NATURAL HISTORY.

 

THE DOG*.

 

NEITHER majesty and elegance of form, strength of body, freedom of movement, nor other external qualities, constitute the principal dignity of animated beings.  In man, [1] we prefer genius to figure, courage to strength, and sentiment to beauty; and, therefore, we are induced to think, that the chief excellence of an animal consists also of internal qualities.  By these he differs from an automaton, rises above the vegetable tribes, and approaches the human species. It is sentiment which ennobles, governs, and gives activity to all his organs and propensities. Hence the perfection of an animal depends on sentiment alone; and, in proportion to its extent, his faculties, resources, and relations with the rest of the universe, are augmented.  When his sentiment is delicate, and improved by education he is then fit to associate with man, to concur with his designs, to aid, to defend, and to caress him.  By a frequent performance of these services, he conciliates the favour of his master, and from a tyrant, converts him into a friend and protector.

 

The dog, independent of the beauty of his figures, his strength, vivacity, and nimbleness, possesses every internal excellence which can attract the regard of man.  A passionate, and even a ferocious and sanguinary temper, renders the wild dog formidable to all animals.  But, in the [2] domestic dog, these hostile dispositions vanish, and are succeeded by the softer sentiments of attachment, and the desire of pleasing.  He runs with chearfulness [sic] and alacrity to his master’s foot, where he lays down his courage, his strength, and his talents.  He attends for orders, which he is always solicitous to execute.  He consults, he interrogates, he supplicates his master.  A single glance of the eye is sufficient; for he knows the external signs of our intentions and wishes. Without being endowed, like man, with the faculty of thinking, his feelings are extremely delicate, and he has more fidelity and steadiness in his affection. He is not corrupted by ambition, by interested views, or by a desire of revenge; and he has no fear, but that of displeasing.  He is all zeal, ardour, and obedience.  More apt to recal [sic] benefits than outrages, he is not discouraged by blows or bad treatment, but calmly suffers, and soon forgets them; or he remembers them only to increase his attachment.  Instead of flying, or discovering marks of resentment, he exposes himself to torture, and licks the hand from which he received the blow.  To the cruelty of his master, h [sic] only opposes complaint, patience, and submission.

 

            More tractable than man, and more pliant than any other animal, the dog is not only soon instructed, but even conforms himself to the manners, movements, and habits of those who [3] govern him.  He assumes the very tone of the family in which he lives.  Like other servants, he is haughty with the great, and rustic with the peasant.  Always eager to obey and to please his master, or his friends, he pays no attention to strangers, and furiously repels beggars, whom he distinguishes by their dress, their voice, and their gestures. When the charge of a house or garden is committed to him during the night, his boldness increases, and he sometimes becomes perfectly ferocious.  He watches, goes the rounds, smells strangers at a distance, and, if they stop, or attempt to leap any barrier, he instantly darts upon them, and, by barking, and other marks of passion, alarms the family and neighbourhood.  Equally furious against thieves as against rapacious animals, he attacks and wounds them, and forces from them whatever they have been attempting to carry off:  But, contented with victory, he lies down upon the spoil, and will not touch it even to satisfy his appetite, exhibiting, at the same time, an example of courage, temperance, and fidelity.

 

To conceive the importance of this species in the order of Nature, let us suppose that it never existed.  Without the assistance of the dog, how could man have conquered, tamed, and reduced the other animals into slavery?  How could he still discover, hunt down, and destroy noxious and savage beasts?  For his own safety, and to render him master of the animated world, it was [4] necessary to form a party among the animals themselves, to conciliate by caresses those which were capable of attachment and obedience, in order to oppose them to the other species.  Hence the training of the dog seems to have been the first art invented by man; and the result of this art was the conquest and peaceable possession of the earth. 

 

Most animals are superior to man in agility, swiftness, strength, and even in courage:  Nature has fortified and armed them better.  Their senses, and particularly that of smelling, are likewise more perfect. To have brought over to our interest a bold and tractable species, like that of the dog, was to acquire new senses and faculties.  The machines and instruments we have invented to improve, or to extend our other senses, are not nearly so useful as those presented to us ready made by Nature, which, by supplying the defects of our smelling, have furnished us with great and permanent resources for conquest and dominion.  The dog, ever faithful to man, will always maintain a portion of this empire; he will always preserve a degree of superiority above the other animals.  He reigns at the head of a flock, and is better heard than the voice of the shepherd.  Safety, order, and discipline, are the fruits of his vigilance and activity.  Sheep and cattle are a people subjected to his management, whom he prudently conducts and protects, and never employs force against [5] them but for the preservation of peace and good order.

 

But in war against his enemies, or wild animals, he makes a full display of his courage and intelligence.  Here his natural and acquired talents are united.  As soon as the din of arms is heard, as soon as the horn, or the voice of the hunter, gives the alarm, the dog, sparkling with redoubled ardour, demonstrates his joy by the most lively emotions:  He announces, by his movements and cries, his impatience for the combat, and his passion for victory.  Sometimes he moves silently along, reconnoitres [sic] the ground, and endeavours to discover and surprise the enemy.  At other times, he traces the animal’s steps, and, by different accents, indicates the distance, the species, and even the age of the fugitive. Pushed, intimidated, and despairing of safety from flight alone, the poor animal likewise exerts its faculties, and opposes craftiness to sagacity.*  The resources of instinct are now worthy of admiration.  To make him lose the scent, the creature doubles, returns on its former steps, bounds, and wishes to detach itself from the earth; at one leap it often clears a highway, or a hedge, and swims over brooks and rivers.  But, always pursued, and being unable to conceal or annihilate its body, the animal endeavours to start another of less experience, and, after running together till the former imagines that the [6] two scents or traces are confounded, it then suddenly separates, in order to let the other fall a victim to the deceived enemy.

 

But the dog, by the superiority he has acquired from habit and education, and from the peculiar fineness of his sensations, loses not the object of his pursuit.  By the acuteness of his scent, he unravels all the windings of the labyrinth, all the false routs which were intended to deceive him; and, instead of abandoning the enemy for an indifferent animal, he redoubles his ardour, he overtakes, attacks, slays, and extinguishes his thirst and his rage in the blood of the victim.

 

The propensity to hunting, or to war, is equally strong in man as in other animals.  The whole knowledge of the Savage is confined to fighting and hunting.  All carnivorous animals, which have weapons and strength, hunt naturally.  The lion and the tiger, whose strength is so great as to insure them of victory, hunt alone, and without artifice.  Wolves, foxes, and wild dogs, hunt in packs, assist each other with much art, and mutually share in the prey.  When the natural talents of the dog have been improved by education, when he has learned to repress his ardour, and to regulate his movements, he then hunts artificially, and is always certain of success.

 

In desert and depopulated countries, there are wild dogs, which, in their manners, differ not from [7] wolves, excepting by the facility with which they may be tamed.  They unite in troops, and attack wild boars, and bulls, and even lions and tigers.  The wild dogs of America are of the domestic race, and were transported thither from Europe.  Some of them have been abandoned in these deserts, where they have multiplied so prodigiously, that they spread over the inhabited countries in great packs, and attack the domestic cattle, and even insult the natives, who are obliged to disperse and kill them, like other ferocious animals.  Wild dogs, though they have no knowledge of man, when approached with gentleness, soon soften, become familiar, and remain faithfully attached to their masters.  But the wolf, though taken young, and brought up in the house, is only gentle when a mere cub, never loses his taste for prey, and sooner or later indulges his inclination for rapine and destruction.

