Chapter I: Domestic Dogs and Cats (1)

ANCIENT VARIETIES OF THE DOG—RESEMBLANCE OF DOMESTIC DOGS IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES TO NATIVE CANINE SPECIES—ANIMALS NOT ACQUAINTED WITH MAN AT FIRST FEARLESS—DOGS RESEMBLING WOLVES AND JACKALS—HABIT OF BARKING ACQUIRED AND LOST—FERAL DOGS—TAN-COLOURED EYE-SPOTS—PERIOD OF GESTATION—OFFENSIVE ODOUR—FERTILITY OF THE RACES WHEN CROSSED—DIFFERENCES IN THE SEVERAL RACES IN PART DUE TO DESCENT FROM DISTINCT SPECIES—DIFFERENCES IN THE SKULL AND TEETH—DIFFERENCES IN THE BODY, IN CONSTITUTION—FEW IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES HAVE BEEN FIXED BY SELECTION—DIRECT ACTION OF CLIMATE—WATER-DOGS WITH PALMATED FEET—HISTORY OF THE CHANGES WHICH CERTAIN ENGLISH RACES OF THE DOG HAVE GRADUALLY UNDERGONE THROUGH SELECTION—EXTINCTION OF THE LESS IMPROVED SUB-BREEDS.

CATS, CROSSED WITH SEVERAL SPECIES—DIFFERENT BREEDS FOUND ONLY IN SEPARATED COUNTRIES—DIRECT EFFECTS OF THE CONDITIONS OF LIFE—FERAL CATS—INDIVIDUAL VARIABILITY.

The first and chief point of interest in this chapter is, whether
the numerous domesticated varieties of the dog have descended from
a single wild species, or from several. Some authors believe that
all have descended from the wolf, or from the jackal, or from an
unknown and extinct species. Others again believe, and this of late
has been the favourite tenet, that they have descended from several
species, extinct and recent, more or less commingled together. We
shall probably never be able to ascertain their origin with
certainty. Palæontology[1] does not throw much light on the
question, owing, on the one hand, to the close similarity of the
skulls of extinct as well as living wolves and jackals, and owing,
on the other hand, to the great dissimilarity of the skulls of the
several breeds of the domestic dogs. It seems, however, that
remains have been found in the later tertiary deposits more like
those of a large dog than of a wolf, which favours the belief of De
Blainville that our dogs are the descendants of a single extinct
species. On the other hand, some authors go so far as to assert
that every chief domestic breed must have had its wild prototype.
This latter view is extremely improbable: it allows nothing for
variation; it passes over the almost monstrous character of some of
the breeds; and it almost necessarily assumes that a large number
of species have become extinct since man domesticated the dog;
whereas we plainly see that wild members of the dog-family are
extirpated by human agency with much difficulty; even so recently
as 1710 the wolf existed in so small an island as Ireland.

The reasons which have led various authors to infer that our dogs
have descended from more than one wild species are as follows.[2]
Firstly, the great difference between the several breeds; but this
will appear of comparatively little weight, after we shall have
seen how great are the differences between the several races of
various domesticated animals which certainly have descended from a
single parent-form. Secondly, the more important fact, that, at the
most anciently known historical periods, several breeds of the dog
existed, very unlike each other, and closely resembling or
identical with breeds still alive.

We will briefly run back through the historical records. The
materials are remarkably deficient between the fourteenth century
and the Roman classical period.[3] At this latter period various
breeds, namely hounds, house-dogs, lapdogs, etc, existed; but, as
Dr. Walther has remarked, it is impossible to recognise the greater
number with any certainty. Youatt, however, gives a drawing of a
beautiful sculpture of two greyhound puppies from the Villa of
Antoninus. On an Assyrian monument, about 640 B.C., an enormous
mastiff[4] is figured; and according to Sir H. Rawlinson (as I was
informed at the British Museum), similar dogs are still imported
into this same country. I have looked through the magnificent works
of Lepsius and Rosellini, and on the Egyptian monuments from the
fourth to the twelfth dynasties (i.e. from about 3400 B.C. to 2100
B.C.) several varieties of the dog are represented; most of them
are allied to greyhounds; at the later of these periods a dog
resembling a hound is figured, with drooping ears, but with a
longer back and more pointed head than in our hounds. There is,
also, a turnspit, with short and crooked legs, closely resembling
the existing variety; but this kind of monstrosity is so common
with various animals, as with the ancon sheep, and even, according
to Rengger, with jaguars in Paraguay, that it would be rash to look
at the monumental animal as the parent of all our turnspits:
Colonel Sykes[5] also has described an Indian pariah dog as
presenting the same monstrous character. The most ancient dog
represented on the Egyptian monuments is one of the most singular;
it resembles a greyhound, but has long pointed ears and a short
curled tail: a closely allied variety still exists in Northern
Africa; for Mr. E. Vernon Harcourt[6] states that the Arab
boar-hound is “an eccentric hieroglyphic animal, such as Cheops
once hunted with, somewhat resembling the rough Scotch deer-hound;
their tails are curled tight round on their backs, and their ears
stick out at right angles.” With this most ancient variety a
pariah-like dog coexisted.

We thus see that, at a period between four and five thousand years
ago, various breeds, viz. pariah dogs, greyhounds, common hounds,
mastiffs, house-dogs, lapdogs, and turnspits, existed, more or less
closely resembling our present breeds. But there is not sufficient
evidence that any of these ancient dogs belonged to the same
identical sub-varieties with our present dogs.[7] As long as man
was believed to have existed on this earth only about 6000 years,
this fact of the great diversity of the breeds at so early a period
was an argument of much weight that they had proceeded from several
wild sources, for there would not have been sufficient time for
their divergence and modification. But now that we know, from the
discovery of flint tools embedded with the remains of extinct
animals in districts which have since undergone great geographical
changes, that man has existed for an incomparably longer period,
and bearing in mind that the most barbarous nations possess
domestic dogs, the argument from insufficient time falls away
greatly in value.

