Ssjee pe laz ise
g2|82)22| 34] 32
om-) © Of ~o an
170 | 172 | 163 | 177 | 163
BG. G2) ehoey | = pad
85 |90 |87 |88 |86
74 177.5174 |81 |74
86 |90 |87 |96 |86
72.5175 |72 |79 |Z
ED oad Moy ee ee
52 156 |55 |62.5|52
18.2 20.8 | 19 17
19 18 1326320. S75
31 |37.5/34 140 |36
59 |57 |61 |66.5|54
50 51 47 49 46
102 |98 | 104 | 101 |92
Ossabaw Id.
M. 52,362
Ga.:
P.
a
ve}
—)
Cuba
M. C. Z. 10,064
53,902
Maine
Ay iC.
Of seven lower jaws from Maine shell-heaps, all but one lack the
first premolar, and the same tooth is lacking in a ramus from Madison-
ville.
this dog.
It seems to be missing in the greater portion of lower jaws oi
The following measurements show the lengths of different
parts of the tooth-row taken at the alveolar borders, because the
teeth themselves are frequently lost.
460 BULLETIN: MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY.
- | = = =
Serene
Tooth-row Measurements Pe hall a ee (oe sc sz Sx =)
an ,aa | fa | Soo soc tae o ee
Alveoli, 7; to ms 99:5 [== 100 — 97 105 87
“cto ms 94 | — | 94 | — | 92° | 99
p2 to ms 72.5| 7% |-74. |) yee s | een amelie
ps to ms 61 | 63. | 62. | Bas | Go ieee
ps to ms 49 | 49 | 50 | 49 50 50 —
+ m, to ms oy] 1 Ge Sateen 37 39 38 SPs
Length of tooth, m: 22.5| 22.3| 93° | a1 5) Be | 23 | 21
|
Skeletal Measurements.— The first of the Calf Island jaws above, is
accompanied by parts of the skeleton of the same animal. The limb-
bones of this skeleton and those of several dogs from Madisonville,
Ohio, measure:
SS | 62 |)O2 |] 6 | 06 0) ei tee sens
See a | t em Seon
Humerus | 168 | 163 | 162 | 2 a
Radius | 164 | — | — | 164 | 168 | — | — | — | —
Femur = | 170==| — |}. |)
Tibia Tee | | |} — |. — | 177 | 160 | 156
| | | |
Notes and Descriptions— On account of the finding of cranial
fragments that appear to represent this animal, in aboriginal burials
in Cuba, it is assumed that this is the dog mentioned by the first
discoverers under Columbus. Oviedo (1535) writing of the aboriginal
dogs in Haiti shortly after the discovery, declared that they were no
longer to be found there in 1535, as all had been killed for food during
a time of famine. These dogs he described as of all the colors found
among the dogs of Spain, some uniformly colored, otHers marked with
blackish and white, or reddish brown. The coat of some was woolly,
of others silky or satiny, but most of those in Haiti were between silky
and satiny, vet rougher than the Spanish dogs; with ears pointed and
a
ALLEN: DOGS OF THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES. 46]
erect like those of wolves. None of these dogs barked. Oviedo
adds that similar dogs were plentiful in many parts of the continent,
as in Mexico, Santa Marta, and Nicaragua. He had eaten their
flesh and considered it excellent, resembling lamb. In Nicaragua
and Mexico the Indians bred numbers of them and at their great
festivals dog-meat was considered the best dish of all. ‘The natives
of Haiti hunted some species of Hutia with these dogs.
Very little seems to have been written descriptive of this breed.
In his essay on the origin of dogs, Hunter (1787) mentions that a Mr.
Cameron, who had lived among the Cherokee Indians, informed him
that the dog found in their country was “very similar to the wolf.”