 

The dog may be said to be the only animal whose fidelity is unshaken; who always knows his master, and the friends of the family; who distinguishes a stranger as soon as he arrives; who understands his own name, and the voices of the domestics; who confides not in himself; who calls on his lost master by cries and lamentations; who, in long journeys, which he has traveled but once, remembers and finds out the roads:  In fine, the dog is the only animal whose [8] natural talents are conspicuous, and whose education is always successful.

 

Of all animals, the dog is also most susceptible of impressions, most easily modified by moral causes, and most subject to alterations occasioned by physical influence.  His temperament, faculties, and habits, vary prodigiously; and even the figure of his body is by no means constant.  In the same country, one dog differs greatly from another; and, in different climates, the very species seems to be changed.  From these causes, the number and mixture of races are so great, that it is almost impossible to recognize or enumerate them.  To the same causes must be attributed those remarkable varieties in size, figure, length of muzzle, form of the head, length and direction of the ears and tail, colour, quantity of hair, &c.  In a word, nothing seems to be permanent in these animals but their internal organization, and the faculty of procreating together.  As those which differ most from each other are capable of intermixing and of producing fertile individuals, it is evident, that all dogs, however diversified, constitute but one species.

 

In this numerous variety of races, it is difficult to investigate the character of the primitive stock from which they hall all sprung.  How shall the effects produced by the influence of climate, food, &c. be distinguished?  How shall we perceive the changes introduced by the [9] mixture of different races when in a wild, or in a domestic state?  In the progress of time, all these cause alter the most permanent forms; and the original stamp of Nature never preserves its purity in beings which have been long under the management of man.  This original impression is best preserved in those animals that have the independent choice both of their climate and food, the most antient of which are still faithfully represented by their descendants.  But those which man has subdued, transported from climate to climate, and changed their food, their habits, and manner of living, must necessarily have suffered the greatest alterations in their form; and, it is a well known fact, that there are more varieties among the domestic than the wild animals: And, of all domestic animals, as the dog is most closely attached to man, lives as irregularly, and is endowed with dispositions which render him docile, obedient, susceptible of every impression, and submissive to every restraint, it is not surprising that he should likewise exhibit the greatest variety in figure, size, colour, and other qualities.

 

But other causes concur in producing these changes.  The life of the dog is short; his prolific powers are great; and, as he is perpetually under the eye of man, whenever by any accident, which is not uncommon in Nature, some individuals, marked with singular characters, appeared, they would be perpetuated by prevent- [10] ing their intermixture with any other kinds, as is done at present when we want to procure new races of dogs, or of other animals.  Besides, though every species were equally antient, the number of generations, from the creation, being greater in those whose lives are short, their varieties, alterations, and even degeneration, must become more conspicuous; because they are farther removed from the original stock than those which live longer.  Man is at present eight times nearer Adam, than the dog to his first parent; because man lives eighty years, and the dog only ten.  If, therefore, by any cause, these two species had an equal tendency to degenerate, the alteration would be ten times more strongly marked in the dog than in man.

 

Those small animals whose lives are so short, that they are succeeded every year by a new generation, are infinitely more subject to variations of every kind than those which live longer.  The same remark is applicable to annual plants; some of which may be considered as of an artificial or factitious nature.  Wheat, for example, has been so greatly altered by man, that it is now no where to be found in a natural state.  It has a similarity to darnel, dog’s-grass, and several other grasses; but still we know not to which of these plants it ought to be referred: And, as it is annually renewed, is used as the common food of man, and more cultivated than any other vegetable, its nature, of course, has [11] undergone the greatest alterations.  Hence man is able, not only to make every individual in the universe answer his own ends, but, with the assistance of time, he can change, modify, and improve their species.  This is the chief power he possesses over Nature.  To have transformed a barren herb into wheat, is a kind of creation, of which, however, we have no reason to boast, since it is only by the sweet [sic] of our brows, and reiterated culture, that we are able to extract from the earth a scanty, and often a bitter subsistence.

 

Hence, both in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, the species which have received the highest culture from man, have undergone the greatest changes from their original condition:  And, as we are often unable to recognise their primitive form, as in the example of wheat and other grain, it is not impossible, that, among the numerous varieties of dogs which at present subsist, not one of them should resemble the first animal of the species that virtually gave birth to the whole.

 

Nature, however, when not restrained, never fails to resume her rights.  Wheat, when sown on uncultivated ground, degenerates the very first year; and, if sown for a succession of ages upon the same ground, this degeneration would gradually proceed till the plant acquired its original form.  By an experiment of this kind, the time required by Nature for destroying the [12] effects of art, and resuming her pristine state, might be discovered.  This experiment might be easily performed on plants:  But, in animals there is little hope of its success; because it is difficult to manage them with sufficient dexterity, or to overcome their invicible repugnance against every thing that restrains or counteracts their natural or acquired habits.  We cannot, therefore, expect to learn, by this method, the primitive race of dogs, or of other animals which are subjected to permanent varieties.  But, to supply the place of facts which cannot be ascertained, we may collect particular marks, and from these draw probabe conjectures.

 

The domestic dogs which were abandoned in the deserts of America, and have lived in a wild state during 150 or 200 years, though originally derived from altered races, must, during so long a course of time, have made greater or smaller approaches toward their primitive  form.  Travellers, however, inform us, that they resemble our grey-hounds.*  They make the same remark with regard to the wild dogs of Congo,+ which, like those of America, make war in packs against tigers, lions, &c.  But others, without comparing the wild dogs of St Domingo to grey-hounds, only observe, that they have generally a long flat head, a slender [13] muzzle, a ferocious air, and meager bodies; that they are exceedingly swift in the chace [sic], hunt in the most perfect manmner, and easily tame, when taken young.*  Thus these wild dogs are very meager and fleet; and, as the common grey-hounds differs little, in other respects, from the Irish grey-hound, or from the shepherd’s dog, it is probable that those wild dogs rather belong to this kind than to the true grey-hound race; for, on the other hand, the more antient travellers tell us, that the native dogs of Canada had erect ears, like the fox, and resembled our village or shepherd’s dog;+ that those belonging to the savages of the Antilles had very long heads and ears, and approached to the figure of foxes,3 that the Indians of Peru had only a large and a small kind, which they called Alco;4 and that those of the Isthmus of America were very ugly, and had long, coarse hair, which likewise implies erect ears.5 Hence it is apparent, that the original dogs of America, before they had any communication with those of Europe, were all of one race, and that they approached most to the dogs with slender muzzles, erect ears, and coarse, hair, like the shepherd’s [14] dog:  And I am still farther convinced that the wild dogs of St Domingo are not genuine grey-hounds, because the latter is so rare in France, that they are brought, for the use of the King, from Constantinople and other parts of the Levant, and because I never knew of any grey-hounds being transported to France from St Domingo, or any of our American colonies.  Besides, by consulting what travellers have said concerning the dogs of different countries, we find that all the dogs of cold climates have long muzzles and erect ears; that those of Lapland are small, and have long hair, erect ears, and sharp muzzles;* that the Siberian dogs +, and those called wolf-dogs, are larger than the Lapland kind; but their ears are still erect, their hair coarse, and their muzzle sharp; that those of Iceland3 are nearly similar to the Siberian dog; and, in the same manner, that the native dogs of the Cape of Good Hope4, and other warm climates, have pointed muzzles, erect ears, long trailing tails, and clear, but long, rough hair; that those dogs are excellent for guarding flocks, and, of course, that they resemble the shepherd’s dog, not only in figure, but in instinct; that, in still warmer climates, as at Madagascar5, Madura6, [15] Calicut,* and Malabar,+ the native dogs have all long muzzles, erect ears, and have such a resemblance to the shepherd’s dog, that, when Irish grey-hounds, spaniels, water-dogs, bull-dogs, blood-hounds, grey-hounds, &c. were transported thither, they degenerated at the second or third generation; lastly, that, in excessive , warm countries, as in Guiney3, this degeneration is still quicker; for, in three or four years, they lose their voice, bark no more, but make a dismal kind of howling noise; and their progeny have erect ears, like the fox.  The native dogs of those countries are ugly animals, with sharp muzzles, long erect ears, and long pointed tails.  There is no hair on their bodies; their skin is commonly spotted, but sometimes of a uniform colour:  In a word, they are disagreeable to the eye, and still more so to the touch.