Long before the period of any historical record the dog was
domesticated in Europe. In the Danish Middens of the Neolithic or
Newer Stone period, bones of a canine animal are embedded, and
Steenstrup ingeniously argues that these belonged to a domestic
dog; for a very large proportion of the bones of birds preserved in
the refuse consists of long bones, which it was found on trial dogs
cannot devour.[8] This ancient dog was succeeded in Denmark during
the Bronze period by a larger kind, presenting certain differences,
and this again during the Iron period, by a still larger kind. In
Switzerland, we hear from Prof. Rütimeyer,[9] that during the
Neolithic period a domesticated dog of middle size existed, which
in its skull was about equally remote from the wolf and jackal, and
partook of the characters of our hounds and setters or spaniels
(Jagdhund und Wachtelhund). Rütimeyer insists strongly on the
constancy of form during a very long period of time of this the
most ancient known dog. During the Bronze period a larger dog
appeared, and this closely resembled in its jaw a dog of the same
age in Denmark. Remains of two notably distinct varieties of the
dog were found by Schmerling in a cave;[10] but their age cannot be
positively determined.

The existence of a single race, remarkably constant in form during
the whole Neolithic period, is an interesting fact in contrast with
what we see of the changes which the races underwent during the
period of the successive Egyptian monuments, and in contrast with
our existing dogs. The character of this animal during the
Neolithic period, as given by Rütimeyer, supports De Blainville’s
view that our varieties have descended from an unknown and extinct
form. But we should not forget that we know nothing with respect to
the antiquity of man in the warmer parts of the world. The
succession of the different kinds of dogs in Switzerland and
Denmark is thought to be due to the immigration of conquering
tribes bringing with them their dogs; and this view accords with
the belief that different wild canine animals were domesticated in
different regions. Independently of the immigration of new races of
man, we know from the wide-spread presence of bronze, composed of
an alloy of tin, how much commerce there must have been throughout
Europe at an extremely remote period, and dogs would then probably
have been bartered. At the present time, amongst the savages of the
interior of Guiana, the Taruma Indians are considered the best
trainers of dogs, and possess a large breed which they barter at a
high price with other tribes.[11]

The main argument in favour of the several breeds of the dog being
the descendants of distinct wild stocks, is their resemblance in
various countries to distinct species still existing there. It
must, however, be admitted that the comparison between the wild and
domesticated animal has been made but in few cases with sufficient
exactness. Before entering on details, it will be well to show that
there is no a priori difficulty in the belief that several canine
species have been domesticated. Members of the dog family inhabit
nearly the whole world; and several species agree pretty closely in
habits and structure with our several domesticated dogs. Mr. Galton
has shown[12] how fond savages are of keeping and taming animals of
all kinds. Social animals are the most easily subjugated by man,
and several species of Canidæ hunt in packs. It deserves notice, as
bearing on other animals as well as on the dog, that at an
extremely ancient period, when man first entered any country, the
animals living there would have felt no instinctive or inherited
fear of him, and would consequently have been tamed far more easily
than at present. For instance, when the Falkland Islands were first
visited by man, the large wolf-like dog (_Canis antarcticus_)
fearlessly came to meet Byron’s sailors, who, mistaking this
ignorant curiosity for ferocity, ran into the water to avoid them:
even recently a man, by holding a piece of meat in one hand and a
knife in the other, could sometimes stick them at night. On a
island in the Sea of Aral, when first discovered by Butakoff, the
saigak antelopes, which are “generally very timid and watchful, did
not fly from us, but on the contrary looked at us with a sort of
curiosity.” So, again, on the shores of the Mauritius, the manatee
was not at first in the least afraid of man, and thus it has been
in several quarters of the world with seals and the morse. I have
elsewhere shown[13] how slowly the native birds of several islands
have acquired and inherited a salutary dread of man: at the
Galapagos Archipelago I pushed with the muzzle of my gun hawks from
a branch, and held out a pitcher of water for other birds to alight
on and drink. Quadrupeds and birds which have seldom been disturbed
by man, dread him no more than do our English birds, the cows, or
horses grazing in the fields.

It is a more important consideration that several canine species evince (as will be shown in a future chapter) no strong repugnance or inability to breed under confinement; and the incapacity to breed under confinement is one of the commonest bars to domestication. Lastly, savages set the highest value, as we shall see in the chapter on Selection, on dogs: even half-tamed animals are highly useful to them: the Indians of North America cross their half-wild dogs with wolves, and thus render them even wilder than before, but bolder: the savages of Guiana catch and partially tame and use the whelps of two wild species of _Canis,_ as do the savages of Australia those of the wild Dingo. Mr. Philip King informs me that he once trained a wild Dingo puppy to drive cattle, and found it very useful. From these several considerations we see that there is no difficulty in believing that man might have domesticated various canine species in different countries. It would indeed have been a strange fact if one species alone had been domesticated throughout the world.

