« EelmineJätka »
remarkable bird represented one of the F. divisions of the whole order; in which case it would stand between the owls and the Dodo: but its similarity to the vultures and the falcons, in our opinion, is too great to favour this supposition; while, on the other hand, it will subsequently appear that the circle of the Falconidae is sufficiently *:::: to show that it does not enter into that family.' et some other observations, Mr. Swainson concludes his observations on the Secretary thus: “It must be remembered, also, that the very same objections occur against placing this bird (the Secretary) between the Strigidae (owls) and the Dididae (Dodos), as those we have intimated against considering it as the grallatorial type of the Vulturidae.’ That a bird or birds called by the name of Dodo and the other appellations which we need not here repeat, once existed, we think the evidence above given sufficiently proves. We have, indeed, heard doubts expressed whether the Museum portrait was taken ‘ from a living bird,' and have also heard it suggested that the picture may represent a specimen made up of the body of an ostrich to which the bill and legs of other birds have been attached. And here it is that the destruction of Tradescant's specimen becomes a source of the greatest regret. Whatever was the condition of that specimen, as long as the skin was preserved there existed the means of ascertaining whether it was real or a made-up monster; and when the Vice-Chancellor and the other curators in making their lustration i. the fatal nod of approbation they destroyed that evidence. With regard to the picture we have endeavoured to place it before the reader as well as our limited means will permit, in order that he may have an o of judging from the intermal evidence as to the probability of the portrait being taken from a living bird, and with this view we have given the accessories as they appear in the painting as well as the principal figure. Mr. Gray, among others, still inclines, we believe, to the . that the bird represented was made up by joining the head of a bird of prey approaching the Vultures, if not belonging to that family,” to the legs of a Gallinaceous bird, and his opinion, from his attainments and experience, is worthy of all respect. But, if this be granted, see what we have to deal with. We have then two species, which are either extinct or have escaped the researches of all zoologists to account for, one, a bird of prey, to judge from its bill, larger than the Condor; the other a Gallinaceous bird, whose pillar-like legs must have supported an enormous body. As to the stories of the disgusting quality of the flesh of the bird found and eaten by the Dutch, that will weigh but little in the scale when we take the expression to be, what it really was, indicative of a comparative preference for the turtle-doves there found, after feeding on Dodos usque ad nauseam. “Always Partridges' has become almost proverbial, and we find from Lawson how a repetition of the most delicious food palls. “We cooked our supper,’ says that traveller, “but having neither bread nor salt, our fat turkeys began to be loathsome to us, although we were never wanting of a good appetite, yet a continuance of one diet made us weary;' and again, “By the way our guide killed more turkeys, and two polcats, which he eat, esteeming them before fat turkeys.” With regard to the form of the bill, we must be careful how we lay too much stress on that. Who would have expected to find a bill “long, slender, smooth, and polished, in form resembling that of an Ibis, but rather more straight
* Mr. Gray's reasons for considering the Dodo as belonging to the Raptores chiefly rest on the following facts, premising, as he does, that it is to be borue in mind that in the Raptorial birds the form of the bill is their chief ordinal character, which is not the case with the Grallatores or the Natatores, where the form of the feet and legs are the chief character of the order. l. The base of the bill is enveloped in a Cere, as may be seen in the east where the folds of the Cere are distinctly exhibited, especially over the back of the nostrils. The Cere is only found in the Raptorial birds. '2. The nostrils are placed exactly in front of the Cere, as they are in the other Raptores: they are oval, and nearly erect, as they are in the true Vul:res, and in that genus alone, and not longitudinal as they are in the Ca. thor'e', all the Gallinaceous birds, Grallatores and Natatores, and they are naked and covered with an arched scale, as is the case in all the Gallinaceae. ‘3. In Edwards's picture the bill is represented as much hooked (like the Raptores) at the tip; a character which unfortunately cannot be verifled on the Oxford head, as that specimen is destitute of the horny sheath of the bill, and only shows the form of the bony core. “With regard to the size of the bill, it is to be observed, that this part varies greatly in the different species of vultures, indeed so much so, that there is no reason to believe that the bird of the Oxford head was much larger than some of the known vultures. “With regard to the foot," adds Mr. Gray, "it has all the characters of that of the Gallinaceous birds, and differs from all the vultures in the shortness of the middle toe, the form of the scales on the leg, and the bluntness of the