 

We may, therefore, suppose, with some degree of probability, that the shepherd’s dog approaches nearer to the primitive race than any of the other kinds; for in every country inhabited by savage or by half civilized men, the native dogs resemble this race more than any other.  Besides, in the whole of the New Continent, there was no other variety; neither is there any other at the south and north extre- [16] mities of our own continent; and in France, and other temperate climates, they are very numerous, though greater attention has been paid to the rearing of other more beautiful kinds, than to the preservation of this race, which has no recommendation but its utility, and for that reason has been abandoned to the care of the sheep-farmers.  If it be farther considered, that this dog, notwithstanding his ugliness, and his wild and melancholy aspect, is superior in instinct to all others; that he has a decided character, independent of education; that he alone is born fully trained; that, guided solely by natural powers, he applies himself spontaneously to the keeping of flocks, which he executes with amazing fidelity, vigilance, and assiduity; that he conducts them with an admirable and uncommunicated intelligence; that his talents, at the same time astonish and give repose to his master, while other dogs require the most laborious instruction to train them to the purposes for which they are destined; we will be confirmed in the opinion, that the shepherd’s dog is the true dog of Nature; that he has been preferably bestowed on us for the extent of his utility; that he has a superior relation to the general order of animated beings, who mutually depend on each other; and, lastly, that he ought to be regarded as the origin and model of the whole species.

 

            In the frozen regions of the north, the human species is deformed, rustic, and diminutive.  Lap- [17] land, Greenland, and all countries where the cold is excessive, produce only dwarfish and ugly men.  But, in the neighbouring and less rigorous regions of Finland, Denmark, &c. the most beautiful race suddenly appears; for, in figure, colour, and stature, they are perhaps the handsomest of the human kind. The same phaenomenon is exhibited in the dog-species.  The Lapland dogs are very ugly, and so small, that they exceed not a foot in length.*  Those of Siberia, though less ugly, have erect ears, and a savage aspect:  But, in the neighbouring climate, where we meet with the handsome men already mentioned,+ we find also the most beautiful and largest dogs. The dogs of Tartary, of Albania, of the north of Greece, of Denmark, and of Ireland, are the largest and strongest of the species, and are used for drawing carriages.  The Irish grey-hounds are of a very antient race, and still exist, though their number is small, in their original climate.  They were called by the antients dogs of Epirus, and Albanian dogs.  Pliny has recorded, in most elegant and energetic terms, a combat between one of these dogs, first with a lion, and then with an elephant.3  They are [18] much larger than the mastiff.  In France, they are so rare, that I never saw above one of them, which appeared, when sitting, to be about five feet high, and resembled in figure the Danish dog;* but greatly exceeded him in stature.  He was totally white, and of a mild and peaceable disposition.  We find, then, in all the temperate climates, as in Britain, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy, men and dogs of all races.  This variety proceeds partly from the great concourse and intermixture of foreigners.  With regard to dogs, I shall mark, with all possible attention, the similarities and discrepancies which shelter, care, food, and climate, have produced among these animals.

 

            The Danish dog,+ the Irish grey-hound,3 and the common grey-hound,4 though they appear to be different, are only the same dog.  The Danish dog is but a more corpulent Irish [19] grey- hound; and the common grey-hound is the Irish grey-hound rendered thinner and more delicate by culture; for these three dogs, though perfectly distinguishable at first sight, differ not more from each other than a Dutchman, a Frenchman, and an Italian.  If we suppose the Irish grey-hound to have been a native of France, he would have produced the Danish dog in a colder climate, and the common grey-hound in a warmer one:  And this conjecture is even verified by experience; for the Danish dogs come to us from the north, and the grey-hounds from Constantinople and the Levant.  The shepherd’s dog,* the Pomeranian or wolf-dog,+ the Siberian dog,3 to which may be joined the Lapland dog, the Canadian dog, the Hottentot dog, and all those which have erect ears, constitute but one kind.  They differ from the shepherd’s dog only in stature, in being more or less gross, or in the length, coarseness, or bushiness of their hair.  The hound,4 the harrier,5 the turnspit,6 the water-dog,7 and even the spaniel,8 may be regarded as one dog.  Their figure and instincts are nearly the same; and they differ only in the length of their legs, and the size of their ears, which, however, in all of them are long, soft, and pendulous.  These dogs are natives of France; and I am uncertain whether the Dalma- [20] tian dog,* or, as it is called, the harrier of Bengal, ought to be disjoined from them; for it differs from our harrier only in colour.  I am convinced that this dog is not an original native of Bengal, or of any other part of India, and that it is not, as has been pretended, the Indian dog mentioned by the antients, and said to have been produced between a dog and a tiger; for it has been known in Italy above 170 years ago, and not considred as a dog brought from India, but as a common harrier:  “Canis fagax, vulgo brachus,” says Aldrovandus, “an unius vel varii coloris sit, parum refert; in Italia eligitur varius et maculosae lynci persimilis; cum tamen niger color, vel albus, aut fulvus, non sit spernendus.”+

 