We will now enter into details. The accurate and sagacious
Richardson says, “The resemblance between the Northern American
wolves (_Canis lupus,_ var. _occidentalis_) and the domestic dogs
of the Indians is so great that the size and strength of the wolf
seems to be the only difference. I have more than once mistaken a
band of wolves for the dogs of a party of Indians; and the howl of
the animals of both species is prolonged so exactly in the same key
that even the practised ear of the Indian fails at times to
discriminate them.” He adds that the more northern Esquimaux dogs
are not only extremely like the grey wolves of the Arctic circle in
form and colour, but also nearly equal them in size. Dr. Kane has
often seen in his teams of sledge-dogs the oblique eye (a character
on which some naturalists lay great stress), the drooping tail, and
scared look of the wolf. In disposition the Esquimaux dogs differ
little from wolves, and, according to Dr. Hayes, they are capable
of no attachment to man, and are so savage that when hungry they
will attack even their masters. According to Kane they readily
become feral. Their affinity is so close with wolves that they
frequently cross with them, and the Indians take the whelps of
wolves “to improve the breed of their dogs.” The half-bred wolves
sometimes (Lamare-Picquot) cannot be tamed, “though this case is
rare;” but they do not become thoroughly well broken in till the
second or third generation. These facts show that there can be but
little, if any, sterility between the Esquimaux dog and the wolf,
for otherwise they would not be used to improve the breed. As Dr.
Hayes says of these dogs, “reclaimed wolves they doubtless
are.”[14]

North America is inhabited by a second kind of wolf, the
prairie-wolf (_Canis latrans_), which is now looked at by all
naturalists as specifically distinct from the common wolf; and is,
according to Mr. J.K. Lord, in some respects intermediate in habits
between a wolf and a fox. Sir J. Richardson, after describing the
Hare Indian dog, which differs in many respects from the Esquimaux
dog, says, “It bears the same relation to the prairie-wolf that the
Esquimaux dog does to the great grey wolf.” He could, in fact,
detect no marked difference between them; and Messrs. Nott and
Gliddon give additional details showing their close resemblance.
The dogs derived from the above two aboriginal sources cross
together and with the wild wolves, at least with the _C.
occidentalis,_ and with European dogs. In Florida, according to
Bartram, the black wolf-dog of the Indians differs in nothing from
the wolves of that country except in barking.[15]

Turning to the southern parts of the new world, Columbus found two
kinds of dogs in the West Indies; and Fernandez[16] describes three
in Mexico: some of these native dogs were dumb—that is, did not
bark. In Guiana it has been known since the time of Buffon that the
natives cross their dogs with an aboriginal species, apparently the
_Canis cancrivorus._ Sir R. Schomburgk, who has so carefully
explored these regions, writes to me, “I have been repeatedly told
by the Arawaak Indians, who reside near the coast, that they cross
their dogs with a wild species to improve the breed, and individual
dogs have been shown to me which certainly resembled the _C.
cancrivorus_ much more than the common breed. It is but seldom that
the Indians keep the _C. cancrivorus_ for domestic purposes, nor is
the Ai, another species of wild dog, and which I consider to be
identical with the _Dusicyon silvestris_ of H. Smith, now much used
by the Arecunas for the purpose of hunting. The dogs of the Taruma
Indians are quite distinct, and resemble Buffon’s St. Domingo
greyhound.” It thus appears that the natives of Guiana have
partially domesticated two aboriginal species, and still cross
their dogs with them; these two species belong to a quite different
type from the North American and European wolves. A careful
observer, Rengger,[17] gives reasons for believing that a hairless
dog was domesticated when America was first visited by Europeans:
some of these dogs in Paraguay are still dumb, and Tschudi[18]
states that they suffer from cold in the Cordillera. This naked dog
is, however quite distinct from that found preserved in the ancient
Peruvian burial-places, and described by Tschudi, under the name of
_Canis ingæ,_ as withstanding cold well and as barking. It is not
known whether these two distinct kinds of dog are the descendants
of native species, and it might be argued that when man first
migrated into America he brought with him from the Asiatic
continent dogs which had not learned to bark; but this view does
not seem probable, as the natives along the line of their march
from the north reclaimed, as we have seen, at least two N. American
species of Canidæ.

Turning to the Old World, some European dogs closely resemble the
wolf; thus the shepherd dog of the plains of Hungary is white or
reddish-brown, has a sharp nose, short, erect ears, shaggy coat,
and bushy tail, and so much resembles a wolf that Mr. p.t, who
gives this description, says he has known a Hungarian mistake a
wolf for one of his own dogs. Jeitteles, also, remarks on the close
similarity of the Hungarian dog and wolf. Shepherd dogs in Italy
must anciently have closely resembled wolves, for Columella (vii.
12) advises that white dogs be kept, adding, “pastor album probat,
ne pro lupo canem feriat.” Several accounts have been given of dogs
and wolves crossing naturally; and Pliny asserts that the Gauls
tied their female dogs in the woods that they might cross with
wolves.[19] The European wolf differs slightly from that of North
America, and has been ranked by many naturalists as a distinct
species. The common wolf of India is also by some esteemed as a
third species, and here again we find a marked resemblance between
the pariah dogs of certain districts of India and the Indian
wolf.[20]

With respect to Jackals, Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire[21] says
that not one constant difference can be pointed out between their
structure and that of the smaller races of dogs. They agree closely
in habits: jackals, when tamed and called by their master, wag
their tails, lick his hands, crouch, and throw themselves on their
backs; they smell at the tails of other dogs, and void their urine
sideways; they roll on carrion or on animals which they have
killed; and, lastly, when in high spirits, they run round in
circles or in a figure of eight, with their tails between their
legs.[22] A number of excellent naturalists, from the time of
Güldenstädt to that of Ehrenberg, Hemprich, and Cretzschmar, have
expressed themselves in the strongest terms with respect to the
resemblance of the half-domestic dogs of Asia and Egypt to jackals.
M. Nordmann, for instance, says, “Les chiens d’Awhasie ressemblent
étonnamment à des chacals.” Ehrenberg[23] asserts that the domestic
dogs of Lower Egypt, and certain mummied dogs, have for their wild
type a species of wolf (_C. lupaster_) of the country; whereas the
domestic dogs of Nubia and certain other mummied dogs have the
closest relation to a wild species of the same country, viz. _C.
sabbar,_ which is only a form of the common jackal. Pallas asserts
that jackals and dogs sometimes naturally cross in the East; and a
case is on record in Algeria.[24] The greater number of naturalists
divide the jackals of Asia and Africa into several species, but
some few rank them all as one.

