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