            Britain, France, Germany, &c. appear to have given birth to the hound, the harrier, and the turnspit:  When transported into climates a little warmer, as Turkey or Persia, these dogs degenerate.  But the spaniels and water-dogs are natives of Spain and Barbary, where the temperature of the climate renders the hair of all animals longer and finer than in any other country.  The bull-dog,3 what is improperly called the small Danish dog, for it has no other resem- [21] blance to the Danish dog* than the shortness of its hair, the naked or Turkish dog,+ and the Iceland dog,3 constitute but one race, which, being transported from cold countries, where the fur is always strong, into the warmer climates of Africa and India, have lost their hair; for the naked dog is improperly called the Turkish dog:  It is not in the temperate climate of Turkey that dogs lose their hair, but in Guiney, and the warm regions of India.  The Turkish dog is nothing but the small Danish dog, which has first been transported to a very warm climate, where it cast its hair, and then afterwards brought to Turkey, and propagated carefully on account of its singularity.  The first of them, says Aldrovandus, which appeared in Europe, were brought into Italy in his own time, where they could not be propagated, because the climate was too cold for them.  But, as he gives no description of these naked dogs, we know not whether they were similar to what is now called the Turkish, nor, consequently, whether they can be referred to the small Danish dog; because dogs of every kind lose their hair in very warm climates;4 and, as formerly remarked, they also lose their voice.  In some countries, they are perfectly mute; in others, they lose only the faculty of barking, but howl like wolves, [22] or yelp like foxes.  This change seems to make them approach to their natural state; for both their figure and instincts are altered:  They assume an ugly aspect, and their ears become erect and pointed.*  It is only in temperate climates that dogs preserve their ardour, courage, sagacity, and other talents.  They lose every thing, when transported to very hot countries.  But, as if Nature never made any being perfectly useless, in climates where dogs cannot serve the purposes for which we employ them, they are in great request for the table, and their flesh is preferred by the Negroes to that of all other animls.  They sell dogs in the market as dear as mutton, venison, or game of any kind, a roasted dog being the most luxurious feast to a Negro.  Perhaps this remarkable appetite for dogs flesh is owing to a change produced in its quality by the heat of the country; for, in our climates, it is extremely disagreeable. But I am inclined to think that this appetite depends more on the nature of man than that of the dog; for the savages of Canada, who inhabit a cold country, are equally fond of dogs flesh with the Negroes; and our missionaries sometimes eat of it without disgust.  P. Sabard Theodat remarks, “that dogs are used, as we [23] use mutton, at feasts.  I have several times been present at these dog-feasts, which at first struck me with a degree of horror; but, after tasting it twice, I found that the flesh was good, and had a flavour somewhat resembling that of pork.”*

 

            In our climates, the wolf and fox make the nearest approach to the dog, particularly to the shepherd’s dog, which I consider as the original stock of the species:  And, as their internal structure is almost entirely the same, and their external differences very slight, I wished to try if they would intermix and produce together.  I hoped, at least, to make them copulate; and, if they produced not fertile individuals, I expected to procure mules which would participate of the nature of both animals.  With this view, I reared a she-wolf, taken in the woods at the age of three months, along with an Irish grey-hound of the same age.  They were shut up together in a pretty large court, to which no other beast could have access, and where they were provided with a shelter for their retirement.  They were equally strangers to any individual of their own species, and knew no person but the man who gave them their victuals.  They were kept in this state three years, without the smallest restraint.  During the first year, they played perpetually, and seemed to be extremely fond of each other.  The [24] second year they began to quarrel about their food, though they were supplied in a plentiful manner.  The wolf always began the dispute.  When meat and bones were given them on a large wooden dish, the wolf, instead of seizing the mat, instantly drove off the dog, then laid hold of the edge of the plate so dexterously as to allow nothing to fall, and carried off the whole.  I have seen her run, in this manner, with the dish in her teeth, five or six times round the wall, and never set it down, unless to take breath, to devour the meat, or to attack the dog, when he approached.  The dog was stronger than the wolf:  But, as he was less ferocious, we began to be apprehensive for his life, and therefore furnished him with a collar.  After the second year, these quarrels and combats became more frequent, and more serious, and a collar was also given to the wolf, whom the dog now handled more roughly than before.

 

            During these two years, not the smallest symptom of desire appeared either in the one or the other.  At the end of the third year, they began to feel all the ardour of passion; but discovered no marks of love.  This condition, instead of softening and making them approach each other, rendered them more untractable and ferocious.  Nothing now was heard but dismal howlings, and cries of resentment.  In three weeks, they were both very meagre; but never approached but to tear each other.  At last they [25] fought so cruelly that the dog killed the wolf.  The dog was shot some days after, because, as soon as he was set at liberty, he sprung with fury upon poultry, dogs, and even men.

 

            I had, at the same time, three young foxes, two males and a female, which were taken with nets, and kept in separate apartments.  One of them was secured by a long, light chair, and a hut was built for sheltering him.  I kept him several months; and, though he had a melancholy air, and kept his eyes fixed upon the fields, of which he had a view from his hut, yet both his helath and appetite were good.  A bitch in season was presented to him; but, as she would not remain near the fox, she was chained in the same place, and both were amply provided with fictuals.  The fox neither bit nor maletreated [sic] her.  During ten days that they lived together, there was not the smallest quarrel, neither night nor day, nor during the time of feeding. The fox even approached her pretty familiarly; but, as soon as he had scented her too near, the mark of desire disappeared, he mournfully returned to his hut, and no commixture took place. When the ardour of this bitch was gone, another, and afterwards a third, and a fourth, were successively presented to him.  He treated them with the same gentleness, and the same indifference.  To ascertain whether this indifference was owing to a natural repugnance, or to a state of restraint, he was furnished with a female of [26] his own species, which he covered more than once the first day.  The female was dissected some weeks later, and four foetus’s were found in the uterus.  The male fox was then let loose in a close court, and successively furnished with several bitches in season:  He discovered neither hatred nor love to them; and he died of chagrin and melancholy a few months afterwards.

 

            From these experiments we learn, that the wolf and fox are very different in their natures from the dog; that their species are so distinct and remote from each other, as to prevent their commixture, at least in our climates; that, consequently, the dog derives not his origin from the wolf or the fox; and that the nomenclators,* who regard these two animals as wild dogs, or who imagine the dog to be a wolf or a fox become domestic, and give the whole three the common name of Dog, have deceived themselves by not sufficiently studying Nature.+ [27]  In warm climates, there is a ferocious animal which differs less from the dog than the wolf or fox:  This animal, called the Jackal, has been well described by travellers.  They are very numerous in Asia, and Africa, in the neighbourhood of Trebisond,* round Mount Caucasus, in Mingrelia,+ Natolia,3 Hyrcania,4 Persia, India, Guiney, and at Surat,5 Goa, Guzarat, Bengal, Congo,6 and several other places.  Though this animal is considered by the natives as a wild dog, yet, as it is doubtful whether they intermix and produce together, we shall treat of the jackal, the wolf, and the dog, as separate and distinct species.

 

            I pretend not absolutely to affirm, that the jackal, or even the wolf and fox, in no age or country, never intermixed with dogs.  The contrary is asserted positively by the antient.  Aristotle7 remarks, that, though animals of different species intermingle seldom; yet it certainly happens among dogs, foxes, and wolves:  He adds, that the Indian dogs proceed from another similar wild beast and the dog.  This wild beast, to which he gives no name, is probably [28] the jackal.  But he observes, in another place,+ that the Indian dogs proceed from a commixture between the tiger and the bitch.  This notion is extremely improbable; because the tiger, both in his form and dispositions, differs much more from the dog than the wolf, the fox, or the jackal.  Aristotle indeed appears to violate his own argument; for, after telling us, that the Indian dogs proceeded from a wild beast similar to the wolf or fox, he says afterwards, that they proceed from the tiger, without mentioning whether this conjunction was made between the tiger and bitch, or between the dog and tigress:  He only adds, that the affair did not succeed till the third trial; that the first litter consisted solely of tigers; that dogs were chained in the deserts, and, unless the tiger was in season, they were often devoured; that the great heat, and scarcity of water, made the production of monsters and prodigies very frequent in Africa, because numbers of animals were obliged to assemble in the same place in order to drink, where they often grew familiar and coupled together.  All this seems to be not only conjectural and uncertain, but suspicious, and unworthy of credit; for, the more narrowly we examine the nature of animals, we perceive that instinct is the most certain criterion for judging them.  By the most attentive inspection of their internal parts, we discover only slight dif- [29] ferences.  The horse and ass, though perfectly similar in their internal structure, are very different in their natures.  The internal parts of the bull, the ram, and the he-goat, are exactly the same; yet they constitute three species more remote from each other than the ass and horse:  The same remark is applicable to the dog, the fox, and the wolf.  We derive more light from inspecting the external form.  But as, in species which are not remote, there are, even externally, more resemblances than discrepancies, this inspection is not sufficient to determine whether they belong to the same or to different species.  Ina word, when the shades are still lighter, they must be combined with the information derived from instinct.  It is from the dispositions of animals that we ought to judge of their natures:  If we suppose two animals perfectly similar in form, but very different in their dispositions, they would neither join nor produce together, but constitute two distinct species.