I may add that the domestic dogs on the coast of Guinea are
fox-like animals, and are dumb.[25] On the east coast of Africa,
between latitude 4° and 6° south, and about ten days’ journey in
the interior, a semi-domestic dog, as the Rev. S. Erhardt informs
me, is kept, which the natives assert is derived from a similar
wild animal. Lichtenstein[26] says that the dogs of the Bosjemans
present a striking resemblance even in colour (excepting the black
stripe down the back) with the _C. mesomelas_ of South Africa. Mr.
E. Layard informs me that he has seen a Caffre dog which closely
resembled an Esquimaux dog. In Australia the Dingo is both
domesticated and wild; though this animal may have been introduced
aboriginally by man, yet it must be considered as almost an endemic
form, for its remains have been found in a similar state of
preservation and associated with extinct mammals, so that its
introduction must have been ancient.[27]

From this resemblance of the half-domesticated dogs in several
countries to the wild species still living there,—from the facility
with which they can often be crossed together,—from even half-tamed
animals being so much valued by savages,—and from the other
circumstances previously remarked on which favour their
domestication, it is highly probable that the domestic dogs of the
world are descended from two well-defined species of wolf (viz. _C.
lupus_ and _C. latrans),_ and from two or three other doubtful
species (namely, the European, Indian, and North African wolves);
from at least one or two South American canine species; from
several races or species of jackal; and perhaps from one or more
extinct species. Although it is possible or even probable that
domesticated dogs, introduced into any country and bred there for
many generations, might acquire some of the characters proper to
the aboriginal Canidæ of the country, we can hardly thus account
for introduced dogs having given rise to two breeds in the same
country, resembling two of its aboriginal species, as in the
above-given cases of Guiana and of North America.[28]

It cannot be objected to the view of several canine species having
been anciently domesticated, that these animals are tamed with
difficulty: facts have been already given on this head, but I may
add that the young of the _Canis primævus_ of India were tamed by
Mr. Hodgson,[29] and became as sensible of caresses, and manifested
as much intelligence, as any sporting dog of the same age. There is
not much difference, as we have already shown and shall further
see, in habits between the domestic dogs of the North American
Indians and the wolves of that country, or between the Eastern
pariah dogs and jackals, or between the dogs which have run wild in
various countries and the several natural species of the family.
The habit of barking, however, which is almost universal with
domesticated dogs, forms an exception, as it does not characterise
a single natural species of the family, though I am assured that
the _Canis latrans_ of North America utters a noise which closely
approaches a bark. But this habit is soon lost by dogs when they
become feral and is soon reacquired when they are again
domesticated. The case of the wild dogs on the island of Juan
Fernandez having become dumb has often been quoted, and there is
reason to believe[30] that the dumbness ensued in the course of
thirty-three years; on the other hand, dogs taken from this island
by Ulloa slowly reacquired the habit of barking. The
Mackenzie-river dogs, of the _Canis latrans_ type, when brought to
England, never learned to bark properly; but one born in the
Zoological Gardens[31] “made his voice sound as loudly as any other
dog of the same age and size.” According to Professor Nillson,[32]
a wolf-whelp reared by a bitch barks. I. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire
exhibited a jackal which barked with the same tone as any common
dog.[33] An interesting account has been given by Mr. G. Clarke[34]
of some dogs run wild on Juan de Nova, in the Indian Ocean; “they
had entirely lost the faculty of barking; they had no inclination
for the company of other dogs, nor did they acquire their voice”
during a captivity of several months. On the island they
“congregate in vast packs, and catch sea-birds with as much address
as foxes could display.” The feral dogs of La Plata have not become
dumb; they are of large size, hunt singly or in packs, and burrow
holes for their young.[35] In these habits the feral dogs of La
Plata resemble wolves and jackals; both of which hunt either singly
or in packs, and burrow holes.[36] These feral dogs have not become
uniform in colour on Juan Fernandez, Juan de Nova, or La Plata.[37]
In Cuba the feral dogs are described by Poeppig as nearly all
mouse-coloured, with short ears and light-blue eyes. In St.
Domingo, Col. Ham. Smith says[38] that the feral dogs are very
large, like greyhounds, of a uniform pale blue-ash, with small
ears, and large light-brown eyes. Even the wild Dingo, though so
anciently naturalised in Australia, “varies considerably in
colour,” as I am informed by Mr. P.P. King: a half-bred Dingo
reared in England[39] showed signs of wishing to burrow.

