivores engulfed in the tar 

 have been captured in one of three wa}^s: by accidental crossing of soft tar 

 pools, by the lure of water pools in association with tar springs, and by the lure 

 of entangled animals which might serve as food. Accidents under the first 

 two heads would occur with about the same frequency in the two groups of 

 wolves unless in one of them a grade of intelligence was developed which 

 enabled the individuals to obtain a relatively better knowledge of danger signs. 

 Whether the coyote was the more intelligent animal is not easily determined. 

 It did, however, possess a relatively larger, though absolutely smaller r brain. 

 It is not improbable that its sight, hearing, and smell were more acute than 

 in the great wolf. If this be true, there is reason to suspect that the coyote 

 would more readily perceive and avoid a danger not unusual in this region. 



The third factor, lure of animals, is the only one of the three which seems 

 to have significance worth more than passing mention iu this connection. 

 Judging from such evidence as we have, it seems probable that the great 

 wolves were powerful enough to prey upon animals of considerable size, that 

 they were so constructed as to make the tearing apart of large animals fairly 



[255] 



