There is no incongruity in the idea that in the very earliest period of man’s habitation of this world, he made a friend and companion of some sort of aboriginal representative of our modern dog, and that in return for its aid in protecting him from wilder animals, and in guarding his sheep and goats, he gave it a share of his food, a corner in his dwelling, and grew to trust it and care for it. The animal was probably little else than an unusually gentle jackal, or an ailing wolf driven by its companions from the wild marauding pack to seek shelter in alien surroundings. One can easily imagine the partnership beginning with some helpless whelps being brought home by the early hunters to be tended and reared by the women and children.Dogs introduced into the home as playthings for the children would grow to regard themselves, and be regarded, as members of the family.
In nearly all parts of the world traces of an indigenous dog family are found, the only exceptions being the West Indian Islands, Madagascar, the eastern islands of the Malayan Archipelago, New Zealand, and the Polynesian Islands, where there is no sign that any dog, wolf, or fox has existed as a true aboriginal animal. In the ancient Oriental lands, and generally among the early Mongolians, the dog remained savage and neglected for centuries, prowling in packs, gaunt and wolf-like, as it prowls today through the streets and under the walls of every Eastern city. No attempt was made to allure it into human companionship or to improve it into docility. It is not until we come to examine the records of the higher civilizations of Assyria and Egypt that we discover any distinct varieties of canine form.
The dog was not greatly appreciated in Palestine, and in both the Old and New Testaments it is commonly spoken of with scorn and contempt as an “unclean beast.” Even the familiar reference to the Sheepdog in the Book of Job “But now they that are younger than I have me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained to set with the dogs of my flock” is not without a suggestion of contempt, and it is significant that the only biblical allusion to the dog as a recognized companion of man occurs in the apocryphal Book of Tobit (v. 16), “So they went forth both, and the young man’s dog with them.”
The great multitude of different breeds of the dog and the vast differences in their size, points, and general appearance are facts which make it difficult to believe that they could have had a common ancestry. One thinks of the difference between the Mastiff and the Japanese Spaniel, the Deer hound and the fashionable Pomeranian, the St.Bernard and the Miniature Black and Tan Terrier, and is perplexed in contemplating the possibility of their having descended from a common progenitor. But the difference is no greater than between a Shire and a Shetland pony, a shorthorn and a kerry, or a Patagonian and a pygmy. Every dog breeder knows how easy it is to get a variety of breeds and sizes with careful selection.
In order to properly understand this question, it is first necessary to consider the structure of a wolf and a dog as the same.
This structural identity can best be studied by comparing the skeletal systems or skeletons of two animals that are so similar that rearrangements are not readily detectable.
The
vertebrae consist of 7 in the neck, 13 in the back, 7 in the back, 3 sacra, and 22-22 vertebrae in the tail. Dogs and wolves both have 13 pairs of ribs, 9 pairs of which are real and 4 of which are fake. Each has 42 teeth. While both have 5 front toes and 4 back toes, the common wolf is superficially very similar to a large, boneless dog, so one description usually fits the other.
And they have the same habit. A wolf's natural voice is a loud howl, but it learns to bark when it's with a dog. Although carnivorous, they also eat vegetables and graze on grass when sick. During the chase, the wolf pack is divided into groups. One follows the trail of its prey, while the other applies critical strategies to intercept its retreat. This is a trait that many sports dogs and terriers have when hunting in squads.
Another important point of the similarities between
Canis Major and Canis Major is that the gestation period of both species is 63 days. The wolf litter has 3 to 9 pups and is blind for 21 days. They breastfeed for two months, but after that they can eat half-digested meat regurgitated by their mother or even father.
Local dogs in all regions are very similar in size, color, shape and habits to local wolves in this region. Examples of this most important situation are too numerous to count as mere coincidences. Sir John Richardson wrote in 1829 that "North American wolves and Indian domestic dogs are so similar that they seem to differ only in size and strength."
It has been suggested that the one incontrovertible argument against the lupine relationship of the dog is the fact that all domestic dogs bark, while all wild Canidae express their feelings only by howls. But the difficulty here is not so great as it seems, since we know that jackals, wild dogs, and wolf pups reared by bitches readily acquire the habit. On the other hand, domestic dogs allowed to run wild forget how to bark, while there are some which have not yet learned so to express themselves.
The presence or absence of the habit of barking cannot, then, be regarded as an argument in deciding the question concerning 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 also two or three other suspicious wolf species, namely European, Indian and North African forms; from at least one or two South American dog species; from multiple races or species of jackal; And perhaps from one or more extinct species"; and their blood in some cases mixed and flows into the veins of our domestic breed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.