From the several foregoing facts we see that reversion in the feral
state gives no indication of the colour or size of the aboriginal
parent-species. One fact, however, with respect to the colouring of
domestic dogs, I at one time hoped might have thrown some light on
their origin; and it is worth giving, as showing how colouring
follows laws, even in so anciently and thoroughly domesticated an
animal as the dog. Black dogs with tan-coloured feet, whatever
breed they may belong to, almost invariably have a tan-coloured
spot on the upper and inner corners of each eye, and their lips are
generally thus coloured. I have seen only two exceptions to this
rule, namely, in a spaniel and terrier. Dogs of a light-brown
colour often have a lighter, yellowish-brown spot over the eyes;
sometimes the spot is white, and in a mongrel terrier the spot was
black. Mr. Waring kindly examined for me a stud of fifteen
greyhounds in Suffolk: eleven of them were black, or black and
white, or brindled, and these had no eye-spots; but three were red
and one slaty-blue, and these four had dark-coloured spots over
their eyes. Although the spots thus sometimes differ in colour,
they strongly tend to be tan-coloured; this is proved by my having
seen four spaniels, a setter, two Yorkshire shepherd dogs, a large
mongrel, and some fox-hounds, coloured black and white, with not a
trace of tan-colour, excepting the spots over the eyes, and
sometimes a little on the feet. These latter cases, and many
others, show plainly that the colour of the feet and the eye-spots
are in some way correlated. I have noticed, in various breeds,
every gradation, from the whole face being tan-coloured, to a
complete ring round the eyes, to a minute spot over the inner and
upper corners. The spots occur in various sub-breeds of terriers
and spaniels; in setters; in hounds of various kinds, including the
turnspit-like German badger-hound; in shepherd dogs; in a mongrel,
of which neither parent had the spots; in one pure bulldog, though
the spots were in this case almost white; and in greyhounds,—but
true black-and-tan greyhounds are excessively rare; nevertheless I
have been assured by Mr. Warwick, that one ran at the Caledonian
Champion meeting of April 1860, and was “marked precisely like a
black-and-tan terrier.” This dog, or another exactly the same
colour, ran at the Scottish National Club on the 21st of March,
1865; and I hear from Mr. C. M. Browne, that “there was no reason
either on the sire or dam side for the appearance of this unusual
colour.” Mr. Swinhoe at my request looked at the dogs in China, at
Amoy, and he soon noticed a brown dog with yellow spots over the
eyes. Colonel H. Smith[40] figures the magnificent black mastiff of
Thibet with a tan-coloured stripe over the eyes, feet, and chaps;
and what is more singular, he figures the Alco, or native domestic
dog of Mexico, as black and white, with narrow tan-coloured rings
round the eyes; at the Exhibition of dogs in London, May 1863, a
so-called forest dog from North-West Mexico was shown, which had
pale tan-coloured spots over the eyes. The occurrence of these
tan-coloured spots in dogs of such extremely different breeds,
living in various parts of the world, makes the fact highly
remarkable.

We shall hereafter see, especially in the chapter on Pigeons, that
coloured marks are strongly inherited, and that they often aid us
in discovering the primitive forms of our domestic races. Hence, if
any wild canine species had distinctly exhibited the tan-coloured
spots over the eyes, it might have been argued that this was the
parent-form of nearly all our domestic races. But after looking at
many coloured plates, and through the whole collection of skins in
the British Museum, I can find no species thus marked. It is no
doubt possible that some extinct species was thus coloured. On the
other hand, in looking at the various species, there seems to be a
tolerably plain correlation between tan-coloured legs and face; and
less frequently between black legs and a black face; and this
general rule of colouring explains to a certain extent the
above-given cases of correlation between the eye-spots and the
colour of the feet. Moreover, some jackals and foxes have a trace
of a white ring round their eyes, as in _C. mesomelas, C. aureus,_
and (judging from Colonel H. Smith’s drawing) in _C. alopex,_ and
_C. thaleb._ Other species have a trace of a black line over the
corners of the eyes, as in _C. variegatus, cinereo-variegatus,_ and
_fulvus,_ and the wild Dingo. Hence I am inclined to conclude that
a tendency for tan-coloured spots to appear over the eyes in the
various breeds of dogs, is analogous to the case observed by
Desmarest, namely, that when any white appears on a dog the tip of
the tail is always white, “de manière à rappeler la tache terminale
de même couleur, qui caractérise la plupart des Canidés
sauvages.”[41] This rule, however, as I am assured by Mr. Jesse,
does not invariably hold good.

It has been objected that our domestic dogs cannot be descended
from wolves or jackals, because their periods of gestation are
different. The supposed difference rests on statements made by
Buffon, Gilibert, Bechstein, and others; but these are now known to
be erroneous; and the period is found to agree in the wolf, jackal,
and dog, as closely as could be expected, for it is often in some
degree variable.[42] Tessier, who has closely attended to this
subject, allows a difference of four days in the gestation of the
dog. The Rev. W. D. Fox has given me three carefully recorded cases
of retrievers, in which the bitch was put only once to the dog; and
not counting this day, but counting that of parturition, the
periods were fifty-nine, sixty-two, and sixty-seven days. The
average period is sixty-three days; but Bellingeri states that this
applies only to large dogs; and that for small races it is from
sixty to sixty-three days; Mr. Eyton of Eyton, who has had much
experience with dogs, also informs me that the time is apt to be
longer with large than with small dogs.

F. Cuvier has objected that the jackal would not have been
domesticated on account of its offensive smell; but savages are not
sensitive in this respect. The degree of odour, also, differs in
the different kinds of jackal;[43] and Colonel H. Smith makes a
sectional division of the group with one character dependent on not
being offensive. On the other hand, dogs— for instance, rough and
smooth terriers—differ much in this respect; and M. Godron states
that the hairless so-called Turkish dog is more odoriferous than
other dogs. Isidore Geoffroy[44] gave to a dog the same odour as
that from a jackal by feeding it on raw flesh.

