There is no contradiction to the idea that during the earliest human settlements on earth he made friends with some kind of aboriginal representative of our modern dog, and that because of its help in protecting him from wild animals, and guarding his sheep and goats, he gave you part of his food, shelter, and grew to trust and care for you. . Perhaps the animal was originally an unusually gentle fox, or a sick wolf driven by its companions from a pack of wild predators in search of a place to hide. One would think that the relationship may have begun in the form of some helpless rains brought by early hunters to be cared for and raised by women and children. Dogs introduced into the home as children's toys will grow up to look after them, and to be considered family members.
In almost every part of the globe, traces of the indigenous dog family are found, the only outlying areas of the West Indian islands, Madagascar, the eastern islands of the Malay Archipelago, New Zealand, and the Polynesian islands, where there is no indication that a dog, wolf, or fox existed. In the ancient lands of the Orient, and often among the early Mongols, the dog remained cruel and neglected for centuries, walking in pockets, lumps and wolf-like, as it walks today on the streets and under the walls of all Eastern cities. No effort is ever made to entice a person to a relationship or to develop it in a kind way. Until we come to check the records of the advanced civilizations of Assyria and Egypt where we find any different forms of canine form.
The dog was relatively unknown in Palestine, and both the Old and New Testaments are generally referred to as “unclean and defiled.” Even the common saying of a herd dog in the Book of Job "But now the younger of them that take care of me, the fathers of my flock and of my flock have not despised me." both of them went out, and the young man with the dog was with them. ”
The vast majority of different dog breeds and the vast differences in size, points, and general appearance are facts that make it hard to believe that they could have had a single ancestor. One thinks of the differences between the Mastiff and the Japanese Spaniel, the Deerhound and the Pomeranian fashion, St. Bernard and the Miniature Black and Tan Terrier, and are puzzled when he thinks of the possibility that they came from the same ancestor. Yet the difference is not greater between the Shire horse and the Shetland horse, the Shothorn and Kerry cattle, or the Patagonian and Pygmy; and all dog breeders know how easy it is to breed a wide variety and size with tested options.
To properly understand this question it is necessary to first consider who the structure is in the wolf and the dog. This structure may be better evaluated by comparing the osseous system, or bones, of two animals, which are so closely related that their flexibility could not be easily seen.
The dog's spine has seven vertebrae in the neck, thirteen at the back, seven at the waist, three sacral vertebrae, and twenty to twenty-two tails. In both dogs and wolves there are thirteen pairs of ribs, nine true and four false. Each has forty-two teeth. Both have five front and four toes on the back, while on the outside the common wolf has the appearance of a large, boneless dog, so that a popular description of this may work for another.
And their habits are no different. The wolf's natural voice is a loud howl, but when confined with dogs it will learn to bark. Although he eats meat, he will also eat vegetables, and when he is sick he will eat grass. In a hurry, a pack of wolves will split into groups, one following in the footsteps of the quarry, the other trying to curb its retreat, using a multifaceted strategy, a trait expressed by many of our sport dogs and wildlife there. hunting in groups.
Another important point of similarity between Canis lupus and Canis familiaris lies in the fact that the gestation period in both species is sixty-three days. There are three to nine lambs in the wolf's waste, and these do not see for twenty-one days. They are breastfed for two months, but at the end of that time they can eat minced meat partly because of their dam or color.
Indigenous dogs of all regions are about the same size, color, shape, and custom as the native wolf of those areas. In this very important situation there are too many situations that allow us to be considered a mere coincidence. Sir John Richardson, writing in 1829, noted that “the similarities between the North American wolves and the Indian dogs are so great that the size and strength of the wolf seems to be the only difference.
It has been suggested that one irrefutable argument against a lupine dog relationship is the fact that all domesticated dogs bark, while all wild Canidae express their feelings only by barking. But the difficulty here is not so great as it seems, as we know that foxes, wild dogs, and wolf puppies that grow on the grass easily find the practice. On the other hand, pet dogs are allowed to run and forget to bark, while some have not yet learned to express themselves.
Then the presence or absence of the barking habit cannot be considered an argument in determining the question of the origin of the dog. This stumbling block consequently disappears, leaving us in the position of agreeing with Darwin, whose final hypothesis was 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 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.
Copied with permission from:
You must be logged in to post a comment.