 

            This mode of judging concerning the differences of neighbouring species, is the only one that can be employed when we want to distinguish the numerous varieties which take place in the same species.  We know thirty fixed varieties of dogs, though we certainly are not acquainted with the whole.  Of these thirty varieties, there are seventeen which ought to be ascribed to the influence of climate, namely, the shepherd’s dog, the Pomeranian dog, the Sibe- [30] rian dog, the Iceland dog, the Lapland dog, the Irish grey-hound, the common grey-hound, the mastiff, the great Danish dog, the hound, the harrier, the terrier, the spaniel, the water dog, the small Danish dog, the Turkish dog, and the bull-dog.  The other thirteen, which are the mongrel Turkish dog, the grey-hound with hair like an [sic] wolf, the shock-dog, or lap-dog, the bastard pug-dog, the pug-dog, the Calabrian, Burgos, and Alicant dogs, the lion-dog, the small water dog, the dog of Artois, and the King Charles’s dog, are nothing but mongrels produced by the commixture of the above seventeen races; and, by tracing each of these mongrels back to the two races from which they sprung, their natures will then be sufficiently ascertained.  But, if we want to know the relations which subsist between the first seventeen races, we must attend to their instincts, their figures, and many other circumstances.  I have put into one group the shepherd’s dog, the Pomeranian dog, the Siberian dog, the Lapland and Iceland dogs, because a stronger resemblance takes place between them than between any of the other kinds, and because all of them have sharp muzzles like the fox, erect ears, and an instinct which induces them to follow and protect flocks.  The grey-hound, the large Danish dog, and the Irish grey-hound have, beside their similarity in figure and length of muzzle, the same dispositions:  They are fond of running, and of following horses and carriages.  They [31] have little scent, and hunt rather by the eye than the nose. The hounds, the harriers, the spaniels, the terriers, and the water-dogs, are the true hunting dogs.  Though they differ a little in figure, they have all thick muzzles, and the same instincts; and therefore they ought to be ranked together.  The spaniel, for example, has been called by some naturalists, canis aviarius terrestris, and the water-dog, canis aviarius aquaticus.  The only difference in disposition between these two dogs is, that the water-dog, with his long, bushy-hair, takes the water more chearfully [sic] than the others, whose hair is smooth and short.  Lastly, the small Danish dog and the Turkish dog must be joined together, wince this latter is said to be the same dog with the former, only deprived of his hair by the effects of heat.  There remains only the bull-dog, which, from the shortness of his muzzle, resembles the little Danish dog, but differs from him so much, both in figure and instinct, as to form a particular variety.  He seems also to affect a particular climate:  He comes from Britain, and it is difficult to preserve the breed in France.  The mongrels that proceed from him, which are the mastiff and the pug-dog, succeed better.  All these dogs have very short muzzles, little scent, and often send forth a disagreeable smell.  The fineness of scent seems to depend more on the largeness than the length of the muzzle; for the grey-hound, the large Danish dog, and the [32] Irish grey-hound, have less scent than the hound, the harrier, the tarrier [sic], the spaniel, or the water-dog, who have all, in proportion to their size, shorter, but broader muzzles, than the former.

           

            The greater or lesser perfection of the senses forms not, in man, an eminent or remarkable quality; but bestows on the other animals all their merit, and produces, as a cause, all the talents of which they are susceptible.  I mean not to enumerate all the qualities of hunting dogs.  The superiority they possess over other animals, by the excellence and acuteness of their sense of smelling, is well known.  But details of this kind are remotely connected with natural history.  Besides, the artifices and dexterity, though derived solely from nature, employed by wild animals to conceal themselves, or to avoid the pursuit of the dogs, are perhaps more worthy of admiration than the most refined methodical exhibitions derived from the art of hunting.

 

            The dog, like every other animal which produces above one or two at a time, is not perfectly formed immediately after birth.  Dogs are commonly brought forth blind.  The two eye-lids are not simply glued together, but shut up with a membrane, which is torn off as soon as the muscles of the upper eye-lid acquire strength sufficient to overcome this obstacle to vision, which generally happens about the tenth or [33] twelfth day.  At this period, the bones of the head are not completed, the body and muzzle are turgid, and the whole figure is ill defined.  But, in less than two months, they learn to use all their senses; their growth is rapid, and they soon acquire strength.  In the fourth month, they lose some of their teeth, which, as in other animals, are soon replaced, and never again fall out. The number of teeth is forty-two, namely, six cutting and two canine teeth in each jaw, and fourteen grinders in the upper and twelve in the under.  But the number of grinders is not uniform, being greater or less in particular dogs.  When very young, both males and females squat down a little to void their urine:  In the ninth or tenth month, they begin to raise the thigh, when they perform this operation; and, at the same period, they acquire the capacity of procreating.  The male is ready at all times; but the female receives him only at certain fixed seasons, which generally happens twice a-year, and more frequently in winter than in summer.  The ardour of the female continues ten, twelve, and sometimes fifteen days; and it is known by external signs, which appear some days before she admits the male:  The parts become moist and prominent; and this phaenomenon is always accompanied with a small flux of blood.  The male discovers the condition of the female by a peculiar smell; but she seldom receives him for the first six or seven [34] days.  One embrace is sometimes sufficient to make her conceive a great number of young; but, when not restrained, she will admit several dogs every day.  She seems to have no predilection, excepting in favour of the largest dogs, without regarding their figure or beauty.  Hence it frequently happens, that a small female, who has admitted a large male, dies in bringing forth her young.

 

            By a singularity in these animals, arising from the structure of their organs, they are incapable of separating, after consummation, but are obliged to remain united as long as the erection subsists.  The dog, like several other animals, has not only a bone in the penis, but, in the middle of the corpus cavernosum, there is a large hollow ring, which, in time of copulation, swells to a considerable size.  The female, on the other hand, has a larger clitoris than perhaps any other animal; besides, in the time of coition, a large firm protuberance arises, and remains, perhaps, longer than that of the male, and prevents him from retiring till it subsides; for, immediately after consummation, he changes his position, in order to repose on his four legs; his aspect is melancholy, and the efforts for separation never proceed from the female.

 

            The time of gestation is nine weeks, or 63 days, sometimes 62 or 61, but never less than 60.  The females produce six, seven, and sometimes even twelve puppies.  The largest and [35] tallest are more prolific than the smaller kinds, which often produce only four or five, and sometimes but one or two, especially at the first litters, which, in all animals, are always less numerous than the subsequent ones.