The belief that our dogs are descended from wolves, jackals, South
American Canidæ, and other species, suggests a far more important
difficulty. These animals in their undomesticated state, judging
from a widely-spread analogy, would have been in some degree
sterile if intercrossed; and such sterility will be admitted as
almost certain by all those who believe that the lessened fertility
of crossed forms is an infallible criterion of specific
distinctness. Anyhow these animals keep distinct in the countries
which they inhabit in common. On the other hand, all domestic dogs,
which are here supposed to be descended from several distinct
species, are, as far as is known, mutually fertile together. But,
as Broca has well remarked,[45] the fertility of successive
generations of mongrel dogs has never been scrutinised with that
care which is thought indispensable when species are crossed. The
few facts leading to the conclusion that the sexual feelings and
reproductive powers differ in the several races of the dog when
crossed are (passing over mere size as rendering propagation
difficult) as follows: the Mexican Alco[46] apparently dislikes
dogs of other kinds, but this perhaps is not strictly a sexual
feeling; the hairless endemic dog of Paraguay, according to
Rengger, mixes less with the European races than these do with each
other; the Spitz dog in Germany is said to receive the fox more
readily than do other breeds; and Dr. Hodgkin states that a female
Dingo in England attracted the male wild foxes. If these latter
statements can be trusted, they prove some degree of sexual
difference in the breeds of the dog. But the fact remains that our
domestic dogs, differing so widely as they do in external
structure, are far more fertile together than we have reason to
believe their supposed wild parents would have been. Pallas
assumes[47] that a long course of domestication eliminates that
sterility which the parent-species would have exhibited if only
lately captured; no distinct facts are recorded in support of this
hypothesis; but the evidence seems to me so strong (independently
of the evidence derived from other domesticated animals) in favour
of our domestic dogs having descended from several wild stocks,
that I am inclined to admit the truth of this hypothesis.

There is another and closely allied difficulty consequent on the
doctrine of the descent of our domestic dogs from several wild
species, namely, that they do not seem to be perfectly fertile with
their supposed parents. But the experiment has not been quite
fairly tried; the Hungarian dog, for instance, which in external
appearance so closely resembles the European wolf, ought to be
crossed with this wolf: and the pariah dogs of India with Indian
wolves and jackals; and so in other cases. That the sterility is
very slight between certain dogs and wolves and other Canidæ is
shown by savages taking the trouble to cross them. Buffon got four
successive generations from the wolf and dog, and the mongrels were
perfectly fertile together.[48] But more lately M. Flourens states
positively as the result of his numerous experiments that hybrids
from the wolf and dog, crossed _inter se,_ become sterile at the
third generation, and those from the jackal and dog at the fourth
generation.[49] But these animals were closely confined; and many
wild animals, as we shall see in a future chapter, are rendered by
confinement in some degree or even utterly sterile. The Dingo,
which breeds freely in Australia with our imported dogs, would not
breed though repeatedly crossed in the Jardin des Plantes.[50] Some
hounds from Central Africa, brought home by Major Denham, never
bred in the Town of London;[51] and a similar tendency to sterility
might be transmitted to the hybrid offspring of a wild animal.
Moreover, it appears that in M. Flourens’ experiments the hybrids
were closely bred in and in for three or four generations; and this
circumstance would most certainly increase the tendency to
sterility. Several years ago I saw confined in the Zoological
Gardens of London a female hybrid from an English dog and jackal,
which even in this the first generation was so sterile that, as I
was assured by her keeper, she did not fully exhibit her proper
periods; but this case was certainly exceptional, as numerous
instances have occurred of fertile hybrids from these two animals.
In almost all experiments on the crossing of animals there are so
many causes of doubt, that it is extremely difficult to come to any
positive conclusion. It would, however, appear, that those who
believe that our dogs are descended from several species will have
not only to admit that their offspring after a long course of
domestication generally lose all tendency to sterility when crossed
together; but that between certain breeds of dogs and some of their
supposed aboriginal parents a certain degree of sterility has been
retained or possibly even acquired.

Notwithstanding the difficulties in regard to fertility given in the last two paragraphs, when we reflect on the inherent improbability of man having domesticated throughout the world one single species alone of so widely distributed, so easily tamed, and so useful a group as the Canidæ; when we reflect on the extreme antiquity of the different breeds; and especially when we reflect on the close similarity, both in external structure and habits, between the domestic dogs of various countries and the wild species still inhabiting these same countries, the balance of evidence is strongly in favour of the multiple origin of our dogs.

_Differences between the several Breeds of the Dog.—_If the several
breeds have descended from several wild stocks, their difference
can obviously in part be explained by that of their parent species.
For instance, the form of the greyhound may be partly accounted for
by descent from some such animal as the slim Abyssinian _Canis
simensis,_[52] with its elongated muzzle; that of the larger dogs
from the larger wolves, and the smaller and slighter dogs from the
jackals: and thus perhaps we may account for certain constitutional
and climatal differences. But it would be a great error to suppose
that there has not been in addition[53] a large amount of
variation. The intercrossing of the several aboriginal wild stocks,
and of the subsequently formed races, has probably increased the
total number of breeds, and, as we shall presently see, has greatly
modified some of them. But we cannot explain by crossing the origin
of such extreme forms as thoroughbred greyhounds, bloodhounds,
bulldogs, Blenheim spaniels, terriers, pugs, etc., unless we
believe that forms equally or more strongly characterised in these
different respects once existed in nature. But hardly any one has
been bold enough to suppose that such unnatural forms ever did or
could exist in a wild state. When compared with all known members
of the family of Canidæ they betray a distinct and abnormal origin.
No instance is on record of such dogs as bloodhounds, spaniels,
true greyhounds having been kept by savages: they are the product
of long-continued civilisation.