and depressed at the base", on an Emeu-like body with rasorial legs and feet? Yet such is the form of Apteryr. As to the argument arising from the absence of the spur it is worth but little at best; and it may be said in favour of those who would place the Dodo between the Struthious and Gallinaceous birds, that its absence in such an osculant bird would be expected. If the picture in the British Museum, and the cut in Bontius be faithful representations of a creature then living, to make such a bird a bird of prey—a Vulture, in the ordinary acceptation of the term—would be to set all the usual laws of adaptation at defiance. A Vulture without wings! How was it to be fed 2 And not only without wings, but neces sarily slow and heavy in progression on its clumsy feet The Vulturidae are, as we know, among the most active agents for removing the rapidly decomposing animal remains in tropical and intertropical climates, and they are provided with a prodigal development of wing to waft them . to the spot tainted by the corrupt incumbrance. But no such powers of wing would be required by a bird appointed to clear away the decaying and decomposing masses of a luxuriant tropical vegetation,-a kind of Vulture for vegetable impurities, so to speak, -and such an office would not be by any means inconsistent with comparative slowness of pedestrian motion. DODO'NA, the most antient oracle of Greece, was probably situated in the valley of Joannina in Epirus, but its exact position has never been ascertained. Dionysius of Halicarnassus places it four days’ journey from Buthrotum, and two from Ambracia. (Antiqu. Rom. i. 5.) Colonel Leake places it at the south-east extremity of the lake of Joannina, near Kastritza (Travels in Northern Greece, vol. iv., p. 168, and following), and there are many reasons for believing that the Dodonaean territory corresponded to the valley at the south of that sheet of water. It is true that there is no mention of a lake in the neighbourhood of the antient Dodona; but it is described as surrounded by marshes, and it is not unlikely that the lake of Joannina may have been increased in later times from the catavothra in the country. (Leake, iv. p. 189.) The temple at Dodona was dedicated to Jupiter, and was of Pelasgian origin. (Hom. Iliad, xvi. 233; Herod. ii. 52.) Strabo is of opinion (vii. p. 328), that the priests at this temple were originally men, but that the duties of the office were ...i. performed by three old women. The people who had the management of the temple are called Selli or Helli. (Creuzer, Symbol. i., p. 193, note 359.) The oracles were delivered from an oak (Sophocles, Trachin. 1171) or beech (Hesiod. ap. Strabon., p. 327; Sophocl. Trach. 173). The temple at Dodona was entirely destroyed by Dosimachus, the AEtolian praetor, b.c. 219 (Polyb. iv. 67), and probably was never restored, for it did not exist in the time of Strabo (p. 327); but there was a town of the name in the seventh century A.D., and a bishop of Dodona is mentioned in the council of Ephesus. (Wesseling on Hierocles' Synecdochae, . 651.) p There is a long article on Dodona in the Fragment of Stephanus Byzantinus, which is printed at the end of his work. DODSLEY, ROBERT, was born in 1703, at Mansfield, in Nottinghamshire, where his father is said to have kept the free school. Robert and several brothers, however, appear to have all commenced life as working artisans, or servants. Robert is said to have been put apprentice to a stocking-weaver, from whom, finding himself in danger of being starved, he ran away, and took the place of a footman. After living in that capacity with one or two persons, he entered the service of the Honourable Mrs. Lowther, and while with that lady he published by subscription in 1732 an octavo volume of poetical pieces, under the title of ‘The Muse in Livery, or the Footman's Miscellany.’ The situation of the author naturally drew considerable attention to this work at the moment of its appearance; but the poetry was of no remarkable merit. His next production was a dramatic piece, called ‘The Toyshop;’ he sent it in manuscript to Pope, by whom it was much relished, and o, commended it to Rich, the manager of Covent GW o theatre, where it was acted in 1735 with great *. j the profits of his play Dodsley the same year,” *"... seller; and, under the patronage which ..i. his . and his own reputation and talents proc”
