200 ANCIENT HISTORY OF THE DOG. BY H. D. RICHARDSON, S.E.R.P.S.E. No. I. A mania for depriving the dog of all claim to originality of creation has, I know not why, long taken strong possession of the minds of natural historians; nearly all of whom that have ventured to wield the pen having endeavoured to trace his descent to the rapacious wolf, the foul-feeding jackal, or the crafty and plotting fox, and some even referring him to the surly hyena, with his surly and indomitable congeners. Some go so far as to admit that a true dog was, indeed, originally created among the other tribes of animals, but maintain him to have been formed wild and savage, and to owe his present position as our faithful and valued friend to the reclaiming power of "human reason," and a train of adventitious circumstances long subsequent to the formation of the animal kingdom, and to the era of his first existence. These are the persons who love to descant upon that "glorious, never-to-be-forgotten conquest of reason over instinct." Cuvier has said, speaking of this subject, "C'est la conqûete la plus complete, la plus singulière et la plus utile que l'homme a faite ;" and his translator, Griffith, has reechoed, without an attempt at inquiry, "This is the most complete, singular, and useful conquest man has made." * So, then, man boasts of a mysterious control over natural instinct, and is able to subdue, reclaim, and conquer to himself what animals he will, and of rendering those, naturally fierce and estranged from his society, his faithful, willing, and unchangeable servants. Truly I, for one, should be glad were this mysterious power still capable of being put in exercise. I have spent years in striving to reclaim the wild creatures of the forest: I have given to them my care, and my attention: I have lavished upon them my time, my affection, and my money; and yet I have but succeeded in partial familiarization of a few individuals, whose offspring have invariably returned to the intractable habits of their race. And have other experimentalists fared better? How does it happen else that the grim wolf still prowls in his native forests, that the fox still continues his instinctive habits, and that the jackal is still the crafty marauder or the filthy scavenger of the Eastern suburb? Why does not the beautiful zebra grace the equipages of our metropolis, and why does not the gazelle become the happy and contented ornament of our parks? Why does the furious bison still roam the wilds of his native America, while the patient ox drew the baggage of the primeval patriarchs? I need, I think, * Griffith's Cuvier, vol. i. p. 149. hardly assert, as every one who reads already must be aware of the fact, that far more pains have been bestowed upon endeavouring to reclaim these naturally irreclaimable creatures than we have the slightest proof were ever bestowed on those which are asserted to have been descended from them. "If," says an eloquent writer on this subject in Lardner's Cyclopædia-" if this power really had been given to us in the sense the assertion evidently implies, the instinct of animals would be under the control of man, instead of being immutably fixed by the ALMIGHTY-that power to whom man himself is indebted for his faculty of reason. Not, indeed, that it might be made, as in this instance, an idle and arrogant boast, but that it should be used to give honour and reverence to his Maker. The more the wondrous works of the Creator are studied, the more will this truth become incontestable that it is HE only who has given to certain animals, or to certain tribes, an innate propensity to live, by free choice, near the haunts of men, or to submit themselves cheerfully and willingly to his domestication." Why should the power of Him who framed the universe be limited? Why should we seek to set bounds to the power of Him whose power is infinite? Where exists positive, tangible, actual proof that He did not form the dog at the creation, or that he formed him wild, and left it to the inventive art of man to reclaim him? Is it not infinitely more rational to suppose that a benevolent Deity should have formed the dog to be the ever-faithful, constant attendant and friend of man, and to continue his companion after the fall should have deprived him of the friendship of other animals? This, however, is mere declamation; let us proceed to something more like proof. In such discussions as the present, direct proof of our own position being wanting, I think it will suffice to overturn the arguments on which our opponents base their theories, in order to shew, first, the equal probability, and, secondly, the greater plausibility of our own. Hodgson has conceived he has discovered a wild dog, the buanser, which was the primitive type of the canine race. Professor Kretschner describes a jackal, in the Frankfort museum, as the type of those of ancient Egypt, cum multis aliis; to whose theories and arguments the following reasoning will apply, as well as to those who uphold the wolfish origin: Mr. Perhaps the best written and most concise view of this Lupine or Vulpine origin, that we could quote here, is that of Mr. Bell, as published in his "British