The number of breeds and sub-breeds of the dog is great; Youatt for
instance, describes twelve kinds of greyhounds. I will not attempt
to enumerate or describe the varieties, for we cannot discriminate
how much of their difference is due to variation, and how much to
descent from different aboriginal stocks. But it may be worth while
briefly to mention some points. Commencing with the skull, Cuvier
has admitted[54] that in form the differences are “plus fortes que
celles d’aucunes espèces sauvages d’un même genre naturel.” The
proportions of the different bones; the curvature of the lower jaw,
the position of the condyles with respect to the plane of the teeth
(on which F. Cuvier founded his classification), and in mastiffs
the shape of its posterior branch; the shape of the zygomatic arch,
and of the temporal fossae; the position of the occiput—all vary
considerably.[55] The difference in size between the brains of dogs
belonging to large and small breeds “is something prodigious.”
“Some dogs’ brains are high and rounded, while others are low,
long, and narrow in front.” In the latter, “the olfactory lobes are
visible for about half their extent, when the brain is seen from
above, but they are wholly concealed by the hemispheres in other
breeds.”[56] The dog has properly six pairs of molar teeth in the
upper jaw, and seven in the lower; but several naturalists have
seen not rarely an additional pair in the upper jaw;[57] and
Professor Gervais says that there are dogs “qui ont sept paires de
dents supérieures et huit inférieures.” De Blainville[58] has given
full particulars on the frequency of these deviations in the number
of the teeth, and has shown that it is not always the same tooth
which is supernumerary. In short-muzzled races, according to H.
Müller,[59] the molar teeth stand obliquely, whilst in long-muzzled
races they are placed longitudinally, with open spaces between
them. The naked, so-called Egyptian or Turkish dog is extremely
deficient in its teeth,[60] —sometimes having none except one molar
on each side; but this, though characteristic of the breed, must be
considered as a monstrosity. M. Girard,[61] who seems to have
attended closely to the subject, says that the period of the
appearance of the permanent teeth differs in different dogs, being
earlier in large dogs; thus the mastiff assumes its adult teeth in
four or five months, whilst in the spaniel the period is sometimes
more than seven or eight months. On the other hand small dogs are
mature, and the females have arrived at the best age for breeding,
when one year old, whereas large dogs “are still in their puppyhood
at this time, and take fully twice as long to develop their
proportions.”[62]

With respect to minor differences little need be said. Isidore
Geoffroy has shown[63] that in size some dogs are six times as long
(the tail being excluded) as others; and that the height relatively
to the length of the body varies from between one to two, and one
to nearly four. In the Scotch deer-hound there is a striking and
remarkable difference in the size of the male and female.[64] Every
one knows how the ears vary in size in different breeds, and with
their great development their muscles become atrophied. Certain
breeds of dogs are described as having a deep furrow between the
nostrils and lips. The caudal vertebrae, according to F. Cuvier, on
whose authority the two last statements rest, vary in number; and
the tail in English cattle and some shepherd dogs is almost absent.
The mammae vary from seven to ten in number; Daubenton, having
examined twenty-one dogs, found eight with five mammae on each
side; eight with four on each side; and the others with an unequal
number on the two sides.[65] Dogs have properly five toes in front
and four behind, but a fifth toe is often added; and F. Cuvier
states that, when a fifth toe is present, a fourth cuneiform bone
is developed; and, in this case, sometimes the great cuneiform bone
is raised, and gives on its inner side a large articular surface to
the astragalus; so that even the relative connection of the bones,
the most constant of all characters, varies. These modifications,
however, in the feet of dogs are not important, because they ought
to be ranked, as De Blainville has shown[66] as monstrosities.
Nevertheless they are interesting from being correlated with the
size of the body, for they occur much more frequently with mastiffs
and other large breeds than with small dogs. Closely allied
varieties, however, sometimes differ in this respect; thus Mr.
Hodgson states that the black-and-tan Lassa variety of the Thibet
mastiff has the fifth digit, whilst the Mustang sub-variety is not
thus characterised. The extent to which the skin is developed
between the toes varies much; but we shall return to this point.
The degree to which the various breeds differ in the perfection of
their senses, dispositions, and inherited habits is notorious to
every one. The breeds present some constitutional differences: the
pulse, says Youatt[67] “varies materially according to the breed,
as well as to the size of the animal.” Different breeds of dogs are
subject in different degrees to various diseases. They certainly
become adapted to different climates under which they have long
existed. It is notorious that most of our best European breeds
deteriorate in India.[68] The Rev R. Everest[69] believes that no
one has succeeded in keeping the Newfoundland dog long alive in
India; so it is, according to Lichtenstein,[70] even at the Cape of
Good Hope. The Thibet mastiff degenerates on the plains of India,
and can live only on the mountains.[71] Lloyd[72] asserts that our
bloodhounds and bulldogs have been tried, and cannot withstand the
cold of the northern European forests.

