The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication — Volume 1. Darwin Charles
Gardens of London a female hybrid from an English dog and jackal, which even in this the first generation was so sterile that, as I was assured by her keeper, she did not fully exhibit her proper periods; but this case was certainly exceptional, as numerous instances have occurred of fertile hybrids from these two animals. In almost all experiments on the crossing of animals there are so many causes of doubt, that it is extremely difficult to come to any positive conclusion. It would, however, appear, that those who believe that our dogs are descended from several species will have not only to admit that their offspring after a long course of domestication generally lose all tendency to sterility when crossed together; but that between certain breeds of dogs and some of their supposed aboriginal parents a certain degree of sterility has been retained or possibly even acquired.
Notwithstanding the difficulties in regard to fertility given in the last two paragraphs, when we reflect on the inherent improbability of man having domesticated throughout the world one single species alone of so widely distributed, so easily tamed, and so useful a group as the Canidae; when we reflect on the extreme antiquity of the different breeds; and especially when we reflect on the close similarity, both in external structure and habits, between the domestic dogs of various countries and the wild species still inhabiting these same countries, the balance of evidence is strongly in favour of the multiple origin of our dogs.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SEVERAL BREEDS OF THE DOG.
If the several breeds have descended from several wild stocks, their difference can obviously in part be explained by that of their parent species. For instance, the form of the greyhound may be partly accounted for by descent from some such animal as the slim Abyssinian Canis simensis (1/52. Ruppel 'Neue Wirbelthiere von Abyssinien' 1835-40 'Mammif.' s. 39 pl. 14. There is a specimen of this fine animal in the British Museum.), with its elongated muzzle; that of the larger dogs from the larger wolves, and the smaller and slighter dogs from the jackals: and thus perhaps we may account for certain constitutional and climatal differences. But it would be a great error to suppose that there has not been in addition (1/53. Even Pallas admits this; see 'Act. Acad. St. Petersburgh' 1780 page 93.) a large amount of variation. The intercrossing of the several aboriginal wild stocks, and of the subsequently formed races, has probably increased the total number of breeds, and, as we shall presently see, has greatly modified some of them. But we cannot explain by crossing the origin of such extreme forms as thoroughbred greyhounds, bloodhounds, bulldogs, Blenheim spaniels, terriers, pugs, etc., unless we believe that forms equally or more strongly characterised in these different respects once existed in nature. But hardly any one has been bold enough to suppose that such unnatural forms ever did or could exist in a wild state. When compared with all known members of the family of Canidae they betray a distinct and abnormal origin. No instance is on record of such dogs as bloodhounds, spaniels, true greyhounds having been kept by savages: they are the product of long-continued civilisation.
[The number of breeds and sub-breeds of the dog is great; Youatt for instance, describes twelve kinds of greyhounds. I will not attempt to enumerate or describe the varieties, for we cannot discriminate how much of their difference is due to variation, and how much to descent from different aboriginal stocks. But it may be worth while briefly to mention some points. Commencing with the skull, Cuvier has admitted (1/54. Quoted by I. Geoffroy 'Hist. Nat. Gen.' tome 3 page 453.) that in form the differences are "plus fortes que celles d'aucunes especes sauvages d'un meme genre naturel." The proportions of the different bones; the curvature of the lower jaw, the position of the condyles with respect to the plane of the teeth (on which F. Cuvier founded his classification), and in mastiffs the shape of its posterior branch; the shape of the zygomatic arch, and of the temporal fossae; the position of the occiput — all vary considerably. (1/55. F. Cuvier in 'Annales du Museum' tome 18 page 337; Godron 'De l'Espece' tome 1 page 342; and Col. H. Smith in 'Nat. Library' volume 9 page 101. See also some observations on the degeneracy of the skull in certain breeds, by Prof. Bianconi 'La Theorie Darwinienne' 1874 page 279.) The difference in size between the brains of dogs belonging to large and small breeds "is something prodigious." "Some dogs' brains are high and rounded, while others are low, long, and narrow in front." In the latter, "the olfactory lobes are visible for about half their extent, when the brain is seen from above, but they are wholly concealed by the hemispheres in other breeds." (1/56. Dr. Burt Wilder 'American Assoc. Advancement of Science' 1873 pages 236, 239.) The dog has properly six pairs of molar teeth in the upper jaw, and seven in the lower; but several naturalists have seen not rarely an additional pair in the upper jaw (1/57. Isid. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 'Hist. des Anomalies' 1832 tome 1 page 660, Gervais 'Hist. Nat. des Mammiferes' tome 2 1855 page 66. De Blainville ('Osteographie, Canidae' page 137) has also seen an extra molar on both sides.); and Professor Gervais says that there are dogs "qui ont sept paires de dents superieures et huit inferieures." De Blainville (1/58. 'Osteographie, Canidae' page 137.) has given full particulars on the frequency of these deviations in the number of the teeth, and has shown that it is not always the same tooth which is supernumerary. In short- muzzled races, according to H. Muller (1/59. Wurzburger 'Medecin. Zeitschrift' 1860 b. 1 s. 265.), the molar teeth stand obliquely, whilst in long-muzzled races they are placed longitudinally, with open spaces between them. The naked, so-called Egyptian or Turkish dog is extremely deficient in its teeth (1/60. Mr. Yarrell in 'Proc. Zoological Soc.' October 8, 1833. Mr. Waterhouse showed me a skull of one of these dogs, which had only a single molar on each side and some imperfect incisors.), — sometimes having none except one molar on each side; but this, though characteristic of the breed, must be considered as a monstrosity. M. Girard (1/61. Quoted in 'The Veterinary' London volume 8 page 415.), who seems to have attended closely to the subject, says that the period of the appearance of the permanent teeth differs in different dogs, being earlier in large dogs; thus the mastiff assumes its adult teeth in four or five months, whilst in the spaniel the period is sometimes more than seven or eight months. On the other hand small dogs are mature, and the females have arrived at the best age for breeding, when one year old, whereas large dogs "are still in their puppyhood at this time, and take fully twice as long to develop their proportions." (1/62. This is quoted from Stonehenge, a great authority, 'The Dog' 1867 page 187.)
With respect to minor differences little need be said. Isidore Geoffroy has shown (1/63. 'Hist. Nat. General' tome 3 page 448.) that in size some dogs are six times as long (the tail being excluded) as others; and that the height relatively to the length of the body varies from between one to two, and one to nearly four. In the Scotch deer-hound there is a striking and remarkable difference in the size of the male and female. (1/64. W. Scrope 'Art of Deer-Stalking' page 354.) Every one knows how the ears vary in size in different breeds, and with their great development their muscles become atrophied. Certain breeds of dogs are described as having a deep furrow between the nostrils and lips. The caudal vertebrae, according to F. Cuvier, on whose authority the two last statements rest, vary in number; and the tail in English cattle and some shepherd dogs is almost absent. The mammae vary from seven to ten in number; Daubenton, having examined twenty- one dogs, found eight with five mammae on each side; eight with four on each side; and the others with an unequal number on the two sides. (1/65. Quoted by Col. Ham. Smith in 'Nat. Lib.' volume 10 page 79.) Dogs have properly five toes in front and four behind, but a fifth toe is often added; and F. Cuvier states that, when a fifth toe is present, a fourth cuneiform bone is developed; and, in this case, sometimes the great cuneiform bone is raised, and gives on its inner side a large articular surface to the astragalus; so that even the relative connection of the bones, the most constant of all characters, varies. These modifications, however, in the feet of dogs are not important, because they ought to be ranked, as De Blainville has shown (1/66. De Blainville 'Osteographie, Canidae' page 134. F. Cuvier 'Annales du Museum' tome 18 page 342. In regard to mastiffs, see Col. H. Smith 'Nat. Lib.' volume 10 page 218. For the Thibet mastiff, see Mr. Hodgson in 'Journal of As. Soc. of Bengal' volume 1 1832 page 342.) as monstrosities. Nevertheless they are interesting from being correlated with the size of the body, for they occur much more frequently with mastiffs and other large breeds than with small dogs. Closely allied varieties, however, sometimes differ in this respect; thus Mr. Hodgson states that the black-and-tan Lassa variety of the Thibet mastiff has the fifth digit, whilst the Mustang sub-variety is not thus characterised. The extent to which the skin is developed between the toes varies much; but we shall return to this point. The degree to which the various breeds differ in the perfection of their senses, dispositions, and