Cameron thought it remarkable there were not sundry breeds of dogs
among these Indians, as in Europe. William Bartram (1792, p. 220),
during his travels in Florida, made special note of a “single black dog,
which seemed to differ in no respect from the wolf of Florida, except
his being able to bark as the common dog.” It belonged to an Indian,
who had trained it to tend a troop of semiwild horses, “keeping them
in a separate company where they range; and when he is hungry or
wants to see his master, in the evening he returns to town, but never
stays at home at night.’’ Barton (1805) appears to have made more
particular inquiry of Bartram concerning these Indian Dogs of
Florida, and describes them as “very similar to the Canis Lycaon, or
black wolf,” yet they are not always black “but of different colours,
commonly of a bay colour, and about one third less than the wild
black wolf. It carries its ears almost erect, and has the same wild
and sly look that the wolf has.’’ Barton adds that the dogs of the
Cherokees were already (1805) much intermixed with the European
dogs. ,
Peter Kalm informed John Bartram that the dogs of the Canadian
Indians (?Montreal) were like those in Sweden with erect ears, and
Bartram himself (in a letter to George Edwards, 1757) recalled as a
boy seeing the Indian Dogs, with erect ears, accompanying their
masters on occasional visits to his father’s house in Pennsylvania.
Barton (1805), who seems to have made diligent inquiry about these
dogs, further describes their aspect as “much more that of the wolf
than of the common domesticated dogs. His body, in general, ts
more slender than that of our dogs. He is remarkably small behind.
His ears do not hang like those of our dogs, but stand erect, and are
large and sharp-pointed. He has a long, small snout, and very sharp
nose.” This breed, he says, was still preserved in the greatest purity
among the Six Nations, from whom the Delawares acknowledge that
they received it.
462 BULLETIN: MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY.
Judging from the numerous shell-heap remains of what seems to be
this same dog, it was formerly common among the New England
Indians. In Hakluyt’s Voyages (Everyman’s Library ed., 6, p. 95)
is an account of The voyage of the ship called the Marigold of Mr.
Hill of Redrife unto Cape Briton and beyond to the latitude of 44
degrees and an half, 1593. The narrator tells of meeting with a
party of “Savages” at Cape Breton in July, who upon the accidental:
discharge of a musket, came “running right up over the bushes with
great agilitie and swiftnesse...with white staves in their handes
like halfe pikes, and their dogges of colour blacke not so bigge as a
greyhounde followed them at their heeles; but wee retired unto our
boate.”
It is probably to this breed of dog that Charlevoix refers in his
Journal of a voyage to North America (London, 2 vols, 1761, transl.).
“The Indians,” he writes, “always carry a great number of dogs with
them in their huntings; these are the only domestick animals they
breed, and that too only for hunting; they appear to be all of one
species, with upright ears, and a long snout hke that of a wolf”
(1; p: 4187).
This is the “major” type of Indian dog reported by Loomis and
Young (1912) from Maine shell-heaps, where rather large-sized speci-
mens have been discovered. Dog-remains have been found also in
Connecticut (MacCurdy, 1914) and Block Island, R. I. (Eaton, 1898).
An Indian Dog-skull (Plate 7) collected by Kennicott on the Peel
River, about 1860 (U. S. N. M. 6,219) is hardly different, except for _
its very slightly greater size, and seems best referred to the same sort
of dog, though possibly a distinguishable breed. Richardson (1829)
named this dog Canis familiaris var. canadensis, and says it is the
kind “most generally cultivated by the native tribes of Canada and
the Fur countries.”” He describes it as intermediate in size and form
between the Eskimo and the Hare-Indian Dog. Its fur is black and
gray, mixed with white; some are all black. Apparently identical
with the skull from Peel River is another collected by Dr. W. H. Dall,
from a prehistoric Aleut village site in Unalaska. Dr. Dall notes that
this is the only dog-skull which had been found in the undeniably
prehistoric kitchen-middens of the Aleutian Islands. It still retains
the upper carnassial, which measures 20.5 mm. in length. The
occipital condyles are 38 mm. across. The first upper premolar was
apparently lacking.
Probably it was a dog of this breed that Audubon figured as the
Hare-Indian Dog, from a living one in the gardens of the Zodlogical
ALLEN: DOGS OF THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES. 463
Society of Landon. Bernard R. Ross (1861) seems to have confused
the two as well; for a skull collected by him at Fort Simpson and sent
to the U. S. N. M. as “Canis lagopus” is even larger than the one
from Peel River and almost undoubtedly a cross with an Eskimo
Dog. Both skulls lack the first lower premolar.
In the North the Common Indian Dog is largely used among the
forest Indians as a beast of burden.
