The American Universal Cyclopædia: A Complete Library of …, Volume 5 (Google Books)

DOESBORGH (Drususburgt), a t. in the Netherlands, province of Gelderland, lies 11 m. e.n.e. from Arnhem, on the right bank of the Yssel. It was formerly fortified, but the walls have been broken down, planted with trees, and formed into pleasant promenades. An intrenched camp has been constructed on the n.e. side, between the Yssel and Old Yssel, which here unite. The streets are broad, and many of the houses handsome. There are several benevolent institutions, a grammar-school, boarding-school for boys and girls, and good public schools. The trade is considerable. Ship-building, bookrinting, the making of eau de Cologne, preparing mustard, etc., are carried on. Pop. 77, 4,517. DOFFER is that part of a carding-machine which takes the cotton from the cylinder when carded. See CARDING. DOG, Canis, a genus of digitigrade (q.v.) carnivorous (q.v.) quadrupeds, which, as defined by Linnaeus, included all that now form the family canidae (q.v.), and also hyenas. in the genus as now restricted, wolves and jackals are generally included b naturalists, along with those animals to which alone the name dog is popularly applied, and a distinctive character of principal importance is found in the pupil of the eye, which is always round—contracting circularly, whilst in foxes it assumes the form of a section of a lens when contracted. The present article is limited to dogs in the common acceptation of the term, wolves and jackals being the subjects of separate articles; and only remarks relative to dogs in general will here find a place, many of the particular kinds being sufficiently important to be separately noticed. At the very outset we encounter one of the most perplexing and difficult questions in natural history, as to the number of species of dog, and the origin of the domestic dog; two questions in appearance, but rather one in reality, and one on which the opinions of the most eminent naturalists are very much divided. According to some, all domestic dogs are to be regarded as of one species; and as in the case of some other valuable domestic animals, that species is not certainly known to exist in a truly wild state, all the wild dogs which must be admitted to belong to the same species being viewed as the offspring of domestic dogs which have returned to a wild state, and in which, however, it is supposed that the original type or characteristics of the species, modified by domestication, have in a great measure reappeared. According to others, there are numerous species of dog, originally distinct, which have been domesticated Dodwell. 35 Dog.

by the inhabitants of different countries, but which, however, are very nearly related not only in their physical characters but in their dispositions and in some of their rincipal instincts, and which were capable of intermixing, not perhaps indiscriminately, but within certain limits, and so as to produce new races. By some who hold the first of these opinions, it is further maintained that the wolf and the dog are one species, and that all domestic dogs are derived from the wolf; whilst others advocate the claims of the jackal to be regarded as their original parent and type. By some of those who hold the species to be numerous, it is supposed not improbable that the blood of wolves and of jackals may be mixed in some of the domestic races with that of the original dogs. It is impossible for us to do more than state these different views, and a few of the principal arguments by which they are supported. It is admitted on all hands, that there is great diversity among the different kinds of domestic dogs, many distinct races having long existed, which #. not only in size and other physical characters, but to a notable extent also in dispositions and instincts; it is further admitted that there appear to be no definite limits to the possible intermixture of these races with each other. So great is the diversity of physical characters, that naturalists of the greatest eminence almost acknowledge themselves incapable of pointing out any that are common to all dogs, and yet distinguish them all from the different species of wolves and jackals; and in fact, the recurred tail, not apparently a character of the first importance, is named by Cuvier himself as the most certain and unvarying specific distinction. The obliquity of the eyes of wolves is also contrasted with the more forward direction of those of dogs, which is accounted for—in favor of the theory of wolfish origin—by the supposition that it results from “the constant habit, for many successive #”. of looking forwards to their master, and obeying his voice.”—Bell’s British Quadrupeds. This, on the other side, is treated with ridicule; it is certainly a transition from the region of observation and ascertained fact to that of mere theory and conjecture. In size, dogs differ so widely that one is not as large as the lisad of another; the difference in form of body, head, or limbs, is almost equally great between the Newfoundland dog or the mastiff and the greyhound. The gradations, however, from one form or character to another, render it impossible to draw a fixed limit. In some races of dog, the hind-feet as well as the forefeet have five toes, instead of four, which is more common; but this has not been much insisted on as a round of specific distinction. Greater value ought perhaps to be attached to the want in some, as the dholes (q.v.) of India, of the second tubercular tooth in the lower jaw; the hairiness of the soles of the feet of some is perhaps also not unimportant; and in favor of the opinion that domestic dogs have originated from an intermixture of several species, it has been urged that the number of teats in the female varies, and that there is sometimes even a difference between the number on one side and on the other, which has never been observed to be the case in wild dogs, and in them the number in the same kind is always uniform. Some of these points, however, have not received the investigation necessary to a confident determination of the measure of importance which ought to be assigned to them. It seems to have been too hastily taken for granted, in favor of the opinion that there is only one species of dog, that all the wild races, even the dholes and the dingo, have sprung from domestic progenitors. There is certainly no evidence of this; and the fact that wild races exist, exhibiting marked diversities of character, in countries widely remote and of very different climates, is referred to with confidence on the other side, as affording at least a strong presumption in favor of the supposition that man has, in different countries, domesticated the species which he found there. We do not yet know enough of the amount and limits of the changes which circumstances and climate may produce, to warrant any confident conclusions on that ground. And if we were to adopt the views of those who ascribe least to such causes, we might yet demand them to show why, although from certain original types no mixed race can originate, there may not yet be other original types capable of such combination, or why the limits must be held equally impassable between all that were framed by an original act of creation, That there was only one original pair of the human race, may be held, without our of necessity holding that there was only one original pair of dogs. But to this consideration due place has, perhaps, scarcely been given. That the common fox—or any species of fox—is a parent of any race of dogs, is not the opinion of any naturalist. Some dogs have a somewhat fox-like appearance, and indeed it is now generally admitted that the dog and fox will breed together, but as it has not been proved that the individuals of the cross will breed together, this fact does not warrant the assertion that the dog and fox belong to the same species. Instances of commixture between the dog and wolf have occurred in greater numbers, and without the compulsion of confinement, but in this case, too, the only recognized proof of identity of species—namely, the permanent fertility of the progeny—is wanting. In favor of the specific identity of the dog and wolf, one of the strongest arguments is drawn from the equality of the period of gestation—63 days. But it may be remarked that an inequality .# the period would have afforded a much stronger argument on the other side. Against the identity of the dog and wolf, the difference of disposition has been strongly urged. In reply, it is shown by well-authenticated instances that the wolf is

og. T #hane. 36 yery capable of that attachment to man which so remarkably characterizes the dog, There is greater value, perhaps, in the argument of col. Hamilton Smith, that “if domestic dogs were merely wolves modified by the influence of man’s wants, surely the curs of Mohammedan states, refused domestic care, and only tolerated in Asiatic cities in the opacity of scavengers, would long since have resumed some of the characters of the wolf.” Buffon’s notion, that the shepherd dog is the original type of the whole species, from which all dogs are derived, is merely fanciful, and his endeavor to support it by a comparative view of the different kinds, only exhibits a certain amount of ingenuity, The shepherd’s dog is one of the kinds of dog having greatest development of brain, but it is still greater in the spaniel. The skulls of dogs, however, neither exhibit very marked distinctions when compared with each other, nor when compared with those of wolves and jackals. It is universally believed that the diversity of color exhibited by many dogs is a result of domestication, as it is neither found in those which may be supposed to exist in a state of original wildness, nor in those wild races which are certainly known to be the progeny of domestic dogs, a return to o of coloring being apparently one of the most speedy consequences of a return to wildness. Black, reddish-brown, and white, the uniform colors observed in wild dogs, are, however, the colors which chiefly appear mixed in domestic races. Pendulous ears are generally regarded as another result of domestication in dogs, as in rabbits; and it is certain that the wild races known have erect and pointed ears; but no wild race has been discovered at all corresponding to the mastiff in some of its other most notable characters, particularly the shortness of the muzzle, and depth of the chops, and it has therefore been conjectured that this, and kindred races may have derived their origin from some wild dog of the interior of Asia, which has not yet come under the notice of any scientific observer. The dog has been a domestic animal from a very early period. The earliest allusions to it are in the books of Moses, but they indeed correspond with the dislike and contempt still commonly entertained for it by many of the nations of southern Asia. By Homer, however, it is very differently mentioned; and “there is not a modern story of the kind which can surpass the affecting, simplicity with which the poor o: dying recognition of his long-lost master is related by one who wrote, probably, not less than 2,700 years ago.” The sculptures of Nineveh, and the hieroglyphics of Egypt, attest the very early domestication of the dog, and the existence of races similar to some of those which exist at the present day; and the high value attached to it by many nations is further attested by the place assigned to it, or its image, as emblematic of the attributes which they ascribed to their gods. We do not now set so high a value on the dog, in consideration of mere usefulness to man, as on some of the other domestic animals; yet to the sava it is o the most important of all, and some have supposed that by its aid the . jugation of other animals may have been first accomplished. Cuvier makes the stron assertion, that the dog “is the most complete, the most singular, and the most usefu conquest ever made by man.” The dog, far more than any other animal, becomes a humble friend and companion of man, often seeming actually to know and sympathize with the joys and sorrows of his master; and on this account it is, that he is alike “the Paolo minion of royalty, and the half-starved partaker of the beggar’s crust.” he uses to which the dog is applied are numerous, and correspond, in some measure, not only with distinct physical characters, but with remarkably distinct instincts of different breeds. Thus, whilst in some countries dogs are chiefly employed as beasts of draught, particularly for drawing sledges in the frozen regions of the north, and in other countries chiefly for the chase, the exquisite scent of some kinds, and the remarkable fleetness of others, variously recommending them for this use, we find them also rendering important services in the care of sheep and other cattle, and endowed with hereditary instincts wonderfully fitted for this purpose, and we find them, with like adaptation of instinct, lo valuable in watching and protecting the abodes and properties of their masters. . Not the least interesting .#: employments to which the dog has been devoted by man, is that of leading about the blind, which is often done with an intelligent and affectionate solicitude highly worthy of admiration. Anecdotes, illustrating not only the instincts, but the intelligence and affection of dogs, are familiar to every one, and form one of the most pleasing parts of many a book of natural history. , Attractive to children, they are worthy of all the consideration which they can receive from the most philosophic mind: Volumes have been filled, and more volumes might easily be filled, with anecdotes well authenticated, and well worthy of preservation. he dog produces usually from six to ten young ones at a birth. They are born blind, open their eyes about the tenth or twelfth day, attain their full growth in about two years, seldom live more than twelve or fifteen years, and almost never more than twenty. No satisfactory classification of the different kinds of dog has ever been made. What some naturalists regard as types of species, others pronounce to be mere mongrel races. Nor can any principle of arrangement be found in form, roughness or smooth

[ocr errors]
ness of fur, or other such character, which will not associate kinds that are in other respects widely dissimilar, and separate some that are nearly allied. Col. Hamilton Smith arranges domestic dogs in six groups or sections: 1. “The wolf dogs,” including the Siberian dog, Esquimaux dog, Iceland dog, Newfoundland dog, Nootka dog, sheep dog, great wolf dog, great St. Bernard dog, Pomeranian dog, etc. , 2. “The watch and cattle dogs,” including the German boar-hound, Danish dog, matin, dog of the North American Indians, etc. 3. “The greyhounds,” including the Brinjaree dog, different kinds of greyhound, Irish hound, lurcher, Egyptian street dog, etc. 4. “The hounds,” including the bloodhound, old southern hound, staghound, foxuound, harrier, beagle, pointer, setter, Spaniel, springer, cocker, Blenheim dog, water dog or poodle, etc. 5. “The cur dogs,” including the terrier and its allies. 6. “The mastiffs,” including different kinds of mastiff, the bull dog, pug dog, etc. Col. H. Smith does not include in any of these groups the dholes, dingo, etc., which he even separates from the genus cants.-Mr. fift. arranges dogs in three great groups, “indicated by the least variable part of their osteological structure, cranial development.” 1. Including the Irish wolf dog, highland deerhound, all kinds of greyhounds, and the tiger hound, characterized by convergent parietal bones, an elongated muzzle, and high and slender form. 2. Including the great Dane, the French matin, the pariah of India, the bloodhound, staghound, foxhound, harrier, beagle, pointers, terriers, turnspit, Newfoundland dog, Labrador dog, Pomeranian dog, Esquimaux dog, Siberian dog, Iceland dog, shepherd’s dog, etc., characterized by parallel parietal bones, and generally by much acuteness of smell. 3. Including mastiffs, the great St. Bernard #. bull dog, pug dog, etc., characterized by sensibly divergent parietal bones, bulk of body, robust structure, and combative propensities.

DOG (in law). The keeping of vicious or destructive dogs, or other animals, except under proper precautions, is illegal; and the proprietor is liable for the damage which they occasion in all cases in which it cannot be clearly shown that the fault lay with the party injured. Even before the injury occurs, it is competent to enforce measures of precaution. If a man, have a dog which he knows to be of a savage nature, and addicted to bite, and he allow it to go in a frequented place without being muzzled or otherwise guarded so as to prevent it from committing injury, he may be indicted in England as for a common nuisance. . If the dog be of a ferocious kind, as a mastiff, it has been held that he must be muzzled (1 Russ. 303); and it will be no defense in an action of damages against the master, that the person injured trod on the dog’s toes, for he would not have trodden on them if they had not been there (3 Car. and P. 138). The harboring of a dog about one’s premises, or allowing him to resort there, will warrant indictment (M’Hone and Wood, 5 C. and P. 2). If a dog known to his proprietor to have previously bitten a sheep, be retained by him, the proprietor will be liable to all subsequent injuries even to other animals, as, e.g., a horse. (Burn’s Justice of the Peace, vol. ii. p. 333). In Scotland, a warrant may be obtained, on proof of vicious practices and danger to the public, either from the sheriff or the justices, on a summary complaint, to have a dog secured or slain, and the owner found liable in expenses. The complaint may be at the instance either of the fiscal or of a private party, with or without the fiscal’s concurrence. An interdict may be granted against the D. going loose

** the discussion of the question as to whether or not he ought to be killed.

ki. ocal police acts contain provisions as to shutting up or muzzling dogs during the prevalence of weather likely to produce hydrophobia; and where such do not exist, the subject may be dealt with by the magistrate at common law. Formerly, the common law of England held that it was not larceny to steal any of the baser animals, in which class all dogs, except those of value, were included. ut by 7 and 8 Geo. IV. c. 29, dog-stealing was declared to be an offense punishable by fine. This act was repealed, and new regulations of a more stringent kind made by 8 and 9 Vict. c. 47. By that enactment dog-stealing is a misdemeanor, punishable, on summary conviction, for the first offense, by six months’ imprisonment and hard labor, or fine not exceeding £20 beyond the value of the dog. The second offense is an indictable one, punishable by fine or imprisonment and hard labor not exceeding eighteen months, or both. Similar punishment is provided for persons found in possession of dogs or dogs-skins, knowin them to have been stolen. A D. going into a neighbor’s field does not afford groun for an action of trespass unless he does mischief; and even then the person who kills him in certain circumstances, may be liable in damages (2 Marsh. 584). The use of dogs for !. of draught was prohibited under a penalty by 2 and 3 Vict. c. 47, which is explained by 17 and 18 Vict. c. 60, s. 2. See ANIMALs, CRUELTY to.

Taz on Dogs.-The duty charged on every D. above the age of six months is 5s., and shepherds’ dogs are not exempt. Until recently, the duty on every D. was 12s. The maximum charge for any number of hounds was £39 12s.; of greyhounds, £9. Any D. kept wholly for the care of sheep or cattle, if not a greyhound, hound, pointer, setting-dog, spaniel, lurcher, or terrier, was exempt.

DOG’BANE, Apocynum, a genus of plants of the natural order apocynaceae, having bell-shaped flowers, no style, and the fruit a long linear follicle. Some of the species are shrubby, some herbaceous; some extend into colder climates than is usual for plants of this order. The D. of North America (A. androsae-mifolium), a perennial herbaceous

[ocr errors]
plant, about 4 ft. high, with smooth stem, much milky juice, smooth ovate leaves, and whitish rose-colored flowers, growing in open barren places from Georgia to Canada, is valued for the medicinal properties of the bark of its root, which is emetic, diaphoretic, and in small doses tonic. The root of CANADIAN HEMP (A. cannabinum), a plant noticed on another account in the article Apocynaceae, possesses similar properties, and is frequently used in the United States.

D00-DAYS. See CANICULAR DAYS.

DOG DISTEMPER, a kind of violent catarrh, common among dogs, especially when young, producing running at the eyes and nose, and a dry cough, followed by wasting of flesh and loss of strength, and sometimes by inflammation of the lungs and dysentery. The usual remedies are laxatives, emetics, and occasional bleeding. Astringents are useful in diarrhea, and fits may be modified by anodynes and warm baths.

D0G-DRAW. An apparent deprehension of an offender against venison in the forest. Dog-draw is where any man hath stricken or wounded a wild beast by shooting with a cross-bow, long-bow, or otherwise, and is found with a hound, or other dog drawing after him to receive the same.—Cowel’s Interpreter,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s