Quadrupeds." He says "It is necessary to ascertain to what type the animal approaches most nearly, after having for many generations existed in a wild state, removed from the influence of domestication and association with mankind. Now, we find that there are several different instances of the existence of dogs in such a state of wildness as to have lost even that common character of domestication, variety of colour and marking: of these, two very remarkable ones are the Dhole of India and the Dingo of Australia. There is, besides, a half-reclaimed race among the Indians of North America, and another partially tamed in South America, * I quote the extract as I find it in "The Naturalist's Library," Mam., vol. ix. which deserve particular attention; and it is found that these races in different degrees, and in a greater degree as they are more wild, exhibit the lank and gaunt form, the lengthened limbs, the long and slender muzzle, and the great comparative strength which characterize the wolf: and that the tail of the Australian dog, which may be considered as the most remote from a state of domestication, assumes the slightly bushy form of that animal. We have here, then, a considerable approximation to a well-known wild animal of the same genus, in races which, though doubtless descended from domesticated ancestors, have gradually assumed the wild condition; and it is worthy of especial remark, that the anatomy of the wolf, and its osteology in particular, does not differ from that of dogs in general more than the different kinds of dogs do from each other. The cranium is absolutely similar, and so are all, or nearly all, the other essential parts; and, to strengthen still further the probability of their identity, the dog and wolf will readily breed together, and their progeny is fertile. The obliquity of the position of the eyes in the wolf is one of the characters in which it differs from the dog; and, although it is very desirable not to rest too much upon the effects of habit or structure, it is not perhaps straining the point to attribute the forward direction of the eyes in the dogs to the constant habit, for many succeeding generations, of looking forwards to their master, and obeying his voice." I, for my part, cannot avoid regarding this explanation of the direction of the eye as, to say the very least, rather imaginative than philosophical. But to continue "Another criterion, and a sound one, is the identity of gestation. Sixty-three days form the period during which the bitch goes with young; precisely the same elapse before the wolf gives birth to her offspring. Upon Buffon's instance of seventy-three days-or rather the possibility of such a duration in the gestation of a particular shewolf-we do not lay much stress, when opposed to the strong evidence of the usual period being sixty-three days. The young of both wolf and dog are born blind; and at the same, or about the same time, viz., about the expiration of the tenth or twelfth day, they begin to see. Hunter's important experiments proved, without doubt, that the wolf and the jackal would breed with the dog; but he had not sufficient data for coming to the conclusion that all three were identical as species. In the course of those experiments he ascertained that the jackal went fifty-nine days with young, while the wolf went sixtythree; nor does he record that the progeny and the dog would breed together; and he knew too well the value of the argument to be drawn from a fertile progeny not to have dwelt upon the fact, if he had proved it—not to have mentioned it, at least, even if he had heard of it." Mr. Bell concludes his observations on this subject as follows:"Upon the whole, the argument in favour of the view which I have taken, that the wolf is probably the original of all the canine races, may be thus stated:-The structure of the animal is identical, or so nearly as to afford the strongest a priori evidence in its favour. The dog must have been derived from an animal susceptible of the highest degree of domestication, and capable of great affection for mankind, which has been abundantly proved of the wolf. Dogs having returned to a wild state, and continued in that condition through many generations, exhibit characters which approximate more and more to those of the wolf, in proportion as the influence of civilization ceases to act. The two animals will breed together, and produce fertile young. The period of gestation is the same." Here, then, are the arguments for the wolfish origin of the dog concisely summed up, to which I shall endeavour to reply seriatim, and in equally brief terms. First, is it, in a question of this kind, sufficient to say loosely, "the parts are nearly identical," or "nearly all the essential parts are so"? The intestines of the wolf are shorter, the orbits are placed higher and more forward in the skull, and the proportion between the bones of the hind-legs is different; the number of toes differs from the dog, and there are besides other anatomical differences which I do not consider, seeing that the question is begged of me, necessary to adduce. Second, I deny that the wolf is susceptible of being fully domesticated. I have seen many so-called "tame wolves," but never yet one that might be trusted, or that did not, on the first opportunity, return to his fierce nature and wild habits. The pups, too, of domesticated wolves are not in the smallest degree influenced by the domestication of their parents. The Royal Zoological Society of Ireland had a pair of tamed wolves in their gardens; these produced pups, which were likewise tamed, and the society lately presented me with one of these last-named pups, which, though only five weeks old when I took him from his dam, was as fierce and violent in his little way as the most ferocious denizen of the forest.