Samuel Hearne, on his famous journey to Peel River, 1769-72,
observed that the Indians’ “kettles, and some other lumber, are
always carried by dogs, which are trained to that service, and are
very docile and tractable. * * * These dogs are equally willing to haul
in a sledge, but as few of the men will be at the trouble of making
sledges for them, the poor women are obliged to content themselves
with lessening the bulk of their load, more than the weight, by making
the dogs carry these articles only, which are always lashed on their
backs, much after the same manner as packs are, or used formerly to
be, on pack-horses.”’
KiLAMATH-INDIAN Doc.
Characters — A medium-sized dog, with a short, bushy tail.
Distribution.— So far as known, this peculiar breed was found only
among the Indians in the Klamath River region of Oregon.
Remarks.— The only mention of this dog that I have found is the
following by Gibbs (Suckley and Gibbs, 1860, p. 112):
“On the Klamath is a dog of good size, with a short tail. This is
not more than six or seven inches long, and is bushy, or rather broad,
it being as wide as a man’s hand. I was assured they were not cut,
and I never noticed longer tails on the pups. They have the usual
erect ears and sharp muzzle of Indian dogs, but are (what is unusual
with Indian dogs) often brindled gray.”
Presumably the shortened tail arose as an independent variation
among dogs of the Plains-Indian Dog type and was preserved among
these dogs through selective breeding. Similar short-tailed breeds
are well known among European dogs, as in the English Sheep-dog,
and certain varieties of Bull-terriers. MacFarlane (1905, p. 696)
gives an account of a very much prized Eskimo Dog he owned in the
Mackenzie District, that was born tailless and undersized, but proved
an excellent sled-dog.
404 BULLETIN: MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY.
SHORT-LEGGED INDIAN Doa.
Plate 5, fig. 1.
1829. Canisfamiliaris var. d. novae caledoniae Richardson, Fauna Boreali-
Amer., 1;-p. 82.
(2?) 1912. Canis familiaris, minor Indian dog, Loomis and Young, Amer.
journ. sci., ser. 4, 34, p. 26, fig. 4, D. -
Characters.— Ears erect, head large in proportion, and body long;
the legs relatively short but not distorted as in our Turnspits. Fur of
the body short and sleek, that of the tail longer. This is possibly a
derivative of the Common or Larger Indian Dog.
Distribution.— It is hardly possible to trace the former distribution
of this type of dog. It was found by Richardson in southern British
Columbia, and a dog apparently similar is known from Quebec, and
perhaps formerly in New England and New York. Probably it was
found among canoe-using or forest-living tribes in the North, hence
was infrequent or absent in plains country.
Notes and Descriptions— Apparently Richardson (1829) was the
first to take special note of this breed. He found it among the Attnah
or Carrier Indians of “ New Caledonia,” (now British Columbia) and
it seems to have been bred as well by neighboring tribes as far south at
least as northern California. For Gibbs (Suckley and Gibbs, 1860,
p. 112) makes particular mention of seeing “one peculiar looking dog
on Eel River, in the interior of northern California, among very wild
Indians. It had short legs and long body, like a turnspit.” Suckley
in the same work, briefly says that “the Indian dogs about the Dalles
of the Columbia [Oregon] are so varied in appearance that no special
description can be given. We might, however, make two types. The
large * ** and the small, resembling the ‘turnspit kind’ of which Mr.
Gibbs speaks. The latter are generally white, or spotted liver and
white, or black and white. This kind is kept more as a playmate for
the children and a pet for the women.”
It is significant that Suckley mentions the “varied” appearance of
the Oregon dogs, so that it was possible to refer them in general to
but two types. This may have been a result in part of the inter-
breeding of the larger and the smaller types, and in part perhaps of a
mixture as Suckley suggests with European breeds already intro-
duced.
i a eae
~
ALLEN: DOGS OF THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES. 465
Although generally associated with the Indians of British Columbia
and neighboring parts of the northwestern United States, it seems
likely that this or a similar breed may have been much more widely
distributed over northern North America, as far east and south as
Quebec, New England, and New York, if not farther. An excellent
photograph given me by Mr. W. B. Cabot (Plate 5, fig. 1) was ob-
tained a few years since among the Bersimis Indians, Quebec, and
seems to represent a dog of the same general type. The large head,
erect ears (somewhat laid back in the photograph), long, heavy body,
short, straight legs, up-turned tail, agree well with other descriptions.
This particular individual has the spiritless air of an old dog.
