Genus Canis Research Articles

Genus Canis

Genus Canis

Notice of the Skull of a Dog Exhumed from the Alluvial Gravel of Norwich, in 1851

From the difficulty which apparently exists in identifying the Fossil remains of particular species of animals, as for instance, those of the Genus Canis, I avail myself of this opportunity to bring before the Society a short notice of the skull of one of the Canidae, which I believe to be that of a Dog, recently presented to the Museum of the Leeds Philosophical Society, by P. O’Callaghan, Esq., of Cookridge Hall. This specimen was exhumed from a bed of gravel at the depth of sixteen feet, along with the bones of Deer and other animals, in the year 1851, by some workmen employed in sinking a shaft for a new chimney at the gas works in the parish of St. Martins, at Palace, in the city of Norwich. The first comparative anatomist of the day, Professor Owen, in his valuable Manual of British Fossil Mammals, appears to be of opinion that it is extremely difficult to distinguish, with certainty, the skull of the Dog from that of the Wolf, from the specimens which have come under his observation; and that the majority of those remains which have been assigned to the Dog, do not differ sufficiently from those of the Wolf to warrant their separation. There are, however, characters in the latter to which Professor Owen alludes, which I think are sufficient to identify the Wolf. These are the great size of the canine teeth, the greater length and height of the occipital sagittal crest, and the triangular space ...

On the extinct Fossil Viverrine Fox of Œningen, showing its specific characters and affinities to the Family Viverridæ

In compliance with the request of Sir R. Murchison, I have examined the fossil Fox described and figured in Dr. Mantell's appendix to the ‘Memoir on the Œningen Deposits,’ in which formation was discovered that interesting and remarkably perfect specimen*. The number and kind of teeth in the fossil are there shown ( loc. cit. p. 291) to agree with the dental formula of the Fox and the rest of the genus Canis of Linnæus. On comparing the well-preserved specimens of the teeth in the right ramus of the lower jaw, the inner surfaces of which are exposed in the right moiety of the skeleton, with the corresponding teeth of a Common Fox ( Canis Vulpes , Linn.) of equal size with the fossil, the following well-marked differences are seen. The first premolar (fig. 1. p 1) is relatively smaller, the third ( p 3) and fourth ( p 4) relatively larger than in the Fox, and all the premolars are placed closer together, and occupy, therefore, less space in the fossil than in the Common Fox, the Arctic Fox, or the Italian Fox ( Canis melanogaster *). The fossil Canis differs also from these and from every existing species of Dog, Wolf and Jackal with which I have been able to compare it, in the greater development of the anterior and posterior tubercles at the base of the crown of the third and fourth premolårs. The singular Hyænoid subgenus of Canis , represented by the South African species ( Lycaö pictus ), presents the above character of the fossil,