           

 

            Dogs, though extremely ardent in their amours, continute to propage during life, which is generally limited to fourteen or fifteen years, though some have been known to live to the age of twenty.  The duration of life in the dog, as in other animals, is proportioned to the time of his growth, which is not completed in less than two years, and he lives fourteen.  His age may be discovered by his teeth, which, when young, are white, sharp, and pointed:  But, as he increases in years, they become black, blunt, and unequal.  It may likewise be known by the h air, which turns grey on the muzzle, front, and round the eyes.

 

            These animals, which are naturally vigilant, active, and frolicksome, by being over-fed in our houses, become so heavy and slothful, that they pass their lives in sleeping and eating.  Their sleep, which is almost perpetual, is accompanied with dreams, which is perhaps a gentle mode of existing.  They are naturally voracious; and yet they can endure very long abstinence.  In the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences, we have the history of a bitch, that, having been forgot in a country-house, lived forty days, without any other nourishment than the wool of a ma- [36] tress, which she had torn to pieces.*  Water seems tobe more necessary to dogs than victuals; for they drink often and very plentifully:  It is even a vulgar opinion, that, when they want water too long, they become mad. It is also a peculiarity in dogs, that they make great efforts, and seem to suffer much pain, in voiding their excrement.  This happens not, as Aristotle alledges,+ because their intestines become narrower in approaching the anus.  On the contrary, it is certain, that, in the dog, as in other animals, the great intestines enlarge as they proceed downward, and that the rectum is larger than the colon.  The dry temperament of this animal, and not the strangulations of the colon, which are too distant from the rectum, is sufficient to produce this effect.

 

            To give a clear idea of the different kinds of dogs, of their degeneration in particular climates, and of the mixture of their races, I have subjoined a table, or genealogical tree, in which all these varieties may be easily distinguished.  This tree is drawn in the form of a geographical chart, preserving as much as possible the position of the different climates to which each variety naturally belongs.  The shepherd’s dog is the root of the tree.  This dog, when transported into Lapland, or other very cold climates, assumes an ugly appearance, and shrinks into a [37] smaller size.  But, in Russia, Iceland, and Siberia, where the climate is less rigorous, and the people a little more advanced in civilization, he seems to be better accomplished.  These changes are occasioned solely by the influence of those climates, which produce no great alteration in the figure of this dog; for, in each of these climates, his ears are erect, his hair thick and long, his aspect wild, and he barks less frequently, and in a different manner, than in more favourable climates, where he acquires a finer polish.  The Iceland dog is the only one that has not his ears entirely erect; for their extremities are a little inclined; and Iceland, of all the northern regions, has been longest inhabitants by half civilized men.

 

            The same shepherd’s dog, when brought into temperate climates, and among a people perfectly civilized, as Britain, France, Germany, would, by the mere influence of the climate, lose his savage aspect, his erect ears, his rude, thick, long hair, and assume the figure of a bull-dog, the hound, and the Irish grey-hound.  The bull-dog and Irish grey-hound have their ears still partly erect, and very much resemble, both in their manners and sanguinary temper, the dog from which they derive their origin.  The hound is farthest removed from the shepherd’s dog; for his ears are long and entirely pendulous.  The gentleness, docility, and even the timidity of the hound, are proofs of his great de- [38] generation, or rather of the great perfection he has acquired by the long and careful education bestowed on him by man.

 

            The hound, the harrier, and the terrier, constitute but one race; for, it has been remarked, that, in the same litter, hounds, harriers, and terriers, have been brought forth, though the female hound had been covered by only one of these three dogs.  I have joined the common harrier to the Dalmatian dog, or harrier of Bengal, because they differ only in having more or fewer spots on their coat.  I have also linked the turnspit, or terrier with crooked legs, with the common terrier; because the defect in the legs of the former has originally proceeded from a disease similar to rickets, with which some individuals had been affected, and transmitted the deformity to their descendants.

 

            The hound, when transported into Spain and Barbary, where all animals have fine, long, bushy hair, would be converted into the spaniel and water-dog.  The great and small spaniel, which differ only in size, when brought into Britain, have changed their white colour into black, and become, by the influence of climate, the great and little King Charles’s dog:  To these may be joined the Pyrame,* which is only a King Charles’s dog, black like the others, but marked with red on the four legs, and a spot of [39] the same colour above each eye, and on the muzzle.

 

            The Irish grey-hound, transported to the north, is become the great Danish dog; and, when carried to the south, was converted into the common grey-hound.  The largest grey-hounds come from the Levant, those of a smaller size from Italy; and those Italian grey-hounds, carried into Britain, have been still farther diminished.

 

            The great Danish dog, transported into Ireland, the Ukraine, Tartary;, Epirus, and Albania, has been changed into the Irish grey-hound, which is the largest of all dogs.

 

            The bull-dog, transported from Britain to Denmark, is become the little Danish dog; and the latter, brought into warm climates, has been converted into the Turkish dog.  All these races, with their varieties, have been produced from commixtures of those already described.  I have marked, in the table, by dotted lines, the double origin of these mongrels.

 

            The grey-hound, and Irish grey-hound, have produced the mongrel grey-hound, called also the grey-hound with wolf’s hair.  The muzzle of this mongrel is less pointed than that of the true grey-hound, which is very rare in France. [40] 

 

            The great Danish dog, and the large spaniel, have produced the Calabrian dog, which is a beautiful animal, with long bushy hair, and larger than the Irish grey-hound.

 

            The spaniel and terrier have produced the dog called Burgos.

 

            From the spaniel and little Danish dog, has proceeded the lion-dog, which is now very rare.

 

            The dogs with long, fine, crisped hair, called the Bousse dogs, and which are larger than the water-dog, proceed from the spaniel and water-dog.

 

            The little water-dog comes from the water-dog and small spaniel.

 

            From the bull-dog and Irish grey-hound, proceeds a mongrel called the mastiff, which is larger than the bull-dog, and resembles the latter more than the Irish grey-hound.

 

            The pug-dog proceeds from the bull-dog and small Danish dog.

 

            All these dogs are simple mongrels, and are produced by the commixture of two pure races.  But there are other dogs, called double mongrels, because they proceed from the junction of a pure race with a mongrel.

 

            The bastard pug-dog is a double mongrel from a mixture of the pug-dog with the little Danish dog.

 

            The Alicant dog is also a double mongrel, proceeding from the pug-dog and small spaniel. [41]  The Maltese, or lap-dog, is a double mongrel, produced between the small spaniel and little water-dog.

 

            Lastly, there are dogs which may be called triple mongrels, because they are produced by two mixed races.  Of this kind are the Arois and Islois dogs, which are produced by the pug-dog and the bastard pug-dog; to which may be added the dogs called street-dogs, which resemble no particular kind, because they proceed from races which have previously been several times mixed.

 

SUPPLEMENT

 

            M. de Mailly, of the academy of Dijon, well known by several ingenious performances, communicated to me a fact, which merits a place in the Natural history of the dog.  The following is an extract of his letter upon this subject, dated October 6. 1772. 

