Until recently it was thought that all the evidence which could be
brought to bear on the matter pointed to a separate origin of the Dog.
It was argued, for instance, that as we have evidences of distinct
breeds existing in far-back periods of the world’s history, there was
actually no time, prior to those periods, for him to have diverged from
a savage ancestor, such as a Wolf or a Jackal. It was also thought
highly unlikely that a number of primitive races of man should have
separately tamed different wild _Canidæ_. Mr. Youatt, one of our best
authorities on the Dog, writing in 1845, says: “This power of tracing
back the Dog to the very earliest periods of history, and the fact
that he then seemed to be as sagacious, as faithful and as valuable
as at the present day, strongly favours the opinion that he descended
from no inferior and comparatively worthless animal; that he was not
the progeny of the Wolf, the Jackal, or the Fox; but he was originally
created, somewhat as we now find him, the associate and friend of man.”
[Illustration: SKULL OF YOUNG DOG.]
A few years ago there was no gainsaying arguments such as these, for
then nearly everybody believed that the world was literally only six
thousand years old, and that species were absolutely unchangeable.
But Sir Charles Lyell and Mr. Darwin have “_changé tout cela_.” The
argument from time fails utterly, and other facts have to be taken into
consideration.
There is, first of all, the fact of identity of structure. There is
absolutely no definition framable which will include all the varieties
of the domestic Dog, and exclude all the wild species--none even which
will include all the Dogs properly so called, both wild and tame, and
at the same time exclude the Wolf and Jackal. It is the same as regards
habits, instincts, mental endowments, &c. Wolves and Jackals can be
and have been tamed. Domestic Dogs can become, and have again and
again become, wild, and in no way better than true aborigines; and to
assert that the Dog is not descended from a Jackal because his manners
and customs are better, his tail more curly, and his voice a bark
instead of a howl, is about as just as to assert that Englishmen cannot
possibly be descended from ancient Britons, because they wear clothes
instead of a coating of blue paint.
[Illustration: HARE INDIAN DOG.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account