That this breed of dog was found at least as far south as the south-
ern coast of New England, may possibly be inferred from the account
by Livermore (1877, p. 58) of the dogs of the Block Island Indians,
of Rhode Island. This isolated colony of Indians numbered some 306
individuals up to the year 1700, but by 1774 was reduced to only 51.
In 1876, there was known to be but a single one living on the island.
According to the author just mentioned, “the ‘dogs’ of Block Island
belonging to the Manisseans before the English came have their
descendants here still, it is believed. They are not numerous, but
peculiar, differing materially from all the species which we have
noticed on the mainland, both in figure and disposition. They are
below a medium-size, with short legs but powerful, broad breasts,
heavy quarters, massive head unlike the bulldog, the terrier, the hound,
the mastiff, but resembling mostly the last; with a fierce disposition
that in some makes but little distinction between friend and foe.”
The description here given, unsatisfactory though it be, implies a dog
much like that shown in fig. 1, Plate 5.
Skeletal Remains.— I am unaware of the existence in any museum,
of bones that may be definitely associated with the Short-legged
Indian Dog. But,.as pointed out by Loomis and Young (1912),
there are in the prehistoric shell-heaps of the New England coast
remains of a larger and a smaller Indian Dog, the latter of which on
the strength of the evidence just given as to the former presence of the
short-legged breed in eastern Canada and New England, may tenta-
tively be referred to this animal. The authors mentioned have char-
acterized the lower teeth of this smaller dog on the basis of jaws from
the Maine shell-heaps and through the kindness of Professor Loomis
T have had opportunity to study the specimens.
The mandibles are all more or less broken, but include several in
fairly good condition. They differ from those of the Larger or Com-
466 BULLETIN: MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY.
mon Indian Dog in the smaller size of the individual teeth as well as
in the shorter tooth-row. Yet the contrast is not always very strik-
ing and no doubt there was more or less intercrossing of the two types.
The teeth of the smaller dog are usually more close-set than those of
the larger, and on comparison, the carnassial tooth is seen to be de-
cidedly smaller, its metaconid sometimes quite obsolete, and with a
distinct tendency for the outer of the two cusps of the heel (hypo-
conid) to become enlarged and trenchant. As in the Common Indian
Dog, and in American aboriginal dogs generally, it is common if not
usual, for the first lower premolar to be lacking, and the same is
frequently true of the first upper premolar. Such an anomaly is
occasional in all domestic dogs. Indeed, Bourguignat (1875) founded
his genus Lycorus on such a fossil canid jaw — probably of a wolf —
from a cavern-deposit in France. In his specimen the first premolar
was lacking in each ramus. ,
Measurements of the lower Me. |
jaws and fragments of Flagels! oie! 985 1209 Cl C2 183
upper maxillae :
Greatest length of lower
carnassial — 19.8 | 2073 } 21 20 ZOPOn 221-3
Number of lower pre- :
molars — Bi vee 3 3 5 4
Alveolar length p. to m — 65.5 —- GSa T}2G5 64 66
cs “ Ppetia ma...) Sesiigem| = 168 my — == PS
: ec — | — | — {49 |48.5) — | — | —
t prto ms... :. }—}|—|— |40 }39 | — | — | —
= 53 PRS Gg Cs 3 — | — | — |382 130 | — | —|{—
MECH ORUIOEIN MEE Jobe. Son fy) fins S| RED OES BS BG A Oe es
Skeletal Measurements |
Memes ieee ON et SSS SS SS aS
Mire Mee, 4 wed ae 2 —}—}—|)— }— | — | — | —
{
Early. Accounts.— Hernandez disposes of the Techichi in few words,
as being the third sort of dog he knew to be found in Mexico. It
must have become scarce by his time (about 1578) as he had not seen
it himself but describes it thus: — “Catulis similis est nostratibus,
Indis edulis, tristi aspectu, ac caetera vulgaribus similis” (similar to
our spaniels, eaten by the Indians, of melancholy visage, but other-
M.
Yucatan: Labna
wise like the common dogs). J. Jonstonus, writing in 1657, includes -
in his account of dogs, a transcription of Hernandez’s passage as to
490 BULLETIN: MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY.
the three sorts of dogs in Mexico. He adds further that the Indians
of Cozumel Island ate these dogs as the Spaniards do rabbits. Those
intended for this purpose were castrated in order to fatten them.