in Pall Mall soon became a distinguished resort of the literary loungers about town. His business, which he conducted with great spirit and ability, prospered accordingly; and in his latter days he might be considered as standing at the head of the bookselling trade. He continued also throughout his life to keep himself before the public in his first profession of an author, and produced a considerable number of works of varying degrees of merit, both in prose and verse. In 1737 his farce of “The King and the Miller of Mansfield' was acted at Drury Lane with great applause. It was followed the same year by a sequel, under the title of “Sir John Cockle at Court,” which however was not so successful. Nor was he more fortunate with his ballad farce of ‘The Blind Beggar of Bethnall Green,” which was brought out at Drury Lane in 1741. This year also he set up a weekly magazine, under the title of “The Public Register,’ to which he was himself a principal contributor; but it was discontinued after the publication of the twentyfourth number. It is curious to note that, in his farewell address to his readers, he complains that certain rival magazine publishers (understood to mean the proprietors of the Gentleman's Magazine) had exerted their influence with success to prevent the newspapers from advertising his work. In 1745 he published another short dramatic piece, entitled ‘Rex et Pontifex, being an attempt to introduce upon the stage a new species of pantomime;' but this never was acted. A collected edition of all these dramas was published in 1748, in a volume, to which he gave the title of “Trifles.” The following year he produced a masque on the subject of the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, under the title of “The Triumphs of Peace,’ which was set to music by Dr. Arne, and performed at Drury Lane. In 1750 appeared anonymously his ingenious and well known little work, “The Economy of Human Life,” which was long attributed to Lord Chesterfield, and was from the first extremely popular. The first part, entitled “Agriculture, of a poem in blank verse, on the subject of public virtue, which he published in 1754, was so coldly received that the second and third parts which he originally contemplated were never produced. In 1758 he closed his career of dramatic authorship with a tragedy entitled “Cleone, which was acted at Covent Garden with extraordinary applause, and drew crowded audiences during a long run. When it was published, 2000 copies were sold the first day, and it reached a fourth edition within the year. ‘Cleone,’ however, is now nearly forgotten; although Dr. Johnson declared that if Otway had written it he would have been remembered for nothing else, a compliment which the modest author, when it was reported to him, observed with some displeasure was “too much.” Dodsley died at Durham, while on a visit to a friend, on the 25th of September, 1764. He had retired from business some years before, having made a good fortune. Dodsley's name is associated with several works of which he was only the projector and the publisher, but from his connexion with which he is now more generally remembered than for his own productions. Among them may be mentioned the two periodical works, ‘The Museum,' begun in 1746 and extended to three volumes, in which there are many able essays by Horace Walpole, the two Wartons, Akenside, &c. (of this Dodsley was only one of the shareholders), and “The World.” 1734-57, conducted by Edward Moore, and contributed to by Lords Lyttelton, Chesterfield, Bath, and Cork, Horace Walpole, Soame Jenyns, &c.; ‘The Preceptor,’ 2 vols., 1748, to which Johnson wrote a preface; and especially the “Annual Register,’ begun in 1758, and still carried on and known by his name. [ANNUAL REGISTER.] These and the other works in which he was engaged brought him into intimate connexion with most of the eminent men belonging to the world of letters during the period of his able and honourable career. He has also the credit of having first encouraged the talents of Dr. Johnson, by purchasing his poem of London in 1738, for the sum of ten guineas, and of having many years afterwards been the projector of the English Dictionary. A second volume of Dodsley's collected works, forming a continuation of the ‘Trifles,” was published under the title of ‘Miscellanies,” in 1772. (Besides the articles in the second edition of the “Biographia Britannica, in Chalmers, and in the “Biographia Dramatica,’ there are many notices respecting Dodsley in Nichols's ‘Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century.") DODSWORTH, ROGER, an eminent antiquary, was
the son of Matthew Dodsworth, registrar of York Cathedral, and chancellor to Archbishop Matthews. He was born July 24, 1585, at Newton Grange in the parish of St. Oswald, in Rydale, Yorkshire. He died in the month of August, 1654, and, was buried at Rufford in Lancashire. His manuscript collections, partly relating to Yorkshire, in a hundred and sixty-two volumes folio and quarto, a hundred and twenty-two of them in his own hand-writing, were bequeathed to the Bodleian Library at Oxford, in 1671, by General Fairfax, who had been Dodsworth's patron. Chalmers says that Fairfax allowed Dodsworth a yearly salary to preserve the inscriptions in churches. Dodsworth was the projector, and collected many of the materials for the early part of the work now known as ‘Dugdale's Monasticon,’ in the title page of the first volume of which his name appears as one of the compilers. There is a detailed catalogue of the contents of Dodsworth’s collections, now in the Bodleian, in the great catalogue of the Manuscripts of England and Ireland, fol. Oxon. 1697. (Gough's Brit. Top. vol. i. pp. 123-4; Chalmers's Biogr. Dict, vol. xii., p. 180; and the pref. to the last edition of the