The reasons which have led various authors to infer that our dogs have descended from more than one wild species are as follows. (1/2. Pallas, I believe, originated this doctrine in 'Act. Acad. St. Petersburgh' 1780 Part 2. Ehrenberg has advocated it, as may be seen in De Blainville's 'Osteographie' page 79. It has been carried to an extreme extent by Col. Hamilton Smith in the 'Naturalist Library' volumes 9 and 10. Mr. W.C. Martin adopts it in his excellent 'History of the Dog' 1845; as does Dr. Morton, as well as Nott and Gliddon, in the United States. Prof. Low, in his 'Domesticated Animals' 1845 page 666, comes to this same conclusion. No one has argued on this side with more clearness and force than the late James Wilson, of Edinburgh, in various papers read before the Highland Agricultural and Wernerian Societies. Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire ('Hist. Nat. Gen.' 1860 tome 3 page 107), though he believes that most dogs have descended from the jackal, yet inclines to the belief that some are descended from the wolf. Prof. Gervais ('Hist. Nat. Mamm.' 1855 tome 2 page 69, referring to the view that all the domestic races are the modified descendants of a single species, after a long discussion, says, "Cette opinion est, suivant nous du moins, la moins probable.") 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.