 

            “The curate of Norges, near Dijon, had a bitch, which, without either having ever been pregnant, or delivered of puppies, had all the symptoms which characterise [sic] these two states.  She came in season at the usual period; but never had any connections with a male.  When the common term of gestation was finished, her paps were distended with milk, [42] without being irritated by any particular treatment; for it is possible to bring milk into the dugs of animals by frequently chaffing them.  But, in this case, every thing was the effect of nature; and this bitch suckled some young puppies with which she was furnished, and for whom she discovered as much tenderness and attention, as if she had been their real mother.  All this I saw with my eyes.  But, what is still more singular, this same bitch, about three years ago, suckled two young cats, one of which participated so much of the nature of its nurse, that its cries had more resemblance to the barking of a dog, than to the mewing of a cat.”

 

            If the production of milk, without impregnation, were more frequent among quadrupeds, it would make them analogous to female birds, which lay eggs without the assistance of the male.

 

OF THE VARIETIES OF DOGS.

 

            A few years ago, at the fair of Saint Germain, there was a Siberian dog, which appeared to differ so much from that represented in Plate XXIX. as to merit a short description.  It was covered with long hair, hanging almost down to the ground.  At first sight, it resembled a large lion-dog; but its ears were erect, and much larger. [43] Its colour was all white, and its length, from the nose to the extremity of the body, was 21 inches and a half; and its height behind was 11 inchines nine lines, and 11 inches three lines before.  The eye was of a brown chesnut [sic] colour, and the end of the nose, as well as round the nostrils and mouth, were black.  The ears were bushy, of a whitish yellow within, and yellow on the edges and extremities.  The long hair of its head partly concealed the eyes, and fell down upon the nose.  Its toes and claws were also hid by the hair of its legs.  The tail, which turned up like that of the Pomeranian dog, was covered with hair about seven or eight inches long.  This is certainly the roughest furred of all dogs.

 

            Other dogs, brought to Paris by the Russians, which they called Siberian dogs, belonged to a very different race from the preceding.  Both male and female were about the size of an ordinary grey-hound.  The nose was sharp, the ears half erect, but bended a little in the middle.  They were not slender, like the grey-hound, but round and fell below the belly.  Their tail was about eight or nine inches in length, pretty thick, and obtuse at the extremity.  Their colour was black, without any mixture of white hairs; but the female had a grey tuft on the middle of the head, and the male a tuft of the same colour at the end of the tail.  They were troublesome with their caresses, and so voracious that they could never be satiated.  They were, [44] at the same time, insufferably dirty, and perpetually roaming about in quest of food.  Their legs were tolerably handsome; but their feet were large and broad, and their toes united by a membrane.  Their voice was very strong; they had no inclination to bite; they caressed every person indiscriminately; and their vivacity was inexpressible.*  From this description, it appears, that these pretended Siberian dogs, are of the same race with that I have called the Iceland dog, whose figure is engraven Plate XXX. which exhibits a number of the characters mentioned in the above delineation.

 

            “I have made some inquiry,” says Mr Colinson, “concerning the dogs of Siberia.  Those which draw sleds and carts are of a middle size:  Their nose is sharp, and their ears long and erect.  They carry their tail bended, some of them like the wolf, and others like the fox; and it is certain, that they copulate with wolves and foxes.  I see, from your experiments, that, when these animals are confined, they will not intermix; but, when at full liberty, they willingly come together.  With regard to the dog and wolf, I myself have seen them couple in England.  But I have never met with any person who saw dogs and foxes intermingle.  However, from a kind I saw produced from a bitch, which had lived at freedom in the woods, [45] I have no doubt that she had been impregnated by a fox.  The peasants know this species, and distinguish it by the name of the fox-dog.”

 

            Most of the Greenland dogs are white; but some of them are black, with very bushy hair.  They rather may be said to howl than bark; and they are stupid, and unfit for every species of hunting.  They serve, however, for dragging sleds, to which they are yoked by fours and sixes.  The Greenlanders eat the dog’s flesh, and make garments of his skin.*

 

            The dogs of Kamtschatka are rude, and half savage, like their masters.  They are commonly black or white, and more nimble and active than our dogs.  They are great eaters of fish, and are used for drawing sleds.  In summer, they have their liberty; but are collected together the month of October, for the purpose of drawing the sleds; and, during winter, they are with a kind of paste composed offish, which is allowed to fermet in a ditch, and given them half boiled.+

 

            From these facts, it appears that the Greenland and Kamtschatkan dogs, and perhaps those of other northern regions, have a greater resemblance to the Iceland dog, than to any of the other races; for the above description of the two Russian dogs, as well as the notices concerning those of Greenland and Kamtschatka, correspond [46] very well, and may be equally applied to our Iceland dog.

 

            Though we have described all the varieties which we could collect, there are still some which could not be procured.  For example, there is a race of wild dogs, of which I have seen two individuals, but had not an opportunity of either describing  or delineating them.  The ingenious and learned M. Aubry, curate of Saint Louis, has often furnished us with animals of which we had no knowledge.  He informs us, that, a few years ago, he saw a dog, nearly of the size of a spaniel, which had long hair, and a large beard on its chin.  This dog was produced from parents of the same race with those which had formerly been sent to Lowis XIV. [sic] by M. le Comte de Toulouse.  M. le Comte de Lassai had also some of these dogs; but I know not what has become of this singular race. 

 

            With regard to the wild dogs, among which tere are different races, as well as among the domestic kinds, I have little to add to what I have said in my original work.  M. le Vicomte de Querhoent has been so obliging as to communicate to me a note with regard to the wild dog found in the environms of the Cape of Good Hope.  He remarks, “That, at the Cape, there are numerous packs of wild dogs, as large as our largest kinds, whose skin is marked with various colours.  They have erect ears, run with great swiftness, and have no fixed residence. [47]  They destroy an incredible quantity of deer. They are seldom slain, and very difficult to take in snares; for they have an aversion to approach any thing that has been touched by man.  As their young are sometimes met with in the woods, attempts have been made to render them domestic; but they are so large, and so ferocious, that these attempts have always been abortive.”

 

Notes

 

* The dog has six cutting teeth and two canine in each jaw:  He has five toes on his fore feet, and four, and often five, on the hind feet.  His tail bends towards the left, a character common to the wole, and first observed by Linnaeus; Pennant. Synops. p. 141.

 

CHARACT. GEN.—Dentes primores superiors VI.  Laterals, longiores, distantes; intermedii lobati:  Inferiores VI.  Laterals, lobati.  Laniarii salitarii, incurvati.  Molares VI. F. VII. – CHARACT. SPEC.  Canis cauda sinistrorsum recurvata; Linn. Syst. 56.  Linneaus defines only the eleven varieties of the dog.

 

1.         Domesticus, aruciculs erectis, cauda subtus lanata; the shepherd’s dog.

2.         Sagax, auriculus penduylis, digito spurio ad tibias posticas; the hound.

3.         Graius, magnitudine lupi, trunco curvato, rostro attenuato; common grey-hound.

4.         Molossus, magnitudine lupi, labiis ad latera pendulis, corpore toroso; the mastiff.

5.         Aquaticus, pilo crispo, longo, instar ovis; the water-dog.

6.         Meliteus, maguitudine sciuri; the shock dog, or lap-dog.

7.         Fricator, naso resimo, auribus pendulis, corpore quadrate; the pug-dog?

8.         Vertagus, pedibus curvatis, trunco longo, saepius variegate; the tumbler.

9.         Avicularius, cauda truncate.

10.       Extrarius, auriculis longis, lanatis, pendulis.

11.       Egyptius, nudus absque pilis, the Turkish dog [back to page 1]

 

*  See below, article Deer [back to page 6]

 

* Hist des avanturiers Filbustiers, par Oexmelin, tom. I. p. 112 [back to page 13].

