388 THE PRAIRIE WOLF, OR COYOTE. 
cartilage. When pressed apart, their tips form with the point of 
the snout a nearly equilateral triangle. In fine, the pointer’s physi- 
ognomy differs from the coyoté’s mainly in its special engrafted 
features, and these produce a discrepancy much greater than that 
existing between the coyoté and many mongrel 4 ogs. 
It is unnecessary to- compare the skulls of the animals. There 
“are no differences of moment, at least viewing the immense dis- 
crepancies existing in the crania of different breeds of dogs. Nor 
does an “‘ average ” dog’s skull differ from a coyoté’s by anything 
like as much as do the skulls of C. latrans and C. lupus. 
It appears, then, that the pointer, though a highly specialized 
case of the domestic dog, is identical in essential structural points 
with the coyoté; differs less in size than coyotés vary among them- 
selves ; differs no more in pelage than it does from many other 
dogs; and, in details of form and physiognomy, differs vastly less 
than various dogs do among themselves. It appears, furthermore, 
that close as the likeness is, it is less than that subsisting between 
the coyote and various kinds of dogs domesticated by the Indians. 
. For example, there is nothing in Audubon’s description of the 
Hare-Indian dog specifically inapplicable to the coyoté. Even the 
colors are the same; the difference in pattern (masses of blackish 
instead of brindling) is not of the least consequence, since it is 
entirely unstable. Richardson noted close traits of resemblance, 
even to the remarkable mode of outery—a few, short, sharp barks 
followed by a prolonged shrill howl. The fact that this particular 
strain of dog is bred beyond the present distribution of the coyoté, 
is, of course, not tothe point in the general question. But we 
have much more striking and unquestionable evidence of relation- 
ship by direct descent of some Indian dogs from the coyoté. In 
the first place we should note that the habitual antagonism of these 
dogs and the coyotés is nothing but the animosity all dogs show to 
strangers of their own kind, an aversion probably rooted in jeal- 
ousy, which is a strong canine trait. Next, we continually find dogs 
of both sexes, on the frontier, deserting their haunts at particular 
(sexual) periods ; and if the occurrence of a feral wolf-dog (coyoté 
Q and dog 2) has not been recorded, there are numerous cases of 
_ the production of the same (from coyoté # and dog @) in domes 
_tication. I have, finally, information which I consider perfectly 
‘satisfactory, i in still stronger evidence of the readiness with which 
the ro animals interbreed. Indians not unfrequently bring it 
