shall introduce here one specimen (Fig. 250) of a group of four Egyptian -wolves,
figured by Lepsius, from tombs of the IVth dynasty (about 3400 years n. c.). These
Nilotic animals, which are different in species from European, are repeatedly seen
on sculptures of every epoch, sometimes chased by dogs, at other times caught in
traps; in short, accompanied by so many corroborating circumstances as to leave no
doubt that they were nothing but wild wolves. They are often depicted on the same
monuments with dogs, ever perfectly contrasted.
Bull-dogs (C. Molossus.)
The term molossus has been rather vaguely applied by writers; but the type of the
bulBdog is well understood. It is skilfully portrayed on a piece of antique Greek
sculpture in the Vatican. M. de Blainville (in his OstSographie, Canis, p. 74), states
that the form and expression of the head are perfectly characteristic, even to the
peculiar arrangement of the teeth. This species, too, is yet the common dog of
Albania.
Mastiff (0. Laniarius).
We have nowhere yet met with this dog on the monuments of the Nile, although it
must have been known to the Egyptians, through their constant intercourse with Assyria,
in early times. The magnificent original of the sketch here given (Fig. 251)
was taken from the Birs Nim-
roud, or Babylon, age of Nebuchadnezzar,
«0 and would do
honor to a prince of the present
day. (His duplicate, we might
almost say, is still alive; and
belongs to my excellent friend
Mrs. Jenkins, at Richmond, Va.
— G. R. G.J
Alexander, in his march to the
Indus, received presents of dogs
of gigantic stature, which were
no doubt of the same family as
the Thibetan mastiffs. To these
dogs Aristotle applied the name
of leontomyx; and they are figured
on two ancient Greek medals—
one of which, that of Se-
gestus of Sicily, dates in the
Fig. 251.439
fourth or fifth century b. c . ; the other, which is of Aquileia Severa, Dictator of Crete
is about two centuries later.«1
Shepherd’s Dog (Q. Domesticus).
This dog, being (if a Scotch or English “ shepherd-dog ” be meant) altogether alien
to the Nile at this day, is not figured on Egyptian monuments; but is doubtless very
ancient in Europe. The earliest effigy, also mentioned by Aristotle, is preserved on
an ancient Etruscan medal of unknown date, but probably aS old as our Ninevite
mastiff.
These remarks on the different species of dogs, faithfully delineated
upon ancient monuments, might he very easily extended; hut I have
set forth enough to establish that the natural history, of dogs and the
natural history of mankind stand precisely in the same position. . In
whatever direction an inquirer may turn — wherever written history,
monuments, analogies, or organic remains, exist to direct us — in
every zoological province upon earth, I repeat, a specifically diverse
fauna is encountered, in which distinct species, as well of mankind
as of dogs, constitute a part.
The earliest monuments yet published by Lepsius are those of the
IVth dynasty; and from these we here already have borrowed the
“ hieroglyphic” orfox-dog, the prick-eared grey-hound, the blood-hound,
the turnspit, with other species ; together with the wolf, the hyena,
and the jackal. The Egyptian fox has not fallen under our eye at
this early epoch, although it is seen on later monuments. Notwithstanding
that the monuments of the earliest times do not exhibit every
form of dogs that existed at the subsequent .XI 1th dynasty, their
absence is no argument why these multifarious species did not exist
from the very beginning; and while all the canine forms just mentioned
must ascend even beyond the date of M e n e s , (which Lepsius
places at the year 3893 b . c.,) science can perceive no reason to
doubt that other unrecorded varieties of canidse are quite as ancient
as those of which fortuitous accident has preserved the pictorial
register down to this day. ,
Concerning fossil dogs, the terrestrial vitality of which antedates
Egyptian monuments by chiliads of years, Dr. Usher’s enumeration
{supra, Chap. XI.) of the numerous varieties discovered in geological
formations, all over the world, precludes the necessity for saying
more now, than that certain forms of true canidse are primordial
organic types; and, hence, utterly independent of alterations produced,
in later times, by domestication.
Logical criticism will allow that, if specific differences among dogs
were the result of climate, all the dogs of each separate country
should he alike. Such, notoriously, is not the case; for the reader
has just beheld several species of dogs, depicted (at various epochs,
during 4000 years of coeval existence) on the monuments; which
species are not only now seen in Egypt alive, hut are permanent, always
and everywhere, in other countries of climates the most opposite.
Indeed, “ like begets like,” to use dog-fancy terms; and a terrier
is a terrier, and a dingo a dingo, all the world over, else language has
no meaning; and wherever climatic action may be hostile to the
permanency of either type, it does not transform the one into the
other, nor into any species diverse from each: it kills them both outright,
or their pffspring within a. generation or two. Thus, Newfoundlands
perish within very limited periods after transplantation
from American snows to African suns. Their short-lived whelps are
as likely to become kittens as to be changed, by climate, into bull-
pups. An interesting exception, nevertheless, should be observed:
50