Clavigero, the historian of early Mexico, wrote that the breed was
extinct in his time, due, as he supposes, to the Spaniards’ having pro-
vided their markets with them in lieu of sheep and cattle.
Possibly this breed of dog is the one mentioned in De Soto’s relation
of his march through Florida. At one place the cacique of the village
‘ sent him a present including “many conies and partridges. ...many
dogs... .which were as much esteemed as though they had been fat
sheep.’ At another place, “the Christians being seen to go after
dogs, for their flesh, which the Indians do not eat, they gave them
three hundred of these animals.”’ Again, at a small Indian village
called Etocali, the expedition got “maize, beans, and little dogs, which
were no small relief to the people.”
As late as 1805, Barton (1805, p. 12) who had made special inquiry
of William Bartram, as to the dogs of the Florida Indians, quotes
him, that the latter had in addition to the larger dogs, a smaller breed,
about the size of a fox, which probably was of the type under discus-
sion. ;
It is probably this dog, if not also the short-nosed variety, that
figures largely in the mythology of the Mayas of Yucatan. Among
several representations of the dog in the Mayan codices are seen short-
nosed and long-nosed heads, but whether these really indicate differ-
ent breeds of dogs or different artists that made them cannot be
determined. All are shown with erect, sometimes with cropped ears,
a tail that is of medium length, usually shaggy, and recurved. Black
patches are commonly represented on the body, and the eye of the
dog often centers in a black area. Seler (1890) speaks of its use as'a
sacrificial animal in Yucatan, sometimes in place of a human being.
Placed in the grave, the dog carried its master’s soul across the “ Chi-
cunauhapan”’ or nine-fold flowing stream. According to Sahagun,
some were black and white, others dark red, and there were short-
haired and long-haired dogs, but he does not state whether the small
and the large types of dogs each had short-haired and long-haired
varieties. A brief summary of the significance of the dog in the
religious life of the Mayas is given by Tozzer and Allen (1910, p. 359).
ti ae
See ~~
ALLEN: DOGS OF THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES. 49]
HareE-INpIAN Doc.
Plate 1, fig. 2.
1829. Canis lagopus Richardson, Fauna Boreali-Amer., 1, p. 78, pl. 5 (not
Canis lagopus Linné, 1758, gq. e. Alopex).
1867. Canis domesticus, lagopus Fitzinger, Sitzb K. akad. wiss. Wien, 56, pt. 1,
p. 407.
Canis familiaris orthotus lagopus Reichenbach, Regen. anim., pt. 1, p. 13.
Characters — A small, slender dog, with erect ears and bushy tail,
feet broad and well-haired. Color white with dark patches.
Distribution.— Formerly found among the Hare Indians and other
tribes that frequented the borders of Great Bear Lake and the banks
of the Mackenzie River.
Description.— This seems to have been a small dog, of the Techichi
type. Richardson, who gave a figure and description of it from first-
hand acquaintance, characterizes it as slightly larger than a fox but
smaller than a coyote, and apparently of rather slender proportions.
The head was small with sharp muzzle, erect thickish ears, somewhat
oblique eyes; the tail bushy and sometimes carried curled forward
over the right hip, though this does not appear in Richardson’s figure;
foot broad and well-haired. He describes an individual as having the
face, muzzle, belly, and legs white; a dark patch over the eye, and on
the back and sides, larger patches of dark blackish gray or lead color,
mixed with fawn and white. Ears white in front, the backs yellowish
gray or fawn; tail white beneath and at the tip.
Notes.— It seems probable that this small breed was lost in the
early part of the last century. At all events, writers subsequent to
Richardson do not seem to have met with it, and those that mention
it, seem to have confused it with the Common Indian Dog. Thus
B. R. Ross (1861) and Macfarlane (1905, p. 700) clearly had in mind
a different animal; and a skull sent by the latter to the U. S. N. M.
as lagopus (from Fort Simpson, Mackenzie River) is a large dog,
evidently the Common or Larger Indian Dog. Hamilton Smith
(1840, p. 131) takes his description in part from Richardson, and
mentions a pair of these dogs as then living in the Zodlogical Society’s
Gardens at London. Audubon and Bachman likewise are indebted
to Richardson for their account, though their figure, by J. W. Audu-
bon, is said to be from a stuffed specimen, perhaps one of those previ-
492 BULLETIN: MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY. ’
ously living in the Zodélogical Society’s Gardens. The dimensions
they give however, seem rather large.
Richardson says further that it was used solely in the chase and
was probably too small to serve as a burden carrier. Its voice was a
wolf-like howl, but at some unusual sight it would make a singular
attempt at barking, commencing with a peculiar growl and ending
in a prolonged howl.
Here may be mentioned what seems to be an unknown or vanished
breed of dogs as indicated in the account of Frobisher’s voyage to
Arctic America in 1577. At the present Frobisher Bay, in south-
astern Baffin Land, the expedition found in addition to the large
dogs used for sledging, a smaller breed, which was apparently used
only as food, and allowed the freedom of the skin tents of the Eskimos.
The historian of the expedition writes that they “found since’ by
experience, that the lesser sort of dogges they feede fatte, and keepe
them as domesticall cattell in their tents for their eating, and the
greater sort serve for the use of drawing their sleds.””’ At York Sound,
the same writer relates that on going ashore to examine “certaine
tents of the countrey people,” they “found the people departed, as it
should seeme, for feare of their comming. But amongst sundry strange
things which in these tents they found, there was rawe and new killed
flesh of unknowen sorts, with dead carcasses and bones of dogs”’
(Hakluyt’s Voyages, Everyman’s Library, ed. 5, p. 212,215). Concern-
ing this “lesser sort of dogges,’’ nothing further seems to be known,
whether they were a dwarf variety of the Eskimo dog, or as seems
likely, a small breed similar to those of the Hare Indians or of other
tribes of the mainland.
FurGian Doe.
Plate 4, fig. 2.
Characters.— Size small, as large as a terrier, muzzle slender, ears
large, delicate, and erect, body and limbs well-proportioned, shoulders
higher than rump; tail long, drooping, slightly recurved at the tip
and well-fringed; feet webbed; color uniform grayish tan, or often
with patches of black or tan, and areas of white; inside of the mouth
dark-pigmented.
Distribution.— Found chiefly among the “Canoe Indians” — Yah-
gans and Alacalufs — of the Fuegian Archipelago, from Cape Horn to
Beagle Channel, and northwestward, probably at least to the western
part of Magellan Strait.
ALLEN: DOGS OF THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES. 49°53
Descriptions.— The best account of the Fuegian Dog is that given
by d’Herculais (1884) of two Yahgan Dogs brought back to France
by Dr. Hyades of the Mission scientifique au Cap Horn (expédition
de la RoMaNcHE), in 1883. These were obtained as puppies from
the Yahgans at Orange Bay and grew up to be tame and affectionate
dogs. They are described as small but well-proportioned, remarkable
for their large pointed and erect ears, and very sharp slender muzzles.
The color-pattern is very variable, often a uniform grayish tan recall-
ing the jackal; again, the body is marbled with extensive black or tan
areas on a white ground. The feet are plainly webbed. The two
dogs above referred to, were said to measure, the male and female
respectively :— height at shoulder, 49 and 44 em.;length from tip of
nose to root of tail, 80 and 72 cm.; length of tail, 26 and 23 cm.
External Measurements. —Dechambre (1891) in a note on these
same dogs, gives the following dimensions, evidently of a female: -
Seapuloischial length: ....................52, cm.
HMewmbiiat shoulder si. stiri i . 4 cee eee Sad 5. 41 7
Bree THRUST. Foe 65k peices ya sy ssye ips vie ss 39 -
TEL e nin Gn ei e1l Ne aeS a ee Se 25 rs
UOT RCIG WETIMELET oo. oie fae as wee ues os ba OO s
Distance between ears...............6..4. 9 =
vs “inner corners of eyes...... balay te
. = outer: 7“ reareat Hota AR Seouke
isreatin(of forehead... . .).5..0 22 es ok yeast 11 .
Wer rtingo ss MEM Vert. pea PiyP5e, Aa sepsis at ogocet 22 ‘
si
¥ Pe ae oe
ve S. a
Bi cst es @ Ayre: 0
Fee he ey,
¢ we _ r
1 i
; «
ot *
, é + a
i ee | sane ‘
oe ‘
ype ok t
: ¢
7 ‘
= Fs J
wih
’ ‘
La
epee
i
s :*
an
Pos et Le
et >
eens
re
AvcLen.—Dogs of the American Aborigines.