Monasticon.) DODWELL, HENRY, was born in Dublin in 1642. His father, who had been in the army, possessed some pro|. in Ireland, but having lost it in the rebellion, he rought over his family to England, and settled at York, in 1648. Young Dodwell was here sent to the free school, where he remained for five years. In the meantime both his father and mother had died, and he was reduced for a season to great difficulties and distress from the want of all pecuniary means, till, in 1654, he was taken under the protection of a brother of his mother's, at whose expense he was sent, in 1656, to Trinity College, Dublin. Here he eventually obtained a fellowship, which however he relinquished in 1666, owing to certain conscientious scruples against taking holy orders. In 1672, on his return to Ireland, after having resided some years at Oxford, he made his first appearance as an author by a learned preface, with which he introduced to the public a theological tract of the late Dr. Stearn, who had been his college tutor: it was entitled ‘De Obstinatione,’ and published at Dublin. Dodwell's next publication was a volume entitled ‘Two Letters of Adviee: 1. For the Susception of Holy Orders: 2. For Studies Theological, especially such as are rational.’ It appeared in a second edition in 1681, accompanied with a “Discourse on the Phoenician History of Sanchoniathon,” the fragments of which, found in Porphyry and Eusebius, he contends to be spurious. Meanwhile, in 1674, Dodwell had settled in London, and from this time to his death he led a life of busy authorship. Many of his publications were on the popish and nonconformist controversies; they have the reputation of showing, like everything else he wrote, extensive and minute learning, and great skill in the application of his scholarship, but little judgment of a larger kind, Few, if any, of the champions of the church of England have strained the pretensions of that establishment so far as Dodwell seems to have done; but his whole-life attested the perfect conscientiousness and disregard of lo conseauences under which he wrote and acted. . In 1688 he was elected Camden Professor of History by the University of Oxford, but was deprived of his office, after he had held it about three years, for refusing to take the oath of allegiance to William and Mary. He now retired to the village of Cookham in Berkshire, and soon after to Shottesbrooke in the same neighbourhood, where he spent the rest of his days. He possessed, it appears, an estate in Ireland, but he allowed a relation to enjoy the principal part of the rent, only reserving such a moderate maintenance for himself as sufiiced for his simple and unexpensive habits of life. It is said however that his relation at length began to grumble at the subtraction even of this pittance; and on that Dodwell resumed his property, and married. He took this step in 1694, in his 53rd year, and he lived to see himself the father of ten children. The works for which he is now chiefly remembered were also all produced in the latter part of his life. Among these are his Dissertations and Annotations on the Greek Geographers, published in Hudson’s ‘Geographiae Veteris Scriptores Graeci Minores,’ Oxon. 1698, 1703, and 1712; his “Annales Thucydidei et Xenophontei,' 1696; his “Chronologia Graeco-Romana pro Hypothesibus Dion. Halicarnassei,' 1692; and his “Annales Velleiani, Quintiliani, Statiani,' 1698. These several chronological essays, which are drawn up with great ability, have all been o reprinted. Dodwell's principal work is considered to be his ‘De Veteribus Graecorum Romanorum$. Cyclis, Obitergue de Cyclo Judaeorum ac AEtate Christi, issertationes,’ 4to., Oxon., 1701. He also published in 8vo., in 1706, “An Epistolary Discourse, proving from the Scriptures and the first Fathers, that the Soul is a principle naturally mortal, but immortalized actually by the pleasure of God, to punishment or to reward, by its union with the divine baptismal spirit; where it is proved that none have the power of giving this divine immortalizing spirit since the Apostles, but only the Bishops.’ This attempt to make out for the bishops the new power of conferring immortality raised no small outcry against the writer, and staggered many even of those who had not seen any extravagance in his former polemical lucubrations. Of course it gave great offence to the Dissenters, all of whose souls it unceremoniously shut out from a future existence on any terms. Dodwell died at Shottesbrooke on the 7th of June, 1711. Of his sons, the eldest, Henry, who was a barrister, published anonymously in 1742, a tract, which has been generally, but perhaps erroneously, looked upon as a covert attack upon revealed religion, under the title of “Christianity not founded on Argument;’ and another, William, who was in the church, distinguished himself by some pamphlets in the controversy with Dr. Conyers Middleton about miracles; and also wrote an answer to his brother's anonymous tract just mentioned. DOG, the English name for the digitigrade quadruped which is so faithfully attached to man. Under the Linnaean genus Canis are to be found the dogs (Canis familiaris); the wolves (Canis Lupus); the hyaenas (Canis