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.
It has already been remarked that dogs differ in the degree to which their feet are webbed. In dogs of the Newfoundland breed, which are eminently aquatic in their habits, the skin, according to Isidore Geoffroy,[[78]] extends to the third phalanges whilst in ordinary dogs it extends only to the second. In two Newfoundland dogs which I examined, when the toes were stretched apart and viewed on the under side, the skin extended in a nearly straight line between the outer margins of the balls of the toes; whereas, in two terriers of distinct sub-breeds, the skin viewed in the same manner was deeply scooped out. In Canada there is a dog which is peculiar to the country and common there, and this has “half-webbed feet and is fond of the water.”[[79]] English otter-hounds are said to have webbed feet: a friend examined for me the feet of two, in comparison with the feet of some harriers and bloodhounds; he found the skin variable in extent in all, but more developed in the otter-hounds than in the others.[[80]] As aquatic animals which belong to quite different orders have webbed feet, there can be no doubt that this structure would be serviceable to dogs that frequent the water. We may confidently infer that no man ever selected his water-dogs by the extent to which the skin was developed between their toes; but what he does, is to preserve and breed from those individuals which hunt best in the water, or best retrieve wounded game, and thus he unconsciously selects dogs with feet slightly better webbed. The effects of use from the frequent stretching apart of the toes will likewise aid in the result. Man thus closely imitates Natural Selection. We have an excellent illustration of this same process in North America, where, according to Sir J. Richardson,[[81]] all the wolves, foxes, and aboriginal domestic dogs have their feet broader than in the corresponding species of the Old World, and “well calculated for running on the snow” Now, in these Arctic regions, the life or death of every animal will often depend on its success in hunting over the snow when soft; and this will in part depend on the feet being broad; yet they must not be so broad as to interfere with the activity of the animal when the ground is sticky, or with its power of burrowing holes, or with other necessary habits of life.
As changes in domestic breeds which take place so slowly are not to be noticed at any one period, whether due to the selection of individual variations or of differences resulting from crosses, are most important in understanding the origin of our domestic productions, and likewise in throwing indirect light on the changes effected under nature, I will give in detail such cases as I have been able to collect. Lawrence,[[82]] who paid particular attention to the history of the foxhound, writing in 1829, says that between eighty and ninety years before “an entirely new foxhound was raised through the breeder’s art,” the ears of the old southern hound being reduced, the bone and bulk lightened, the waist increased in length, and the stature somewhat added to. It is believed that this was effected by a cross with a greyhound. With respect to this latter dog, Youatt,[[83]] who is generally cautious in his statements, says that the greyhound within the last fifty years, that is before the commencement of the present century, “assumed a somewhat different character from that which he once possessed. He is now distinguished by a beautiful symmetry of form, of which he could not once boast, and he has even superior speed to that which he formerly exhibited. He is no longer used to struggle with deer, but contends with his fellows over a shorter and speedier course.” An able writer[[84]] believes that our English greyhounds are the descendants, progressively improved, of the large rough greyhounds which existed in Scotland so early as the third century. A cross at some former period with the Italian greyhound has been suspected; but this seems hardly probable, considering the feebleness of this latter breed. Lord Orford, as is well-known, crossed his famous greyhounds, which failed in courage, with a bulldog—this breed being chosen from being erroneously supposed to be deficient in the power of scent; “after the sixth or seventh generation,” says Youatt, “there was not a vestige left of the form of the bulldog, but his courage and indomitable perseverance remained.”
