There are breeds of wild Dogs still to be found, from among which individuals have been tamed and domesticated; but there has never been a case in which a wild Dog has been found to possess or been made to acquire the moral attributes of the domestic breed; as courage, attachment, fidelity, temper; and a Dog so bred is always marked by a peculiar appearance and manner, which are altogether different from those of a domestic Dog.

Again, domestic breeds of Dogs have been crossed with wild breeds, but there never has resulted from such crosses an animal that has been equal to the domestic breed, and the progeny has always partaken more of the wild Dog than of the tame. Animals and vegetables, when they are removed from a state of nature, become changed, as is the case with plants, by cultivation.

So Bees, if they are carried into climates where they can collect honey at all seasons, and where the temperature also is always high, will cease to accumulate honey in their hives; and domesticated animals and birds lose some of their wild habits and instincts, as well as some of their physical powers, in part or altogether.

In like manner plants that have been changed by cultivation, when they are placed again in a state of nature, resume those attributes that were changed or lost while they continued in a state of cultivation.

Tame bred horses under similar circumstances

become wild Horses; birds return to their original state, but go no further; they never degenerate from that state or lose their species; they never undergo a structural change. Therefore we are forbidden to suppose that domestic Dogs of any kind by returning to a state of nature, though they continued for ever to breed in that state, would undergo a structural change, or acquire the peculiar appearance and manners that belong to any of the existing breeds of wild Dogs, or lose their affection and attachment to man, their courage, fidelity, and temper: still less, that they would undergo so great a structural change as to acquire, like Wolves, oblique eyes; and become unable to bend the back in any direction as they did before.

Moreover, there are in many parts of the world cases were Dogs live in the neighbourhood of man without belonging to individual men; they live banded together in companies, and as they can, in cities and populous places; and breed in that state and become very numerous. But we never hear of such Dogs leaving the places where they so live, and the neighbourhood of man, and overrunning the adjacent country in packs, like Wolves.

Such Dogs also live upon offal food, and are often famished and even starved to death, but they never, in their hunger, attack the larger animals, and still less men, in packs or companies, as Wolves are known to do.

Therefore from the shewing of all these facts, we

ORIGIN OF DOMESTIC DOGS.

139

are obliged to conclude that none of the breeds of domestic Dogs are the same as those of any existing breed of wild Dogs, and that they never had any thing to do with Wolves.

Buffon makes all domestic Dogs to originate from the Sheep-dog, but for a reason at which he arrived by a false process of arguing, viz.: because a Sheep-dog is superior in sagacity. For it can no more be affirmed that any existing Sheep-dog exhibits the character of the original animal, than that the now existing Sheepdog is the same in all countries; and therefore there are no existing data of that kind, from which he could have argued. And it cannot be conceded that several other species of domestic Dog are not fully as sagacious as the most sagacious Sheep-dog; while it would be begging the question to affirm, that their sagacity is so great because it is so derived. And the similarity, besides, of the different breeds of domestic Dog, is not nearly so remarkable as that of the Tetraos, or, in fact, of any other genus of birds; and, therefore, we have far less reason to suppose that the different breeds of domestic Dogs originated in one species of Dog, than that the different species of any genus of birds originated in one species of that genus; as the Partridge from a Black-cock; or a Cock of the Wood from a Grouse.

There is still, however, great reason to suppose, that tamed Dogs of whatever species, which were first employed for any useful purpose, were employed as Sheep

or Shepherd's Dogs; because we are taught by history to conclude, that men were Shepherds before they were Hunters, and because the great use of a Dog in the operations of a Shepherd is suggested by his sagacity and obedience, and the instinctive fear of him which has been implanted in Sheep; a fear that never diminishes by experience, but operates equally upon Sheep of all ages.

The terror of Sheep at the bark of a Dog is so great, that when they have learned to associate it with a loud whistle, as they do when they have travelled in a drove, .they will be terrified as much by the sound of a loud whistle, as by the loudest barking of a Dog; and run together when they are driven by a man who whistles like a drover, in the same way as when they are collected by a Dog.

There is finally, therefore, as little reason to suppose that all domestic Dogs originated from the same species, as that they originated from any existing species of wild Dog, or from Wolves.

Few facts and circumstances in natural history are more pleasing, than those which illustrate the attachment that animals shew to each other, or to those of the human race who are kind to them.

Every sportsman knows that the common Woodpigeon (the Ring Dove) is one of the shyest birds we have; and so wild, that it is very difficult indeed to get within shot of it. This wild bird, however, has been

ANECDOTE OF A WOOD-PIGEON.

141

known to lay aside its usual habits. In the spring of 1839, some village boys brought two young Woodpigeons taken from the nest to the parsonage house of a Clergyman in Gloucestershire, from whom I received the following anecdote. "They were bought from the boys merely to save their lives, and sent to an old woman near the parsonage to be bred up. She took great care of them, feeding them with peas, of which they are very fond. One of them died, but the other grew up, and was a fine bird. Its wings had not been cut; and as soon as it could fly, it was set at liberty. Such, however, was its recollection of the kindness it had received, that it would never quite leave the place. It would fly to great distances, and even associate with others of its own kind; but it never failed to come to the house twice a day to be fed. The peas were placed for it in the kitchen window. If the window was shut, it would tap with its beak till it was opened, then come in, eat its meal, and fly off again. If by any accident it could not then gain admittance, it would wait somewhere near, till the cook came out, when it would pitch on her shoulder, and go with her into the kitchen. What made this more extraordinary was, that the cook had not bred the bird up, and the old woman's cottage was at a little distance; but as she had no peas left, it came to the parsonage to be fed.

"This went on for some time, but the poor bird, having lost its fear of man, was exposed to constant danger from those who did not know it. It expe