A GENERAL HISTORY OF MANS BEST FRIEND THE DOG.
There's no incongruity in the thought that in the very earliest time period of man's inhabitation of this globe he made an acquaintance and comrade of some sort of primeval example of our modern dog, and that in return for its assistance in protecting him from more savage animals, and in defending his sheep and goats, he afforded it a percentage of his food, a recess in his abode, and got to trust it and give care for to it.
In all probability the animal was in the beginning little else than a unusually docile jackal, or an ailing wolf driven out by its comrades from the wild marauding pack to look for shelter in an unknown environment.
It is easy to conceive the theory of the partnership commencing in the circumstance of a few helpless pups being took home by the early huntsmen to be tended and raised by the women and youngsters. Dogs presented into the family as playthings for the children would grow to consider themselves, and be considered, as members of the family unit.
In almost all areas of the world hints of a indigenous dog family are found, the only exclusions comprising of the West Indian Islands, Madagascar, the easterly islands of the Malayan Archipelago, New Zealand, and the Polynesian Islands, where there has been no sign of any dog, wolf, or fox that has lived as a genuine aboriginal animal.
In the ancient Oriental lands, and in general amongst the early Mongolians, the dog stayed ferocious and disregarded for hundreds of years, prowling in packs, skeletal and wolf like.
Not like it prowls nowadays through the streets and below the walls of every Eastern metropolis. No endeavor was created to tempt it into human society or to improve it into docility. It is not till we come to analyse the records of the higher civilisations of Assyria and Egypt that we come across any clear cut sorts of canine variety.
There's no incongruity in the thought that in the very earliest time period of man's inhabitation of this globe he made an acquaintance and comrade of some sort of primeval example of our modern dog, and that in return for its assistance in protecting him from more savage animals, and in defending his sheep and goats, he afforded it a percentage of his food, a recess in his abode, and got to trust it and give care for to it.
In all probability the animal was in the beginning little else than a unusually docile jackal, or an ailing wolf driven out by its comrades from the wild marauding pack to look for shelter in an unknown environment.
It is easy to conceive the theory of the partnership commencing in the circumstance of a few helpless pups being took home by the early huntsmen to be tended and raised by the women and youngsters. Dogs presented into the family as playthings for the children would grow to consider themselves, and be considered, as members of the family unit.
In almost all areas of the world hints of a indigenous dog family are found, the only exclusions comprising of the West Indian Islands, Madagascar, the easterly islands of the Malayan Archipelago, New Zealand, and the Polynesian Islands, where there has been no sign of any dog, wolf, or fox that has lived as a genuine aboriginal animal.
In the ancient Oriental lands, and in general amongst the early Mongolians, the dog stayed ferocious and disregarded for hundreds of years, prowling in packs, skeletal and wolf like.
Not like it prowls nowadays through the streets and below the walls of every Eastern metropolis. No endeavor was created to tempt it into human society or to improve it into docility. It is not till we come to analyse the records of the higher civilisations of Assyria and Egypt that we come across any clear cut sorts of canine variety.
The dog wasn't greatly valued in Palestine, and in both the Old and New Testaments it's generally addressed with despise and disrespect as an "impure creature."
Even the familiar acknowledgment to the shepherd dog 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" isn't without a hint of scorn, and it is significant that the only scriptural allusion to the dog as a accepted associate of man happens in the apocryphal Book of Tobit (v. 16), "So they went forth both, and the young man's dog with them."
The large throng of different breeds of the dog and the immense divergences in their sizing,and general visual aspect are facts which make it hard to conceive that they could may well have a common blood line. One has in mind the divergence between the Mastiff and the Japanese Spaniel, the Scottish deerhound and the fashionable Pomeranian, the St. Bernard and the Miniature Black and Tan Terrier, and is bewildered in mulling over the possibility of their having descended from a common progenitor.
All the same the disparity is no bigger than that between the Shire horse and the Shetland pony, the Shorthorn and the Kerry cows, or the Patagonian and the Pygmy; and all dog breeders recognise how easy it is to acquire a variety in type and sizing by analysed selection.
In order to properly understand this question it's essential foremost to regard the identity of anatomical structure in the wolf and the dog. This identity element of bodily structure might best be considered in a comparing of the osseous system, or skeletons, of the two animals, which so closely resemble one another that their transposition wouldn't easily be observed.
Even the familiar acknowledgment to the shepherd dog 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" isn't without a hint of scorn, and it is significant that the only scriptural allusion to the dog as a accepted associate of man happens in the apocryphal Book of Tobit (v. 16), "So they went forth both, and the young man's dog with them."
