ell-known
attachment of the dog to man is the most remarkable, arising probably
from his having been for so many years his constant companion, and the
object of his care. That this propensity is not instinctive is proved,
by its not having existed, even in the slightest degree, in the
Australian dog.

Sir John Sebright kept this animal for about a year, almost always in
his room. He fed him himself, and took every means that he could think
of to reclaim him, but with no effect. He was insensible to caresses,
and never appeared to distinguish Sir John from any other person. The
dog would never follow him, even from one room to another; nor would
he come when called, unless tempted by the offer of food. Wolves and
foxes have shown much more sociability than he did. He appeared to be
in good spirits, but always kept aloof from the other dogs. He was
what would be called tame for an animal in a menagerie; that is, he
was not shy, but would allow strangers to handle him, and never
attempted to bite. If he were led near sheep or poultry, he became
quite furious from his desire to attack them.

Here, then, we see that the propensities that are the most marked, and
the most constant in every breed of domestic dogs, are not to be found
in animals of the same species in their natural state, or even in
their young, although subjected to the same treatment from the moment
of their birth.

Notwithstanding the above-mentioned fact, we may, I think, consider
the domestic dog as an animal _per se_; that is, that it neither owes
its origin to the fox nor wolf, but is sprung from the wild dog. In
giving this opinion, I am aware that some naturalists have endeavoured
to trace the origin of the dog from the fox; while others, and some of
the most eminent ones, are of opinion that it sprung from the wolf. I
shall be able to show that the former is out of the question. The
wolf, perhaps, has some claim to be considered as the parent animal,
and that he is susceptible of as strong attachment as the dog is
proved by the following anecdote, related by Cuvier.

He informs us, that a young wolf was brought up as a dog, became
familiar with every person whom he was in the habit of seeing, and in
particular, followed his master everywhere, evincing evident chagrin
at his absence, obeying his voice, and showing a degree of submission
scarcely differing in any respect from that of the domesticated dog.
His master, being obliged to be absent for