Youatt infers, from a comparison of an old picture of King Charles’s spaniels with the living dog, that “the breed of the present day is materially altered for the worse:” the muzzle has become shorter, the forehead more prominent, and the eyes larger; the changes in this case have probably been due to simple selection. The setter, as this author remarks in another place, “is evidently the large spaniel improved to his present peculiar size and beauty, and taught another way of marking his game. If the form of the dog were not sufficiently satisfactory on this point, we might have recourse to history:” he then refers to a document dated 1685 bearing on this subject, and adds that the pure Irish setter shows no signs of a cross with the pointer, which some authors suspect has been the case with the English setter. The bulldog is an English breed, and as I hear from Mr. G. R. Jesse,[[85]] seems to have originated from the mastiff since the time of Shakspeare; but certainly existed in 1631, as shown by Prestwick Eaton’s letters. There can be no doubt that the fancy bulldogs of the present day, now that they are not used for bull-baiting, have become greatly reduced in size, without any express intention on the part of the breeder. Our pointers are certainly descended from a Spanish breed, as even their present names, Don, Ponto, Carlos, etc., show; it is said that they were not known in England before the Revolution in 1688;[[86]] but the breed since its introduction has been much modified, for Mr. Borrow, who is a sportsman and knows Spain intimately well, informs me that he has not seen in that country any breed “corresponding in figure with the English pointer; but there are genuine pointers near Xeres which have been imported by English gentlemen.” A nearly parallel case is offered by the Newfoundland dog, which was certainly brought into England from that country, but which has since been so much modified that, as several writers have observed, it does not now closely resemble any existing native dog in Newfoundland.[[87]]
These several cases of slow and gradual changes in our English dogs possess some interest; for though the changes have generally, but not invariably, been caused by one or two crosses with a distinct breed, yet we may feel sure, from the well-known extreme variability of crossed breeds, that rigorous and long-continued selection must have been practised, in order to improve them in a definite manner. As soon as any strain or family became slightly improved or better adapted to alter circumstances, it would tend to supplant the older and less improved strains. For instance, as soon as the old foxhound was improved by a cross with the greyhound, or by simple selection, and assumed its present character—and the change was probably desired owing to the increased fleetness of our hunters—it rapidly spread throughout the country, and is now everywhere nearly uniform. But the process of improvement is still going on for every one tries to improve his strain by occasionally procuring dogs from the best kennels. Through this process of gradual substitution the old English hound has been lost; and so it has been with the Irish wolf-dog, the old English bulldog, and several other breeds, such as the alaunt, as I am informed by Mr. Jesse. But the extinction of former breeds is apparently aided by another cause; for whenever a breed is kept in scanty numbers, as at present with the bloodhound, it is reared with some difficulty, apparently from the evil effects of long-continued close interbreeding. As several breeds of the dog have been slightly but sensibly modified within so short a period as the last one or two centuries, by the selection of the best individuals, modified in many cases by crosses with other breeds; and as we shall hereafter see that the breeding of dogs was attended to in ancient times, as it still is by savages, we may conclude that we have in selection, even if only occasionally practised, a potent means of modification.
DOMESTIC CATS.
Cats have been domesticated in the East from an ancient period; Mr. Blyth informs me that they are mentioned in a Sanskrit writing 2000 years old, and in Egypt their antiquity is known to be even greater, as shown by monumental drawings and their mummied bodies. These mummies, according to De Blainville,[[88]] who has particularly studied the subject, belong to no less than three species, namely, F. caligulata, bubastes, and chaus. The two former species are said to be still found, both wild and domesticated, in parts of Egypt. F. caligulata presents a difference in the first inferior milk molar tooth, as compared with the domestic cats of Europe, which makes De Blainville conclude that it is not one of the parent-forms of our cats. Several naturalists, as Pallas, Temminck, Blyth, believe that domestic cats are the descendants of several species commingled: it is certain that cats cross readily with various wild species, and it would appear that the character of the domestic breeds has, at least in some cases, been thus affected. Sir W. Jardine has no doubt that, “in the north of Scotland, there has been occasional crossing with our native species (F. sylvestris), and that the result of these crosses has been kept in our houses. I have seen,” he adds, “many cats very closely resembling the wild cat, and one or two that could scarcely be distinguished from it.” Mr. Blyth[[89]] remarks on this passage, “but such cats are never seen in the southern parts of England; still, as compared with any Indian tame cat, the affinity of the ordinary British cat to F. sylvestris is manifest; and due I suspect to frequent intermixture at a time when the tame cat was first introduced into Britain and continued rare, while the wild species was far more abundant than at present.” In Hungary, Jeitteles[[90]] was assured on trustworthy authority that a wild male cat crossed with a female domestic cat, and that the hybrids long lived in a domesticated state. In Algiers the domestic cat has crossed with the wild cat (F. lybica) of that country.[[91]] In South Africa as Mr. E. Layard informs me, the domestic cat intermingles freely with the wild F. caffra; he has seen a pair of hybrids which were quite tame and particularly attached to the lady who brought them up; and Mr. Fry has found that these hybrids are fertile. In India the domestic cat, according to Mr. Blyth, has crossed with four Indian species. With respect to one of these species, F. chaus, an excellent observer, Sir W. Elliot, informs me that he once killed, near Madras, a wild brood, which were evidently hybrids from the domestic cat; these young animals had a thick lynx-like tail and the broad brown bar on the inside of the forearm characteristic of F. chaus. Sir W. Elliot adds that he has often observed this same mark on the forearms of domestic cats in India. Mr. Blyth states that domestic cats coloured nearly like F. chaus, but not resembling that species in shape, abound in Bengal; he adds, “such a colouration is utterly unknown in European cats, and the proper tabby markings (pale streaks on a black ground, peculiarly and symmetrically disposed), so common in English cats, are never seen in those of India.” Dr. D. Short has assured Mr. Blyth[[92]] that, at Hansi, hybrids between the common cat and F. ornata (or torquata) occur, “and that many of the domestic cats of that part of India were undistinguishable from the wild F. ornata.” Azara states, but only on the authority of the inhabitants, that in Paraguay the cat has crossed with two native species. From these several cases we see that in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America, the common cat, which lives a freer life than most other domesticated animals, has crossed with various wild species; and that in some instances the crossing has been sufficiently frequent to affect the character of the breed.