History of Dogs..

 There's no contradiction in the idea that in the veritably foremost period of man’s habitation of this world he made a friend and companion of some kind of endemic representative of our ultramodern canine, and that in return for its aid in guarding him from nature creatures, and in guarding his lamb and scapegoats, he gave it a share of his food, a corner in his lodging, and grew to trust it and watch for it. Presumably the beast was firstly little differently than an surprisingly gentle jackal, or an ailing wolf driven by its companions from the wild raiding pack to seek sanctum in alien surroundings. One can well conceive the possibility of the cooperation beginning in the circumstance of some helpless sprats being brought home by the early nimrods 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 corridor of the world traces of an indigenous canine family are plant, the only exceptions being the West Indian Islands, Madagascar, the eastern islets of the Malayan Archipelago, New Zealand, and the Polynesian Islets, where there's no sign that any canine, wolf, or fox has was as a true endemic beast. In the ancient Oriental lands, and generally among the early Mongolians, the canine remained savage and neglected for centuries, prowling in packs, haggard and wolf-suchlike, as it prowls moment through the thoroughfares and under the walls of every Eastern megacity. No attempt was made to appeal it into mortal fellowship or to ameliorate it into acquiescence. It isn't until we come to examine the records of the advanced civilisations of Assyria and Egypt that we discover any distinct kinds of canine form. 

The canine wasn't greatly appreciated in Palestine, and in both the Old and New Testaments it's generally spoken of with despisement and disdain as an “ sick beast.” Indeed the familiar reference to the Sheepdog in the Book of Job “ But now they that are youngish than I've me in derision, whose fathers I would have disrespected to set with the tykes of my flock” isn't without a suggestion of disdain, and it's significant that the only biblical allusion to the canine as a recognised companion of man occurs in the apocryphal Book of Tobit (v. 16), “ So they went forth both, and the youthful man’s canine with them.” 

 

 The great multitude of different types of the canine and the vast differences in their size, points, and general appearance are data which make it delicate to believe that they could have had a common strain. One thinks of the difference between the Mastiff and the Japanese Spaniel, the Deerhound and the fashionable Pomeranian, theSt. Bernard and the Atomic Black and Tan Terrier, and is complexed in meaning the possibility of their having descended from a common ancestor. Yet the difference is no lesser than that between the Shire steed and the Shetland pony, the Shorthorn and the Kerry cattle, or the Patagonian and the Pygmy; and all canine breeders know how easy it's to produce a variety in type and size by studied selection. 

In order duly to understand this question it's necessary first to consider the identity of structure in the wolf and the canine. This identity of structure may best be studied in a comparison of the osseous system, or configurations, of the two creatures, which so nearly act each other that their transposition would not fluently be detected. 

 

 The chine of the canine consists of seven chines in the neck, thirteen in the reverse, seven in the loins, three holy chines, and twenty to twenty-two in the tail. In both the canine and the wolf there are thirteen dyads of caricatures, nine true and four false. Each has forty-two teeth. They both have five frontal and four hind toes, while outwardly the common wolf has so much the appearance of a large, bare- gutted canine, that a popular description of the bone would serve for the other. 

Nor are their habits different. The wolf’s natural voice is a loud howl, but when confined with tykes he'll learn to bark. Although he's rapacious, he'll also eat vegetables, and when sickly he'll nibble lawn. In the chase, a pack of wolves will divide into parties, one following the trail of the chase, the other endeavouring to block its retreat, exercising a considerable quantum of strategy, a particularity which is displayed by numerous of our sporting tykes and terriers when hunting in brigades. 

 

 A further important point of resemblance between the Canis lupus and the Canis familiaris lies in the fact that the period of gravidity in both species is sixty-three days. There are from three to nine cubs in a wolf’s waste, and these are eyeless for twenty-one days. They're nursed for two months, but at the end of that time they're suitable to eat half- digested meat eructed for them by their levee or indeed their sire. 

The native tykes of all regions approximate nearly in size, achromatism, form, and habit to the native wolf of those regions. Of this most important circumstance there are far too numerous cases to allow of its being looked upon as a bare coexistence. Sir John Richardson, writing in 1829, observed that “ the resemblance between the North American wolves and the domestic canine of the Indians is so great that the size and strength of the wolf seems to be the only difference. 

 

 It has been suggested that the one certain argument against the lupine relationship of the canine is the fact that all domestic tykes dinghy, while all wild Canidae express their passions only by howls. But the difficulty then's not so great as it seems, since we know that jackals, wild tykes, and wolf pups reared by whimpers readily acquire the habit. On the other hand, domestic tykes allowed to run wild forget how to bark, while there are some which haven't yet learned so to express themselves. 

The presence or absence of the habit of barking can not, also, be regarded as an argument in deciding the question concerning the origin of the canine. This stumbling block accordingly disappears, leaving us in the position of agreeing with Darwin, whose final thesis was that “ it is largely probable that the domestic tykes of the world have descended from two good species of wolf (C. lupus andC. latrans), and from two or three other doubtful species of wolves videlicet, 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 maybe from one or further defunct species”; and that the blood of these, in some cases mingled together, flows in the modes of our domestic types.