The large throng of different breeds of the dog and the immense divergences in their sizing,and general visual aspect are facts which make it hard to conceive that they could may well have a common blood line. One has in mind the divergence between the Mastiff and the Japanese Spaniel, the Scottish deerhound and the fashionable Pomeranian, the St. Bernard and the Miniature Black and Tan Terrier, and is bewildered in mulling over the possibility of their having descended from a common progenitor.
All the same the disparity is no bigger than that between the Shire horse and the Shetland pony, the Shorthorn and the Kerry cows, or the Patagonian and the Pygmy; and all dog breeders recognise how easy it is to acquire a variety in type and sizing by analysed selection.
In order to properly understand this question it's essential foremost to regard the identity of anatomical structure in the wolf and the dog. This identity element of bodily structure might best be considered in a comparing of the osseous system, or skeletons, of the two animals, which so closely resemble one another that their transposition wouldn't easily be observed.
The backbone of the dog comprises of seven vertebrae in the neck, thirteen in the back, seven in the loins, three sacral vertebrae, and twenty to twenty-two in the tail.
In both the dog and the wolf there are thirteen pairs of ribs, nine true and four false. Each features forty-two teeth. They both feature five front and four hind toes, while externally the common wolf has so very much the visual aspect of a big, bare-boned dog, that a popular description of the one would suffice for the other.
Their habits also are not different. The wolf's natural vocalisation is a loud howling, but when captive with dogs he will pick up a bark.
Whilst he is carnivorous, he will in addition consume vegetables, and when ailing he will eat grass.
In the pursuit, a pack of wolves will split up into parties, one pursuing the trail of the prey, the other striving to stop its retreat, practising a considerable sum of strategy, a trait which is displayed by many of our sporting dogs and terriers when hunting down thier quarry.
In both the dog and the wolf there are thirteen pairs of ribs, nine true and four false. Each features forty-two teeth. They both feature five front and four hind toes, while externally the common wolf has so very much the visual aspect of a big, bare-boned dog, that a popular description of the one would suffice for the other.
Their habits also are not different. The wolf's natural vocalisation is a loud howling, but when captive with dogs he will pick up a bark.
Whilst he is carnivorous, he will in addition consume vegetables, and when ailing he will eat grass.
In the pursuit, a pack of wolves will split up into parties, one pursuing the trail of the prey, the other striving to stop its retreat, practising a considerable sum of strategy, a trait which is displayed by many of our sporting dogs and terriers when hunting down thier quarry.
An additional significant point of resemblance between the Canis lupus and the Canis familiaris rests in the fact that the time period of pregnancy in both species is sixty three days.
Also there are from three to nine cubs in a wolf's litter, and these are without vision for twenty-one days. They're nursed for two months, and only at the end of this time are they able to eat half-digested flesh regurgitated for them by their parents.
The native dogs of all areas approximate close in size, color, shape, and habit to the native wolf of those regions. Of this most significant consideration there are far too many examples to allow for it being regarded as a simple happenstance.
Sir John Richardson, writing in 1829, ascertained that "the resemblance between the North American Canis lupis and the Canis familiaris of the Indians is so big that the sizing and strength of the wolf appears to be the sole divergence.
Also there are from three to nine cubs in a wolf's litter, and these are without vision for twenty-one days. They're nursed for two months, and only at the end of this time are they able to eat half-digested flesh regurgitated for them by their parents.
The native dogs of all areas approximate close in size, color, shape, and habit to the native wolf of those regions. Of this most significant consideration there are far too many examples to allow for it being regarded as a simple happenstance.
Sir John Richardson, writing in 1829, ascertained that "the resemblance between the North American Canis lupis and the Canis familiaris of the Indians is so big that the sizing and strength of the wolf appears to be the sole divergence.
It has been indicated that the one irrefutable statement against the lupine kinship of the dog is the truth that all domestic dogs bark, whilst altogether wild Canidae convey their feelings solely by howls.
But the trouble here is not so big as it appears, because we know that jackals, wild dogs, and wolf pups brought up by bitches without delay adopt the habit. On the other hand, domestic dogs left to run wild forget how to bark, while there are some which have not yet learned so to verbalize themselves.
The presence or absence of the use of barking cannot, then, be looked upon as an argument in determining the question pertaining to the origin of the dog.
This stumbling block therefore disappears, resulting with us being in the position of agreeing with Charles 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, and runs in the veins of our domestic breeds.
But the trouble here is not so big as it appears, because we know that jackals, wild dogs, and wolf pups brought up by bitches without delay adopt the habit. On the other hand, domestic dogs left to run wild forget how to bark, while there are some which have not yet learned so to verbalize themselves.
The presence or absence of the use of barking cannot, then, be looked upon as an argument in determining the question pertaining to the origin of the dog.
This stumbling block therefore disappears, resulting with us being in the position of agreeing with Charles 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, and runs in the veins of our domestic breeds.
Contact form: