The idea that when a person first lived in this world, he made friends with some native representatives of our modern dogs and, in return, they helped protect him from animal poaching and took care of sheep and goats. There is no contradiction there. He gave them some food, a corner of the dwelling, and trusted and cared for him. The animals were probably originally just unusually calm jackals or sick wolves, and were expelled from the wild herd by their peers to evacuate to a strange environment. It's easy to imagine a partnership that begins with some helpless puppies being brought home by early hunters to be cared for and raised by their wives and children. Dogs brought home as children's toys consider themselves part of the family and are treated as such.
Traces of native dog families can be found in almost every part of the world, with the only exceptions being the West Indian Islands, Madagascar, the eastern islands of the Malay Archipelago, New Zealand and the Polynesian Islands, where dogs and wolves are absent. Foxes are considered to be real Native American animals. In ancient oriental lands, and generally among the early Mongols, dogs remained wild and ignored for centuries, roaming under the streets and walls of all eastern cities today. No attempt was made to lure it into a human company or to improve it obediently. Only by examining the records of higher civilizations in Assyria and Egypt will we discover different types of dog shapes.
Dogs were not appreciated in Palestine, and "dirty beasts" are commonly spoken of in both the New Testament and the Old Testament with contempt. Even the well-known reference to the shepherd dog in Job said, "But now the young men have mocked me, and their father despised walking with my herd of dogs." is not without signs of contempt. It is important that the only biblical reference to the dog as a human recognized companion occurs in the Book of Revelation (v. 16): "So they both go out, and the young man." The dog was with them. "
A wide variety of breeds and their wide variations in size, tip, and general appearance are facts that make it difficult to believe they have a common ancestor. Given the difference between Mastiff and Japanese Chin, Deer Hound and fashionable Pomeranian, St. Bernard and Miniature Black and Tan Terrier, it's amazing to think of the possibility of being a descendant of a common ancestor. But the difference is only the difference between the Shire Horse and Shetland Pony, the Shorthorn and Kerry Cow, or the Patagonia and Pygmy. And every dog breeder knows how easy it is to produce different breeds and sizes through studied selection.
To understand this question correctly, we first need to consider the true nature of the structure of wolves and dogs. This structural identity can best be examined by comparing the bone system or skeleton of two animals. These dislocations are not easily identifiable because they are so similar.
The dog's spine consists of 7 vertebrae on the neck, 13 vertebrae on the back, 7 vertebrae on the loins, 3 sacral vertebrae, and 22 to 22 vertebrae on the tail. Both dogs and wolves have 13 pairs of ribs. They both have 42 teeth, 5 front toes and 4 hind toes. The common wolf looks so much like a large naked dog.
The wolf's natural voice is a loud bark, but when he is around the dog, he learns to bark. Although it is a carnivore, it also eats vegetables and bites the grass when it gets sick. When hunting, the wolf herd is divided into groups. One traces the quarry and the other uses a significant amount of strategy to try to prevent the retreat. This is a characteristic that many sports dogs and terriers show when hunting.
Another important similarity between Canis lupus and Canis familiaris is the fact that both species have a gestation period of 63 days. There are 3–9 cubs in the wolf shavings, which are blind for 21 days. They are cared for for two months, but at the end of this time they can eat half-digested meat exhaled by the mother or even the father.
Native dogs in all regions are very close to the native wolves in those regions in size, color, shape, and habit. There are too many examples of this very important situation to consider it a mere coincidence. Sir John Richardson said in 1829: "The similarities between North American wolves and Indian dogs are so great that the size and strength of the wolves seem to be the only difference."
It has been suggested that the only undeniable argument against the lupine relationship between dogs is the fact that all domestic dogs bark, whereas all wild canines express emotions only by howling. However, the difficulty here is not as great as it looks, as we know that jackals, wild dogs, and wolf puppies raised by bitches can easily master this habit. On the other hand, dogs that roam freely do not learn how to bark, but some dogs have not yet learned how to express themselves.
Therefore, the presence or absence of barking habits cannot be considered a debate in determining the issue of dog origin. As a result, this stumbling block is gone, and we are in a position to agree with Darwin. Darwin's final hypothesis is: "The world's domestic dogs are very likely to be descendants of two species of wolves (C. lupus and C. latrans) and two or three other wolves in the form of Europe, India, and North Africa." From one suspicious species, from at least one or two species of South American dogs, from several breeds or species of jackals, and perhaps from one or more extinct species; and this blood flows through the veins of our domestic varieties to be mixed together.
0 Comments