* As to dogs, when allowed to become wild, in the course of generations becoming like wolves, I conceive this to be an assertion that has yet to be proved; but even such dogs are always ready to acknowledge the control of man, and may be induced, with very little trouble, to return to their allegiance.+ Nor will their whelps be born wild, but tame like their parents. It is with these dogs circumstances, and not nature, that have driven them wild; and, those circumstances ceasing to operate, domestication returns. Another question I would ask: how does it happen that the dog is found in every quarter of the globe to which man has penetrated, while the wolf has never yet been met with south of the equator? Are there not allowed to exist several species of wolves in North America? Has the domestic dog been derived from each and all of these, or have these various species yet been proved to be identical? These wolves bear a closer resemblance to each other than any wolf does to the dog; and yet are they asserted to belong to the one species. Is not this a fact which should be established prior to the one in question? And are there not wild canines in South America, Australia, India, and Arabia, essentially distinct, which no one has yet endeavoured to * This attempt of mine has signally failed. As the circumstance of dogs occasionally running wild is much dwelt upon, I request my readers' close attention to my answer. prove descended from a common origin; yet are they not more closely allied than the dog to the wolf. Are there not likewise several admitted species of fox? Why not first clear up these points ere proceeding to such as are more remote? I likewise deny that wolves and dogs naturally breed together. In their native forests they clearly will not, or the wild dog would not now remain distinct from the wolf, whose lair is in the neighbourhood of his own. The effort of man and partial domestication may associate them, but naturally they shun each other, and even bear a strong mutual animosity. Nor will these animals breed together unless one, at least, be thoroughly a domesticated animal. How else have all experiments to produce a breed between the wolf and the Australian Dingo so signally failed? Is breeding together and fertility of offspring a sufficient proof of identity of species? I say nothing, I merely adduce a fact or two. Mr. Hodgson, at Katmandor, proved that the Capra Tharal and domestic goat will breed together without difficulty. The hunchbacked ox, of India, will breed with our common ox, and the offspring is prolific. The mare will breed with the quagga; and we likewise know that in various parts of Russia the sheep and the goat have bred, and do breed together if proper precautions be used; and yet has any zoologist ever attempted to establish for these animals an identity of species? Need I add to these instances that of the produce of the horse and ass occasionally proving fertile? I might bring forward many more instances, and even more arguments, but am satisfied with having refuted (as I think I effectually have) those of my opponents, and, in the language of the bar, I say, 66 our case rests here." Having thus, I think, satisfactorily disposed of the theory of the lupine or vulpine origin of the domestic dog, I come to another which has been embraced with perhaps even greater ardour by naturalists, viz., that all the known varieties of domestic dog have taken their origin from one, and that one the colley or shepherd's dog. In this case I would first inquire, what shepherd's dog is indicated? for they differ much from each other. Buffon, of course, as a gallant Frenchman should, stood up for the matin, or shepherd's dog of France; and later writers, who have all more or less copied from him, adhered to the theory of the colley origin, while they forget to inquire which description of colley it was that they intended to designate. There is but little similitude between the tail-less, woollylooking animal, the sheep-dog of England; the fox-like colley of Scotland; the gaunt and short-haired cur of Ireland; the matin of Buffon; the noble-looking, and powerful sheep-dog of the Pyrenees, and many other sorts of sheep-dog, used for the purpose of tending flocks throughout the world. Let me, however, select any one of these, say that of Scotland, as most writers on the subject seem to have had him in view when propounding the theory. Am I, then, to believe that a brace of Scotch colleys were the progenitors of the entire canine race? Did the stately and terror-inspiring *Pallas. |