Hyaena); the foxes (Canis Pulpes, &c.); the jackals (Canis aureus); the Mexican wolf (Canis Mericanus), Xoloitzcuintli of Hernandez: and Canis Thous of Surinam. Cuvier arranges under the genus Canis “les Chiens,’ the dogs properly so called (Canis familiaris and its varieties); the wolves (Canis Lupus, C. Mericanus, C. jubatus); and the jackals (Chacal ou Loup doré, Canis aureus); and he observes, that the foxes (which Brisson and others have separated under the name of Vulpes) may be distinguished from , the wolves and the dogs by their longer and more tufted tail; by a more pointed muzzle; by the pupils of their eyes, which by day present a kind of longitudinal slit instead of the round form; and by the superior incisors being less lobated (echancrées); and he observes on their fetid odour, their disposition to dig for themselves earths, and to prey upon the weaker animals. These he places in a subgenus, including the Zerda (Megalotis of Illiger, Canis Megalotis of Lalande, Canis Zerda of Gmelin); at least he terms the Zerdas espèces de renards, though he seems to consider them as a section, and notices them as the Megalotis of Illiger: the o: venatica of Burchell, Hyaena picta of Temminck (wild dog of the Cape), terminates Cuvier's Canidae, and he then passes on to the civets (Viverra). M. Lesson, in his Manual, begins the second section of the Digitigrades with the genus Canis, and he adopts the following subdivisions:— 1st. Those genera which have the pupil of the eye round, including the dogs properly so called, the wolves, and the jackals. 2d. Those genera in which the pupil of the eye contracts vertically, the foxes and the zerdas. 3d. The dogs with hyaena-like feet; the hyaena-dog, Canis pictus, Desm., Hyaena picta, Temm., Lycaon, Brookes. This article will be confined to a consideration of the dog, Canis familiaris, and its varieties: the other subfamilies will be treated of under their respective titles. The specific description given by Linnaeus of Canis familiaris is simply “Canis caudā (sinistrosum) recurvatā’— “dog with tail curled towards the left'—and his lengthened description, after enumerating the varieties, of which he gives eleven, though it may appear to some almost ridiculously minute and not very delicate, is eminently characteristic. Cuvier observes that the domestic dog, Canis .’amiliaris, Linn, is distinguished by its recurved tail, and that it varies infinitely besides, in stature, form, colour, and the quality of the hair. It exhibits, he adds, “the most singular, the most complete, and the most useful conquest that man has made. The whole species is become our *; each individual is entirely devoted to his master, .C., No. 538. J
adopts his manners, distinguishes and defends his property, and remains attached to him even unto death; and all this springs not from mere necessity, nor from constraint, but simply from reconnaissance and a true friendship. The swiftness, the strength, and the highly developed power of smelling of the dog, have made him a powerful ally of man against the other animals, and were perhaps necessary to the establishment of society. It is the only animal that has followed man all over the earth.” Now comes the question—What was the parent-stock of this faithful friend of man? Some zoologists are of opinion that the breed is derived from the wolf; others that it is a familiarized jackal; all agree that no trace of it is to be found in a primitive state of nature. That there were dogs, or rather animals of the canine form, in Europe long ago, we have evidence from their remains, which we shall presently notice; and that there are wild dogs we know. India, for example, affords many of them, living in a state of complete independence, and without any indication of a wish to approach the dwellings of man. These dogs, though they have been accurately noticed by competent observers, do not throw much light on the question. They may have escaped from the dominion or half dominion of man, and have betaken themselves to a vagabond life. It becomes necessary however to examine into the state of these dogs, some of which are entirely wild, and keep to the mountain and forest, whilst others hang about the villages, and though without owners, give tokens of a more social disposition, and are tolerated as the scavengers of the place, which they clear of disgusting incumbrances, somewhat after the Portuguese fashion. Jol. Sykes thus, describes the Dukhun (Deccan) dog, Canis Dukhunensis, Sykes, Kolsun of the Mahrattas. “Red, paler underneath; tail bushy, pendulous; pupil rounded.’ ‘This is the Wild Dog of Dukhun. Its head is compressed and elongated; its nose not very sharp, the eyes are oblique: the pupils round, irides light brown. The expression of the countenance that of a coarse ill-natured Persian Greyhound, without any resemblance to the Jackal, the For, or the Wolf, and in consequence essentially distinct from the Canis Quao, or Sumatrensis of General Hardwicke. Ears long, erect, somewhat rounded at the top, without any replication of the tragus. Limbs remarkably large and strong in relation to the bulk of the animal; its size being intermediate between the Wolf and the Jackal. Neck long. Body elongated. Between the eyes and nose red brown: end of the tail blackish. From the tip of the nose to the insertion of the tail 33 inches in length: tail 8% inches. Height of the shoulders, 16% inclies.’ Colonel Sykes adds that none of the domesticated dogs of Dukhun are common to Europe. The first in strength and size is the Brinjaree Dog, somewhat resembling the Persian Grey. hound, then (1831) in the possession of the Zoological Society, but much more powerful. The Pariah Dog, he states, is referable to M. Cuvier's second section. This is very numerous, not individual property, but breeds in the towns and villages unmolested. The Colonel remarks that the Turnspit Dog, long backed, with short crooked legs, is frequently found among the Pariahs. There is also a petted minute variety of the Pariah Dog, usually of a white colour, and with long silky hair, corresponding to a common Lapdog of Europe; this is taught to carry flambeaux and lanterns. The last variety noticed is the Dog with hair so short as to appear naked like the Canis AEgyptius. It is known to Europeans by the name of the Polygar Dog. (Zool. Proc., part i., 1831.) . In 1832 the skin of the Wild Dog of Nepāl was compared by Colonel Sykes with a specimen of the Kolsun of the Mahrattas above described, and he stated his impression to be that the animals are identical, differing only by the denser coat and more woolly feet of the Nepāl race, a difference readily accounted for by the greater cold of the elevated regions inhabited by it. He declined however pronouncing a decided opinion, which, he thought, could only be arrived at by more extensive com: parison and a full acquaintance with the habits of the H &d Dog of Nepāl. (Zool. Proc.; part ii.). In 1833, Colonel Sykes placed on the table of the Zoological Society his specimen of the Wild Dog of Dukhun (Canis Dukhunensis, Sykes), for the purpose of comparing it with a skin of the Wild Dog of Nepāi, (Canis primavus, Hodgson), then recently presented to the Society by the last named gentleman. He showed that the two dogs are perfectly similar in their general form, and in the form of the cranium; and Vol. IX—I
that in his specimen, equally with that of Mr. Hodgson, the hinder tubercular tooth of the lower jaw is wanting. The only difference remarkable between the two specimen, was in the quality and colour of the fur, that of the Dukhun Dog being paler and less dense than that of the individual from Nepal. These differences, depending probably on climate and individual peculiarity, cannot be regarded as sufficient to indicate a distinction between the two rates. Identical as they are in form and habits, Colonel Sykes considered them as belonging to one species. (Zool. Proc., part i., 1833, and see a more detailed account in the ‘Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society.') - Mr. Hodgson, in a paper “On the Mammalia of Nepāl, published in the ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Caloutta, mentions, inter alia, under the title of Canis Jami: liaris, Linn., the Pariah as the only Dog of the lower and central regions. The Thibetan Mastiff, he states, is limited to Kachär (Cachar), into which it was introduced from its native country, but in which it degenerates rapidly; there are, he observes, several varieties of it; he also notices his Canis primaevus. (Zool. Proc.; part ii., 1834). These contributions we consider very interesting; but we must be on our guard against the begging of the question, which lurks under the specific name primavus, given b a gentleman to whom Indian zoology owes so much, and it is for this reason that we have laid before the reader the comparative views of Colonel Sykes, who has so widely extended our knowledge of the Oriental Fauna. Mr. Bell in his "History of British Quadrupeds,' approaches this difficult question more boldly than most zoologists. “In order,’ says Mr. Bell, “to come to any rational conclusion on this head, it will be necessary to ascertain to what type the animal approaches most nearly, after having for many successive generations existed in a wild state, removed from the influence of domestication and of association with mankind. Now we find that there are several different instances of the existence of dogs in such a state of wildness as to have lost even that common character of domestication, variety of colour and marking. Of these two very remarkable ones are the Dhole of India, and the Dingo of Australia: there is besides a half-reclaimed race amongst the Indians of North America; and another, also partially tamed, in South America, which deserve attention; and it is found that these races, in different degrees, and in a greater degree as they are more wild, exhibit the lank and gaunt form, the lengthened limbs, the long and slender muzzle, and the great comparative strength which characterize the wolf; and that the tail of the Australian dog, which may be considered as the most remote from a state of domestication, assumes the slightly bushy form of that animal. We have here then a considerable approximation to a well-known wild animal of the same genus, in races which, though doubtless descended from Homesticated ancestors, have