198 
PACIFIC SCIENCE, Vol. XIV, July I960 
about Polynesia. Both Crozet’s and King’s ac- 
counts are largely overlooked by taxonomists. 
None of the four primary describers attempts 
any classification. 
Superficial and incomplete as the four descrip- 
tions are, they are the best available because 
they definitely are about the native dog. Later 
descriptions must always be suspect because 
during the last quarter of the eighteenth century 
the native dog increasingly lost its identity 
through cross-breeding with dogs which Eu- 
ropean ships had picked up in ports around the 
world and taken to the islands. The Forsters 
and others had pet dogs, some of European or 
other foreign breeds, others of native breeds, 
and still others of mixed native and foreign 
origin. Captain Cook bought many native dogs 
either to be eaten on his ships or to be given 
as gifts to Polynesian and Melanesian chiefs 
who had no dogs ( Luomala, I960). 
The generalized description of the native dog 
by J. R. Forster (1778: 189) which is most 
often cited or paraphrased by classifiers follows: 
The dogs of the South Sea isles are of a singular 
race: they most resemble the common cur, but 
have a prodigious large head, remarkably little 
eyes, prick-ears, long hair and a short bushy tail. 
They are chiefly fed with fruit at the Society 
Isles; but in the low isles and New Zealand, 
where they are the only domestic animals, they 
live upon fish. They are exceedingly stupid, and 
seldom or never bark, only howl now and then; 
have the sense of smelling in a very low degree, 
and are lazy beyond measure: they are kept by 
the natives chiefly for the sake of their flesh, 
of which they are very fond, preferring it to 
pork; they also make use of their hair, in various 
ornaments, especially to fringe their breast 
plates in the Society Isles, and to face or even 
line the whole garment at New Zealand. . . . 
Taxonomists also often cite two of George 
Forster’s descriptions, one of the New Zealand 
dog and the other about that in the Society Is- 
lands. These zoologists, most of them German, 
quote from the German translation of Forster’s 
journal, which first appeared in English. The 
reference in the German edition ( 1778, 1: 165 ) 
differs from the English edition (1777, I: 377) 
only in omitting a reference to the texture of 
the dog’s hair being rough. 
According to George Forster, in June, 1773, 
some of the New Zealand Maoris visiting Cook’s 
ship had dogs in their canoes: 
A good many dogs were observed in their 
canoes, which they seemed very fond of, and 
kept tied with a string, round their middle; they 
were of a rough long-haired sort, with pricked 
ears, and much resembled the common shep- 
herd’s cur, or count Buffon’s chien de berger 
(see his Hist. Nat.). They were of different 
colours, some spotted, some quite black, and 
others perfectly white. The food which these 
dogs receive is fish, or the same as their masters 
live on, who afterwards eat their flesh, and 
employ the fur in various ornaments and dresses. 
They sold us several of these animals, among 
which the old ones coming into our possession 
became extremely sulky, and refused to take 
any sustenance, but some young ones soon ac- 
customed themselves to our provisions. 
The various editions of Buffon’s work use 
different illustrations of the sphepherd’s cur but 
the sketch (see Fig. 17) in the first edition 
( 1755, V: pi. 28, following p. 300) is probably 
the one known to Forster. It is usually difficult 
to know what variety of dog a writer has in 
mind when he likens the Polynesian dog to a 
shepherd’s cur, barbet, pomeranian, turnspit, 
poodle, dachshund, terrier, fox-dog, or Asiatic 
pariah dog. These popular terms tend to be 
differently used at different periods and in dif- 
ferent countries and localities. Moreover, 
changes largely resulting from artificial selection 
and breeding occur as time passes after a writer 
has made his comparison. Also, popular terms 
follow no classificatory system. Terms like shep- 
herd’s cur and turnspit refer to the dog’s func- 
tion in a culture. A writer comparing the Poly- 
nesian dog to a barbet or a pomeranian is 
thinking mostly, it seems, only of the long hair 
characteristic of these two breeds. Seeking to 
discover what each breed looked like at the 
time the comparison was made leads into a 
fascinating maze because the name of each breed 
has an associated literature so controversial that 
one concludes that the correct term for a writer 
about dogs is not scientist but dogmatist. George 
Forster, then, is exceptional in referring to a 
particular illustration of the European breed 
with which he compares the New Zealand dog. 
George Forster’s description of the dogs of 