 

+  Hist. gen. de. Voyages, par l’Abbe Prevost, tom. I. p. 86 [back to page 13].

 

* Nouv. Voyages aux isles de l’Amerique, tom. 5. p. 195 [back to page 14].

 

+ Voyage du pays des Hurons, par Sabard Theodat, p. 310 [back to page 14].

 

3. Hist. gen. des Antilles, par le P. du Tertre, tom. 2. p. 306 [back to page 14; for this and the subsequent notes I’ve used numbers rather than the icons that Smellie employed, largely because I haven’t figured out how to duplicate them on my PC yet].

 

4. Hist des Incas, tom. 1. p. 265.  Wafer’s voyage subjoined to those of Dampier, vol. 4. p. 223 [back to page 14].

 

5. Nouveaux voyages aux isles de l’Amerique, tom. 5. p. 195 [back to page 14].

 

* Voyage de la Martiniere, p. 75.  Il Genio vagante, vol. 2. p. 13 [back to page 15].

 

+ See plate XXIX [back to page 15].

 

3.  See plate XXX [back to page 15; for this and the subsequent notes I’ve used numbers rather than the icons that Smellie employed, largely because I haven’t figured out how to duplicate them on my PC yet].

 

4.  Description du Cap. Par Kolbe, part. I. p. 304 [back to page 15].

 

5.  Voyage de Flacourt, p. 152 [back to page 15].

 

6.  Voyage d’Innigo de Biervilas, p. 178 [back to page 15].

 

* Voyage de Francis Pyrard, tom I. p. 426 [back to page 16].

 

+ Voyage de Jean Ovington, tom. I. p. 276 [back to page 16].

 

3. Hist. gen. des voyages, par M, l’Abbe Prevost, tom. 4. p. 229 [back to page 16].

 

* Il Geniko vagante, vol. 2. p. 13 [back to page 18].

 

+  See vol. 34. art. Varieties of the human species [back to page 18].

 

3.  Indiam petenti Alexandro mango, Rex Albaniae dono dederat inusitatae magnitudinis unum, cujus specie delectatus, jussit urios, mox apros, et deinde damas emitti, contemptu immobili jacente eo; qua segnitie tanti corporis offenses Imperator generosi spiritus, eum interimi jussit.  Nunciavit hoc fama regi; itaque alterum mittens, addidit mandata ne in parvis experiri vellet, sed in leone, elephantove; duos sibi fuisse hoc interempto, pretterea nullum fore.  Nec distulit Alexander, leonemque fractum protinus vidit.  Postea elephantum jussit induci, haud alio magis spectaculo laetatus.  Horrentibus quipped per totum corpus villis, ingenti primum latratu intonuit, moxque increvit assultans, contraque belluam exsurgens hinc et illinc artifice dimicatione, qua inaxime opus esset, insestans atque evitans, donec assidua rotatam vertigine assixit, ad casum ejus tellure concussa.  Plin. hist. natur. Lib. VIII [back to page 18].

 

* See plate XXV [back to page 19].

 

+ See plate XXV [back to page 19].

 

3. See plate XXIV [back to page 19].

 

4. See plate XXVI [back to page 19].

 

* See plate XXVII [back to page 20].

 

+ Plate XXVIII [back to page 20].

 

3. Plate XXIX [back to page 20].

 

4. Plate XXXI [back to page 20].

 

5. Plate XXXII [back to page 20].

 

6. Plate XXXIV [back to page 20].

 

7. Plate XXXVI [back to page 20].

 

8. Plate XXXVII [back to page 20].

 

* Dalmatia, I have been informed, says Mr Pennant, is the country of this elegant dog.  As for those of India, they are generally small, and very ugly, or, if the European dogs are brought there, they immediately degenerate.  Synops. of quad. p. 145 [back to page 21].

 

+ Aldrovand. Quad. digit. lib. 3. p. 552 [back to page 21].

 

3.  See plate XLII [back to page 21].

 

* See Plate XXV [back to page 22].

 

+ Plate XLI [back to page 22].

 

3. Plate XXX [back to page 22].

 

4. Hist. gen. des Voyages, par. M. l’Abbe Prevost, tom. 4. p. 229 [back to page 22].

 

* Voyage de la Boullaye le Gouz, p. 257.; Voyages de Jean Ovington, tom. I. p. 276.; Histoire universelle des voyages, par du Perrier de Montfrasier, p. 244. et suivantes; Vie de Christophe Colomb. Part. I. p. 106; Voyage de Bosman en Guinee, &c. p. 240; Histoire generale des voyages, par M. l’Abbe Prevost, tom. IV. P. 229 [back to page 23].

 

* Voyage au pays des Hurons, par le P. Sabard Theodat, p. 311 [back to page 24].

*  Canis cauda sinistrorsum recurvata, the dog.  Canis cauda incurvata, the wolf.  Canis cauda recta, apice albo, the fox.  Linn. Sys. p. 59 [back to page 27].

 

+  Here the ingenious author seems to have made his conclusion from these experiments too general.  For Mr Pennant, in his Synopsis of Quadrupeds, p. 144 records a recent instance of a fertile intercourse between a wolf and a bitch:  His words are: “Mr Brook, animal-merchant in Holborn, turned a wolf to a Pomeranian bitch in heat.  The congress was immediate, and as usual between dog and bitch:  She produced ten puppies.  I have seen one of them that had very much the resemblance of the wolf, and much of its nature:  Being slipped at a weak deer, it instantly caught at the animal’s throat, and killed it.” – It is to be regretted, that Mr Pennant gives no information as to the fertility or sterility of these mules [Smellie’s note, back to page 28].

 

* Voyages de Gemelli Carreri, tom. I. p. 419.

 

+ Chardin, p. 76.

 

3.  Voyage de Dumont, tom. 4. p. 28 [back to page 28]

 

4.  Chardin, tom. 2. p. 29. 

 

5.  Voyage d’Innigo de Biervillas, part. I. p. 178.

 

6.  Voyage de Bosman, p. 241, 331.  Voyage du P. Zuchel, p. 293.

 

7.  Arist. De generat. Animal. lib. 2. cap. 5. [back to page 28].

 

+ Idem, hist. animal. lib. 8. cap. 28 [the printer for this volume used the “+” sign for the first – and only – note on this page rather than the asterisk; back to page 29].

 

* Hist de l’Acad. des. sciences, annee 1706, p. 5 [back to page 37].

 

+ Arist. De partibus animal. lib. ult [back to page 37].

 

* This dog, though very common in Britain, has no English name [Smellie’s note; back to page 39].

 

* Extracted from a letter of m. Pasumot of the academy of Dijon, to M. de Buffon, dated March 2. 1775 [back to page 45].

 

*  Hist. des voyages, tom. 19. p. 39 [back to page 46].

 

+ Ibid. p. 39 [back to page 46].