gradually assumed the wild condition; and it is worthy of especial remark, that the anatomy of the wolf, and its osteology in particular, does not differ from that of the dogs in general, more than the different kinds of dogs do from each other. The cranium is absolutely similar, and so are all, or nearly all, the other essential parts; and to strengthen still further the probability of their identity, the dog and wolf will readily breed together, and their progeny is fertile. The obliquity of the position of the eyes in the wolf is one of the characters in which it differs from the dogs; and although it is very desirable not to rest too much upon the effects of habit or structure, it is not perhaps straining the point to attribute the forward direction of the eyes in the dogs to the constant habit, for many successive generations, of looking forwards to their master and obeying his voice.” Another criterion, and a sound one is, the identity of gestation. Sixty-three days form the period during which the bitch goes with young. Precisely the same time elapses before the she wolf gives birth to her offspring. . Upon Buffon's instance of seventy-three days, or rather the possibility of such a duration in the gestation of a particular she-wolf, we do not lay much stress when opposed by such strong evidence of the usual period being sixty three days. The young of both wolf and dog are born blind, and see at the same or about the same time, viz., at the expiration of the tenth or twelfth day. Hunter's important experiments proved without doubt that the wolf and the jackal would breed with the dog; but He had not sufficient data for coming to the conclusion that
all three were identical as species. In the course of those experiments he ascertained that the jackal went fifty-nine days with young, whilst the wolf went sixty-three, nor does he record that the progeny of the dog and jackal would breed together: and he knew too well the value of the argument to be drawn from a fertile progeny not to have dwelt upon the fact if he had proved it; not to have mentioned it, at least, if he had ever heard of it.
Skull of Jackal; from F. Cuvier.
Mr. Bell disposes of the objection arising from the al leged untameably savage disposition of the wolf by relating two anecdotes, one on his own authority, and the other on that of M. F. Cuvier, in proof of the susceptibility of attachment to man, and the appetite—for it is an appetite—for his caresses on the part | the wolf. The first occurred in the Gardens of the Zoological Society in the Regent's Park, London, and was exhibited in the person of a she-wolf, who came forward to be caressed, and even brought her pups to be caressed also, whenever Mr. Bell or any one whom she knew approached her den. Indeed she killed all her unfortunate young ones in succession, by rubbing them against the bars of her cage in her zeal to have them fondled by her friends. The second happened in the Ménagerie du Roi at Paris, and no faithful A. could show more affecting instances of attachment to his master or distress on account of his absence than did the male wolf which is the subject of M. F. Cuvier's touching account. “With all these analogous properties of form and structure’—we quote Mr. Bell—" as well as of disposition, I cannot but incline at least to the opinion that the wolf is the original source from which all our domestic dogs have sprung: nor do I see in the great variety which exists in the different races sufficient ground for concluding that they may not, all of them, have descended from one common stock. The turnspit and the mastiff, the Fo and the greyhound, are perhaps more unlike each other than any of the varieties of other domestic animals; but if it be true that variation depends upon habit and education, the very different employments to which dogs have in all ages been trained, and |. various climates to which they have been naturalized, must not be lost sight of as collateral agents in producing these different forms. The care, too, with which dogs of particular breeds are matched with similar ones, for the purpose of keeping the progeny as pure as possible, has doubtless its effect in promoting such distinctions.” The same author thus sums up his opinion. ‘Upon the whole, the argument in favour of the view which I have taken, that the wolf is probably the original of all the canine races, may be thus stated: the structure of the animal is identical, or so nearly so as to afford the strongest d priori evidence in its favour. The dog must have been derived from an animal susceptible of the highest degree of domestication, and capable of great affection for mankind; which has been abundantly proved of the wolf. Dogs having returned to a wild state, and continued in that condition through many generations, exhibit characters which approximate more and more to those of the wolf, in proportion as the influence of domestication ceases to act. The two animals will breed together, and produce fertile young. The period of gestation is the same.’
tion of the great genus Canis of Linnaeus. M. F. Cuvier
Cuvier places them among those casualties which give no foundation for the establishment of any rule.