HARE INDIAN DOG.
With regard to the opinion that many races of men are not likely independently to have tamed wild Canidæ, there are certain facts which show that the exact contrary is the case. Savages in all parts of the world are fond of making pets of various kinds, and would have been certain to come across Wolf or Jackal pups in their wanderings through the woods. Then, again, as Mr. Darwin remarks, “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.” Another important point is the readiness with which many wild species of Canidæ breed in confinement, so that the difficulty of perpetuating the newly-acquired characteristics of the tamed animal is, in this case, obviated. Furthermore, it is perfectly well known that savages at the present day do actually tame, and make useful to themselves, the wild Dogs of their particular countries: “the savages of Guiana catch, and partially tame and use the whelps of the wild species of Canis, as do the savages of Australia those of the Dingo.”
ESKIMO DOGS.
These statements certainly tend to show that there is no actual improbability in supposing that many wild species of Canidæ have at different times, and by different nations, been tamed and gradually modified into true domestic Dogs. But the most significant fact bearing upon the multiple origin of the Dog is the often-occurring close resemblance between the domestic Dog of a savage tribe and the wild species of Canis inhabiting the same district. Of this most important circumstance there are far too many instances to allow of its being looked upon as a mere coincidence. Sir John Richardson says: “The resemblance between the Wolves and the Dogs of those Indian nations who still preserve their ancient mode of life continues to be very remarkable, and it is nowhere more so than at the northern extremities of the Continent, the Eskimo Dogs being not only extremely like the Grey Wolves of the Arctic circle in form and colour, but also nearly equalling them in size. The Dog has generally a shorter tail than the Wolf, and carries it more frequently curled over the hip, but the latter practice is not totally unknown to the Wolf, although that animal, when under the observation of man, being generally apprehensive of danger or on the watch, seldom displays this mark of satisfaction.” And again, “The resemblance between the northern Wolves and the domestic Dog of the Indians is so great, that the size and strength of the Wolf seem 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 an Indian fails at times to discriminate them.”
As the Eskimo and Indian Dogs resemble the North American Wolf (C. lupus), so the Dog of the Hare Indians, a very distinct breed ([see below]), resembles the Prairie Wolf (C. latrans). So great is this resemblance that Richardson says, “I could detect no marked difference in form except the smallness of its [the Dog’s] cranium, nor in the fineness of its fur, and arrangement of its spots of colour. The length of the fur on the neck, back part of the cheeks, and top of the head, was the same in both species. It, in fact, bears the same resemblance to the Prairie Wolf that the Eskimo Dog does to the great Grey Wolf.” Another observer remarks that, except in the matter of barking, there is no difference whatever between the black Wolf-dog of the Indians of Florida and the Wolves of the same country. The Dogs also breed readily with the wild animals they so closely resemble. The Indians often cross their Dogs with Wolves to improve the breed, and in South America the same process is resorted to between the domesticated and the wild Dogs.
The same phenomenon is seen in many kinds of Dog in the Old World. 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. Paget, who gives the description, says he has known a Hungarian mistake a Wolf for one of his own Dogs. There is also a close resemblance between some of the Indian Pariah Dogs and the Indian Wolf. Some of the domestic Dogs of Egypt, both at the present day and in the condition of mummies, closely resemble the Wolf of that country; “whereas the domestic Dogs of Nubia, and certain other mummied Dogs, have the closest relation to a wild species of the same country ... which is only a form of the common Jackal.” Dogs have, moreover, been known to cross with Jackals as well as with Wolves. Lastly, in Africa, some of the natives assert that their half-tamed Dogs are derived from Foxes; and the Dogs of the Bosjesman have a striking resemblance to the black-backed Jackal (C. mesomelas), which, as we shall see, is a South African variety.
These facts are so significant and so important that they in reality leave only one difficulty to be settled, and that is the question of voice. As we stated above, all domestic Dogs bark, while all wild Canidæ express their feelings only by howls. But the difficulty here is not so great as it seems. Some domestic Dogs left on the island of Juan Fernandez entirely lost the habit of barking in thirty-three years, and a few individuals removed after that period only re-acquired it very slowly; thus, domestic Dogs allowed to run wild forget how to bark. On the other hand, Jackals, wild Dogs, and Wolf-pups reared by bitches, readily acquire the habit. Thus the last stumbling-block in the argument disappears, and we are forced to agree with Mr. Darwin, from whom many of the above facts are taken,[96] that “it is highly probable that the domestic Dogs of the world have descended from two good species of Wolf (C. lupus and C. latrans), and from two or three other doubtful species of Wolves (namely, the European, Indian, and North African forms); from at least one or two South American Canine species; from several races or species of the Jackal; and perhaps from one or more extinct species;” and that the blood of these, “in some cases mingled together, flows in the veins of our domestic breeds.”
There is no animal so interesting as the Dog for the study of the relation between man and the lower animals in the matter of instinct, reason, conscience, and the like. As no animal has been so thoroughly domesticated, and so systematically trained and educated, so none has developed in the same degree those higher endowments which are often considered as the exclusive attributes of humanity, such as reasoning power, a sense of right and wrong, of property, and of number.
For the study of instinct, it is impossible to find an animal in any way approaching to him for interest, for not only does he exhibit, to a wonderful degree, the instincts common to all the higher animals, but almost every kind of Dog possesses some special instinct, imparted from a remote ancestor, and absent, or nearly so, in other varieties. We may instance the mode of “pointing” game peculiar to the Pointer, the marvellous power of following scent of the Bloodhound or Foxhound, and the acute generalship of the Shepherd’s Dog, who, with comparatively little teaching, guards, drives, and keeps together a whole flock of foolish animals, which, to the Dog mind, must seem intended by Providence to be worried and eaten. These special instincts we shall consider when we come to speak of the various breeds; but we must now say a few words on those instincts which are common to the whole species.