mistake, for the prairie-wolf, and supposed that I knew it well; hut, after the frequent
mistakes I made, I became very cautious about shooting them, lest I should kill more
dogs. They were the common dogs of the Ojibeway, Pottawatomie and Ottawa tribes.”
The North American or common Indian Dog (0. familiaris Canadensis).
“ By the above title,” says Richardson, “ I wish to designate the kind of dogs which
is most generally cultivated by the native tribes of Canada and the Hudson Bay countries.
It is intermediate, in size and form, between the two preceding varieties; and
by those who consider the domestic races of dogs to be derived from wild animals, this
may be termed a cross between the prairie and gray wolves.”
In the Appendix to Capt. Back’s Narrative, Dr. Richardson subsequently observes,
that “ the offspring of the Wolf and the Indian dog are prolific, and are prized by the
voyagers as beasts of draught, being much stronger than the ordinary dog.” 413 “ This
fact is corroborated,” writes Morton, “ by my friend Dr. John Evans, who has recently
passed some time in the Mandan country, where the dogs, however, appear to be derived
from the prairie wolf; and he assures me, that frequent and spontaneous mter-
course between these dogs and the wolf of that country (which is now almost exclusively
the canis accidentalis, or common gray wolf,) is a fact known to every one.”
Again, the canis Mexicanus, or “ Tichichi’Vof the Mexicans, by Humboldt said to be
very much like this dog of the northern Indians, is also supposed to derive its parentage
from a wolf.
The intermixture of these two species was indeed manifest to the acute perceptions
of Richardson himself, who remarks, that it “ seems to support the opinion of Buffon,
lately advocated by Desmoulins, that the dog, the wolf, the jackal, and corsac, are, in
fact, but modifications of the same species; or, that the races of domestic dogs ought
to be referred, each in its proper country, to a corresponding indigenous wild species ;
and that the species thus domesticated have, in the course of their migrations in the
train of man, produced by their various Crosse'S with each other, with their offspring,
and with their prototypes, a still further increase of different races, of which about
fifty or sixty are at present cultivated.”
Such doctrines accord with that adopted by Morton, who concludes his notice of
wolf-dogs as follows: — “ The natural, and to me very unavoidable, conclusion, is
simply this, that two species of wolves (acknowledged to be distinct from each other
by all zoologists) have each been trained iilto a domestic dog; that these dogs have reproduced
not only with each other, but with the parent stocks, and even with the European
dog, until a widely-extended hybrid race has arisen, in which it is often impossible
to tell a wolf from a dog, or the dogs from each other.”
We extract entire Morton’s observations concerning
Aboriginal American Dogs, from vulpine and other sources.
“ Besides the two indigenous wolf-dogs of the North, of which we have spoken (the
Hare-Indian and Esquimaux races), and the third or mixed species (the common Indian
dog), the continent of America possesses a number of other aboriginal forms, which
terminate only in the inter-tropical regions of South America. One of these was observed
by Columbus, on landing in the Antilles, a. d . 1492. ‘These,’ says Buffon,
I had the head and ears very long, and resembled a fox in appearance.’ They are called
Aguara dogs in Mexico, and Alcos in Peru.
“ ‘ There are many species,’ adds Buffon, ‘ which the natives of Guiana have called
dogs of the woods (chiens des bois), because they are not yet reduced, like our dogs, to a
state of domestication; and they are thus rightly named, because they breed together'with
domestic races.’
“ The wild Aguaras, I believe, are classed, by most naturalists, with the fox-tribe ;
but Hamilton Smith has embraced them in a generic group, called dasicgon, to which
he and Martin refer four species. The latter zoologist sums up a series of critical
inquiries with the following remarks: — ‘ It is almost incontestably proved, that the
aboriginal Aguara taine dogs, and others of the American continent, which, on the discovery
of its different regions, were in subjection to the savage or semi-civilized nations,
were not only indigenous, but are the descendants of several wild Aguara dogs, existing
cotemporary with themselves, in the woods or plains; and granting that a European
race-[as is the case since] had by some chance contributed to their production,
the case is not altered, but the theory of the blending of species confirmed.’ ” 414
Dr. Tchudi, one of the most distinguished zoologists of the present day, has paid
especial attention to the character and history of two domesticated dogs of South
America, which he regards as distinct species: —
1. Canis Ingx (.Perro-dog, or Alco).
The dog to which Tchudi gives this name is the same that the Peruvians possessed
and worshipped before the arrival of the Spaniards, and is found in the tumuli of those
people Qf the oldest epoch. It is so inferior, however, to the exotic breeds, that it is
rapidly giving way to them, and an unmixed individual is now seldom seen; and they
present “ the undetermined form of the mixture of all the breeds that-have been imported
from Europe, and thus assume the shape of cur-dogs, or of a primitive
speeies.” 415
We have already seen that the Aguara, or foz-dogs, of North America mingle freely
with the indigenous dogs of this continent. The following ffacts are equally curious
and valuable: -
2. Canis Caribceus. -
Desmarest has given this name to the hairless dog, which, as Humboldt remarks,
was found by Columbus in the Antilles, by Cortes in Mexico, and by Pizarro in Peru.
Desmarest, if we mistake not, supposes, this dog to be descended from the c. cancrivo-
rus, a native species, which, according to Blainville, belongs to the section of true
wolves. But Rengger, who had ample opportunities of deciding this question, regards
it as an aboriginal wild dog, which the Indians have reduced to domestication; and he
adds, in explanation, that it does not readily mix with the European species, and that
the Indian tribes have, in their respective languages, a particular name for it, but
none for any domestic animal of exotic derivation.41®
This animal much resembles the Barbary dog (canis ¿Egypiiacus); but there is no
ground but resemblance for supposing them to be of common origin.
Here then, once more, we may recognize two aboriginal dogs — one seemingly derived
from the fox-tribe, or at least from fox-like wild dogs; the other, from an
unknown source: yet both unite more or less readily with the exotic stocks, producing
a hybrid race, partly peculiar in appearance, and partly resembling the mongrel races
of Europe.
The Rev. Mr. Daniel states that Mr. Tattersall “ had a terrier bitch which bred by
a fox, and the produce again had whelps by dogs. The woodman of the manor of
Mongewell, in Oxfordshire, had a bitch, his constant attendant, the offspring of a tame
dog-fox by a shepherd’s cur, and she again had puppies by a dog. These are such
authentic proofs of the continuance of the breed, that the fox may be fairly added to
the other supposed original stocks of these faithful domestics.” 417
Dr. Morton states that his friend Dr. Woodhouse, who had been much in Texas and
on the frontier, had proven, by a comparison of skulls, skins, &c., that “ the Cayotte,
or jackal, of Texas and Mexico is a perfectly distinct species, to which Dr. W. gives
the name of canis pustor.” They breed readily with European and Indian dogs — this
fact is notorious.
The jackal coupled with the domestic dog, produces also a fertile offspring; yet
they must be conceded to be a distinct species. Hunter records an example where the
hybrid produced six pups; and one of these again brought five pups when lined by a