Seeing in how many characters the races of the dog differ from each
other, and remembering Cuvier’s admission that their skulls differ
more than do those of the species of any natural genus, and bearing
in mind how closely the bones of wolves, jackals, foxes, and other
Canidæ agree, it is remarkable that we meet with the statement,
repeated over and over again, that the races of the dog differ in
no important characters. A highly competent judge, Prof.
Gervais,[73] admits “si l’on prenait sans contrôle les alterations
dont chacun de ces organes est susceptible, on pourrait croire
qu’il y a entre les chiens domestiques des différences plus grandes
que celles qui séparent ailleurs les espèces, quelquefois même les
genres.” Some of the differences above enumerated are in one
respect of comparatively little value, for they are not
characteristic of distinct breeds: no one pretends that such is the
case with the additional molar teeth or with the number of mammae;
the additional digit is generally present with mastiffs, and some
of the more important differences in the skull and lower jaw are
more or less characteristic of various breeds. But we must not
forget that the predominant power of selection has not been applied
in any of these cases; we have variability in important parts, but
the differences have not been fixed by selection. Man cares for the
form and fleetness of his greyhounds, for the size of his mastiffs,
and formerly for the strength of the jaw in his bulldogs, etc.; but
he cares nothing about the number of their molar teeth or mammae or
digits; nor do we know that differences in these organs are
correlated with, or owe their development to, differences in other
parts of the body about which man does care. Those who have
attended to the subject of selection will admit that, nature having
given variability, man, if he so chose, could fix five toes to the
hinder feet of certain breeds of dogs, as certainly as to the feet
of his Dorking fowls: he could probably fix, but with much more
difficulty, an additional pair of molar teeth in either jaw, in the
same way as he has given additional horns to certain breeds of
sheep; if he wished to produce a toothless breed of dogs, having
the so-called Turkish dog with its imperfect teeth to work on, he
could probably do so, for he has succeeded in making hornless
breeds of cattle and sheep.

With respect to the precise causes and steps by which the several
races of dogs have come to differ so greatly from each other, we
are, as in most other cases, profoundly ignorant. We may attribute
part of the difference in external form and constitution to
inheritance from distinct wild stocks, that is to changes effected
under nature before domestication. We must attribute something to
the crossing of the several domestic and natural races. I shall,
however, soon recur to the crossing of races. We have already seen
how often savages cross their dogs with wild native species; and
Pennant gives a curious account[74] of the manner in which
Fochabers, in Scotland, was stocked “with a multitude of curs of a
most wolfish aspect” from a single hybrid-wolf brought into that
district.

It would appear that climate to a certain extent directly modifies
the forms of dogs. We have lately seen that several of our English
breeds cannot live in India, and it is positively asserted that
when bred there for a few generations they degenerate not only in
their mental faculties, but in form. Captain Williamson,[75] who
carefully attended to this subject, states that “hounds are the
most rapid in their decline;” “greyhounds and pointers, also,
rapidly decline.” But spaniels, after eight or nine generations,
and without a cross from Europe, are as good as their ancestors.
Dr. Falconer informs me that bulldogs, which have been known, when
first brought into the country, to pin down even an elephant by its
trunk, not only fall off after two or three generations in pluck
and ferocity, but lose the under-hung character of their lower
jaws; their muzzles become finer and their bodies lighter. English
dogs imported into India are so valuable that probably due care has
been taken to prevent their crossing with native dogs; so that the
deterioration cannot be thus accounted for. The Rev. R. Everest
informs me that he obtained a pair of setters, born in India, which
perfectly resembled their Scotch parents: he raised several litters
from them in Delhi, taking the most stringent precautions to
prevent a cross, but he never succeeded, though this was only the
second generation in India, in obtaining a single young dog like
its parents in size or make; their nostrils were more contracted,
their noses more pointed, their size inferior, and their limbs more
slender. So again on the coast of Guinea, dogs, according to
Bosman, “alter strangely; their ears grow long and stiff like those
of foxes, to which colour they also incline, so that in three or
four years, they degenerate into very ugly creatures; and in three
or four broods their barking turns into a howl.”[76] This
remarkable tendency to rapid deterioration in European dogs
subjected to the climate of India and Africa, may be largely
accounted for by reversion to a primordial condition which many
animals exhibit, as we shall hereafter see, when their
constitutions are in any way disturbed.

Some of the peculiarities characteristic of the several breeds of
the dog have probably arisen suddenly, and, though strictly
inherited, may be called monstrosities; for instance, the shape of
the legs and body in the turnspit of Europe and India; the shape of
the head and the under-hanging jaw in the bull-and pug-dog, so
alike in this one respect and so unlike in all others. A
peculiarity suddenly arising, and therefore in one sense deserving
to be called a monstrosity, may, however, be increased and fixed by
man’s selection. We can hardly doubt that long-continued training,
as with the greyhound in coursing hares, as with water-dogs in
swimming—and the want of exercise, in the case of lapdogs—must have
produced some direct effect on their structure and instincts. But
we shall immediately see that the most potent cause of change has
probably been the selection, both methodical and unconscious, of
slight individual differences,—the latter kind of selection
resulting from the occasional preservation, during hundreds of
generations, of those individual dogs which were the most useful to
man for certain purposes and under certain conditions of life. In a
future chapter on Selection I shall show that even barbarians
attend closely to the qualities of their dogs. This unconscious
selection by man would be aided by a kind of natural selection; for
the dogs of savages have partly to gain their own subsistence: for
instance, in Australia, as we hear from Mr. Nind,[77] the dogs are
sometimes compelled by want to leave their masters and provide for
themselves; but in a few days they generally return. And we may
infer that dogs of different shapes, sizes, and habits, would have
the best chance of surviving under different circumstances,—on open
sterile plains, where they have to run down their own prey,—on
rocky coasts, where they have to feed on crabs and fish left in the
tidal pools, as in the case of New Guinea and Tierra del Fuego. In
this latter country, as I am informed by Mr. Bridges, the Catechist
to the Mission, the dogs turn over the stones on the shore to catch
the crustaceans which lie beneath, and they “are clever enough to
knock off the shell-fish at a first blow;” for if this be not done,
shell-fish are well-known to have an almost invincible power of
adhesion.