PLATE 1.
Fig. 1.— Eskimo Dog. The grandparents of this dog were brought by Peary
from Smith’s Sound, Greenland. Photo by Ernest Harold Baynes.
Fig. 2.— The Hare-Indian Dog of northern Mackenzie. From Riehardson’s.
plate (1829).
BULL. MUS. COMP. ZOOL.
2
Auten. — Dogs of the American Aborigines.
PLATE 2.
Fig. 1.— Mexican Hairless Dog. Reproduction of figure of Lupus mexicanus
from Recchi and Lynceus (1651).
Fig. 2.— Mexican Hairless Dog, 9. Photograph by Arthur Stockdale of
Mexico City. Courtesy of The Journal of Heredity.
BULL. MUS. COMP, ZOOL. ALLEN.
nn
4 Piaed
te aT
ALLEN.— Dogs of the American Aborigines.
PLATE 3.
Fig. 1— The Ytzcuinteporzotli or Canis mexicana of Hernandez, reproduced
from the figure by Recchi and Lynceus (1651) . It probably repre-
sents a Raccoon.
Fig 2.— On the right a Mexican Hairless Dog, on the left a hairy dog from
the same litter. The parents of these two were a Mexican Hairless
Dog shown in Plate 2, fig. 2, and a mongrel dog, normally haired.
Courtesy of the Journal of Heredity.
BULL. MUS. COMP. ZOOL. ALLEN. DOGS. PLA
ALLen.— Dogs of the American Aborigines.
PLATE 4.
Fig. 1.— Clallam-Indian Dog. From the painting by Paul Kane in 1846,
now in the Royal Ontario Museum of Archaeology at Toronto.
Fig. 2.— Fuegian Dog. Reproduction of d’Herculais’ (1884) figure drawn
from a dog brought to France from Tierra del Fuego by the Mission
Scientifique du Cap Horn.
BULL. MUS. COMP. ZOOL. ALLEN. Docs
~ leo
i
ash 2
pa tio
a
oe
fe
ya
oe
cou Cc. rT
\_ co ae
hints
ao
i
~
Ne
Arten. — Dogs of the American Aborigines.
PLATE 65.
Fig. 1.— A dog of the Bersimis Indians, Canada, supposed to represent the
Short-legged Indian Dog. Photograph by William B. Cabot.
Fig. 2.— Small yellow-and-white or brindle dogs, with a child of the Macusi
Indians in southern British Guiana. These dogs may have more or
less blood of European stock, but probably retain some aboriginal
characteristics. Photograph by Dr. William C. Farrabee.
BULL. MUS. COMP. ZOOL.
Aten. — Dogs of the American Aborigines.
PLATE 6.
The Short-nosed Indian Dog (‘‘ Pachyeyon’’). A mummified specimen col-
lected by Messrs. 8. J. Guernsey and A. V. Kidder in the Marsh Pass
region, Arizona, and now in the Peabody Museum of Archaeology.
Photograph by S. J. Guernsey.
BULL. MUS. COMP. ZOOL.
"iad i ty
ah oe aed ')
Auten. — Dogs of the American Aborigines.
PLATE 7.
Skull of the Common Indian Dog, collected by Kennicott on Peel River,
northern Mackenzie, U.S. N. M.6,219. Length 177 mm.
Fig. 1.— Cranium in profile showing relatively weak crests and adder muzzle.
Fig. 2.— Lower ramus; the first premolar normally lacking.
Fig. 3— Cranium, ventral view; upper first premolar lacking.
BULL. MUS. COMP. ZOOL. ALLEN. Docs. PLAT
~ PN 6
Avven. — Dogs of the American Aborigines.
PLATE 8.
Cranium of the Common Indian Dog from Le Moine shell-heap, French-
man’s Bay, Maine, collection of Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass., 53,902 Me.
Length 192 mm.
Fig. 1.— Profile view. ‘
Fig. 2.— Ventral view. The first upper premolar is lacking.
|
|
{
4
BULL. MUS. COMP. ZOOL.
ALLEN,
C
OG
Avten, — Dogs of the American Aborigines.
PLATE 9,
Cranium of an Inca Dog, collected by Dr. A. Hrdli¢ka at Huacho, Peru,
U.S. N. M. 176,309. Length, occiput to anterior root of incisors, 178 mm.
Fig. 1.— Profile.
Fig. 2.— Ventral view. The first premolar is present on the left side only.
BULL. MUS. COMP. ZOOL.
3)
ALLEN,
DoGs
PLA
TE
Jv
a -
: at -
oy
Auten. — Dogs of the American Aborigines.
{
: ah y
: = . |
PLATE 10. og
Small Fndian Dog or Techichi, from a cranium villeeted by ie Fe
Ely Cave, Lee County, Virginia, M. C. Z. 7,128. Length, occiput to
premaxillaries, 140 mm.
Fig. 1.— Profile. X< Ne
Fig. 2.— Ventral view.
-*
-
. nd /\*
i ive
és te
+
~ ri 4
ri -_
. - . >
a |
>
\
i
, :
~ 2 aif
. t -
® Gi
BULL. MUS. COMP. ZOOL.
7
a
-
Ul
TW
*
+
‘
ALLEN. — Dogs of the American Aborigines.
PLATE 11.
Cranium of a Short-nosed Indian Dog (“ Pachycyon’’) from shell-mound
on San Nicolas Island, off southern California, Univ. of Cal., Anthrop. Mus.,
istsz. Length, occiput to tip of premaxillary, 1388 mm.
Fig. 1.— Profile.
Fig. 2.— Ventral view.
BULL. MUS. COMP. ZOOL. ALLEN. DoGs. PLATE
Auten. — Dogs of the American Aborigines.
PLATE 12.
Skull of the Peruvian Pug-nosed Dog, collected by Dr. A. Hrdli¢ka at
Huacho, Peru, U. S. N. M. 176,307. Length of cranium, occiput to tip of
premaxillaries, 147 mm.
Fig. 1.— Profile, showing undershot jaw.
Fig. 2— Cranium, ventral view.
BULL. MUS. COMP. ZOOL. ALLEN. DoGs. PLATE 12
HELIOTYPE CO. BOCTON
ti +e Pir”
g
ae ees
S
>
j
= “eed
-? i ‘
= :
—. “
ey =t4
—- —>.
>.
- a ;
ir se
tf. 4 un =
7 3 a Te ee De +4
a - = “a=
>
Sneed, )
"i Sad ~~ Pah : » awe i v= 3 .
Le Nan ; i ; , , : om @ i ees
x 4) va! -~ oa ¥ ~ 7 a
= - : .
QL Harvard University. Museum
1 of Comparative Zoology
H3 Bulletin
v.63
Biological
& Medical
Serials
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SiIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
. +o
oereies
eee ree
pane a ne
CO et
acuee a
erent Pens! a. : =
a
chow tratnen
7+ ey
Cee, par
_ its f atta tne aetin ene ha aitenencnes tee
- ‘ me = ee 8 oe Me: Sa Le St A Te Fgh oh ean lie
1 PO Ne rw gate OO - : “ } 6 na . “ » :
Oe PIR ng PEP im, we ~~
nen eee pc ’ 2 ~
Sew aiesina ena 4 Orta on pind sembatatiedeum coe.) :
pre eipenenonmanaee Panic Don rae sean asinine ret il er ves
nae Ad a .
Aa aneneaenn ~? Cae a OO ee oe, on
Mua
donee a
dude Lee
nT
OE BA Re PAA ALE OU See.
OP ae Oe EO Rm He Fa cag we
LIE OL ALES OE NTR inet alee sone aires
nt, indir ieee. d AS oem ORO er mee BO ET ewer die nel
ena NAR ne en ieee e Oe oN ed FS Seaton agg winters Pony nee ee
plinth Rnttetha ce baron er pom ahaa eee ee ee
Pol eee wre El nt i Pena
Otek ela el re ol e-sct ns farmopewrenn
~ Benes SS Ee oe OE renee wee. Y ¥
racy eer oe oe ae) eee Sepa Owen .
na oS Sinan ee a
~~ — :
“
Learn die a cea eka
mde al Sem tye Tota * : acai
ry nenaed mAti~we peas ne wes > ws one Pie >
power vy thet oy Mind btetewsrcysicrete ee aes pee, Se vat wd Op tebe
aver souaremee fs ANG aaann et hey ind WOES HD bo Ae Cold ne e ee ten