Dogs and All About Them | Page 3

the members of the household to
which he had belonged carefully shaved their whole bodies, and
religiously abstained from using the food, of whatever kind, which
happened to be in the house at the time. Among the distinct breeds kept
in Egypt there was a massive wolf-dog, a large, heavily-built hound
with drooping ears and a pointed head, at least two varieties of
Greyhound used for hunting the gazelle, and a small breed of terrier or
Turnspit, with short, crooked legs. This last appears to have been
regarded as an especial household pet, for it was admitted into the
living rooms and taken as a companion for walks out of doors. It was
furnished with a collar of leaves, or of leather, or precious metal
wrought into the form of leaves, and when it died it was embalmed.
Every town throughout Egypt had its place of interment for canine
mummies.
The dog was not greatly appreciated in Palestine, and in both the Old
and New Testaments it is commonly spoken of with scorn and
contempt as an "unclean beast." Even the familiar reference to the
Sheepdog in the Book of Job--"_But now they that are younger than I
have me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained to set with
the dogs of my flock_"--is not without a suggestion of contempt, and it
is significant that the only biblical allusion to the dog as a recognised
companion of man occurs in the apocryphal Book of Tobit (v. 16),
"_So they went forth both, and the young man's dog with them_."
The pagan Greeks and Romans had a kindlier feeling for dumb animals
than had the Jews. Their hounds, like their horses, were selected with
discrimination, bred with care, and held in high esteem, receiving pet
names; and the literatures of Greece and Rome contain many tributes to
the courage, obedience, sagacity, and affectionate fidelity of the dog.
The Phoenicians, too, were unquestionably lovers of the dog, quick to
recognise the points of special breeds. In their colony in Carthage,
during the reign of Sardanapalus, they had already possessed
themselves of the Assyrian Mastiff, which they probably exported to
far-off Britain, as they are said to have exported the Water Spaniel to

Ireland and to Spain.
It is a significant circumstance when we come to consider the probable
origin of the dog, that there are indications of his domestication at such
early periods by so many peoples in different parts of the world. As we
have seen, dogs were more or less subjugated and tamed by primitive
man, by the Assyrians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks, and Romans,
as also by the ancient barbaric tribes of the western hemisphere. The
important question now arises: Had all these dogs a common origin in a
definite parent stock, or did they spring from separate and unrelated
parents?
Half a century ago it was believed that all the evidence which could be
brought to bear upon the problem pointed to an independent origin of
the dog. Youatt, writing in 1845, argued that "this power of tracing
back the dog to the very earliest periods of history, and the fact that he
then seemed to be as sagacious, as faithful, and as valuable as at the
present day, strongly favours the opinion that he was descended from
no inferior and comparatively worthless animal; and that he was not the
progeny of the wolf, the jackal, or the fox, but was originally created,
somewhat as we now find him, the associate and friend of man."
When Youatt wrote, most people believed that the world was only six
thousand years old, and that species were originally created and
absolutely unchangeable. Lyell's discoveries in geology, however,
overthrew the argument of the earth's chronology and of the antiquity
of man, and Darwin's theory of evolution entirely transformed the
accepted beliefs concerning the origin of species and the supposed
invariability of animal types.
The general superficial resemblance between the fox and many of our
dogs, might well excuse the belief in a relationship. Gamekeepers are
often very positive that a cross can be obtained between a dog fox and a
terrier bitch; but cases in which this connection is alleged must be
accepted with extreme caution. The late Mr. A. D. Bartlett, who was for
years the superintendent of the Zoological Gardens in London, studied
this question with minute care, and as a result of experiments and
observations he positively affirmed that he had never met with one

well-authenticated instance of a hybrid dog and fox. Mr. Bartlett's
conclusions are incontestable. However much in appearance the
supposed dog-fox may resemble the fox, there are certain opposing
characteristics and structural differences which entirely dismiss the
theory of relationship.
One thing is certain, that foxes do not breed in confinement, except in
very rare instances.