Dog History - How dogs became humanity's best friends

There is no incongruity in the idea that in the very earliest period of man's habitation of this world he made a friend and companion of some sort of aboriginal representative of our modern dog, and that in return for its aid in protecting him from wilder animals, and in guarding his livestock, he gave it some scraps of his food, a corner in his dwelling, and grew to trust and care for it. Most likely the animal was originally little else than an unusually gentle jackal, or a There is no incongruity in the idea that in the very earliest period of humanity’s habitation of this world he made a friend and companion of some sort of aboriginal representative of our modern four-legged friend, and that in return for its help in protecting him from wilder animals, and in guarding his sheep and goats, he gave it a share of his food, a place in his dwelling, and grew to love and care for it. Probably the animal was originally little else than an unusually gentle jackal, or a sick wild dog driven by its companions from the wild marauding pack to seek shelter in unknown territory. A different idea is that certain packs of wild dogs or wolves were scavenging for food and happened upon some generous people. It’s also easy to picture early hunters bringing home wild puppies to be raised by humans. Dogs introduced into the home as playthings for the children would come to see themselves, and be regarded, as members of the family.

Anywhere one looks in the world traces of a dog family local to an area are found, the only exceptions being the West Indian Islands, Madagascar, the eastern islands of the Malayan Archipelago, New Zealand, and the Polynesian Islands, where there is no sign that any dog, wolf, fox, or any other member of the canine family lived as a true indigenous animal. In the old Oriental nations, and generally among the early Mongolians, the dog remained uncared for and untamed for many ages, prowling in packs, gaunt and wolf-like, as it prowls today through the streets and under the walls of every Eastern city. No one ever tried to draw it into friendship with man or to make it more tame. Only the more civilized ancient countries like Egypt and Assyria had unique breeds of dogs.

The dog was not greatly appreciated in Palestine, either, and in both the Old and New Testaments it is often spoken of with scorn and contempt as an "unclean beast." Even the well known 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 subtle suggestion of contempt, and it is significant that the only quasi-biblical allusion to the dog as a legitimate companion of mankind occurs in the apocryphal Book of Tobit (v. 16), "So they went forth both, and the young man's dog with them."

When one looks at the great variety among the different breeds of dogs found today it’s hard to believe that they originate from a common ancestor. For example, when considering the behavioral and physical differences between such breeds as the pampered Min Pin and the hard-working Husky it seems a stretch that they are related. Yet the disparity is no greater than that between the Shire horse and the Shetland pony, the Shorthorn and the Kerry cattle, or the Patagonian and the Pygmy; and all dog breeders know how easy it is to produce a variety in type and size through the artificial selection of breeding

In order to properly understand this issue one needs first to think about the structure of the wolf and the dog. This identity of structure or form may best be examined in a comparison of the osseous system, or skeletons, of the two animals, which so closely resemble each other that their transposition would not easily be detected. The spine of the dog consists of seven vertebrae in the neck, thirteen in the back, seven in the loins, three sacral vertebrae, and twenty to twenty-two in the tail. In both the dog and the wolf there are thirteen pairs of ribs, nine true and four false. Each has forty-two teeth. They each have five front and four hind toes, and a quick look at the outward appearance shows that describing a wolf is the same as describing a large dog.

The habits of both species are similar as well. In the wild, wolves are known to howl in their packs, but as soon as a wolf is grouped with dogs, he takes on barking behavior. Both are carnivores, but both also enjoy vegetables in their diets and eat grass when feeling ill. Hunting behavior is also very similar among wolves and sporting dogs; they both hunt in packs and divide up strategically to catch their quarry.

A further significant point of resemblance between the Canis lupus and the Canis familiaris lies in the fact that the gestation period in both species is sixty-three days. Usually, a wolf’s litter consists of about three to nine cubs, and they are unable to see for twenty-one days. They are suckled for two months, but at the end of that time they are able to eat half-digested flesh regurgitated for them by their mother or even their sire.

Another thing to consider is that domestic dogs from a certain region share many physical similarities to wolves from that same region. Of this most significant case there are far too many instances to allow of its being looked upon as a mere happenstance. Sir John Richardson, writing in 1829, observed that "the resemblance between the North American wolves and the domestic dog of the Indians is so great that the size and strength of the wolf seems to be the only difference".

It has been put forth that the one undeniable argument against the lupine relationship of the dog is the fact that all domestic dogs bark, while all wild canines express their feelings only by howls. But the argument here is not so powerful as it seems, since we know that jackals, wild dogs, and wolf pups reared by bitches readily gain the trait. It goes both ways as dogs allowed to run wild will forget how to bark.

The influence of the behavior of barking can’t, then, be regarded as an argument in deciding the question concerning the origin of the dog. This stumbling block consequently disappears, leaving us with the sensible choice of agreeing with Darwin, whose final hypothesis was that "it is highly probable that the domestic dogs of the world have descended from two good species of wolf (C. lupus and C. latrans), and from two or three other doubtful species of wolves namely, the European, Indian, and North African forms; from at least one or two South American canine species; from several races or species of jackal; and perhaps from one or more extinct species"; and that the blood of these, in some cases blended together, flows in the veins of our domestic pets.