THERE is a wide difference of opinion among naturalists as to the stock from which our dogs of the present day came. Hallock says that some have it the wolf, others the jackal or fox, while not a few claim that the wild dog of India is the source from which sprang all the varieties. He maintains, however, that it cannot be declared with any degree of certainty what the parent stock was. Certain it is that to no one animal can the paternity of these useful races be credited, as they are so widely different in form, color, and characteristics, and man could never have developed and brought together such vast differences, opposite natures and shapes, as can be seen in domestic dogs, unless the original species were in possession of the rudiments. Neither could food, climate, nor any contrivance whatever so completely alter the nature, decrease the powers of scent, render the coat short, long, or curly, lengthen or shorten the limbs, unless separate types had furnished the material.

Ancient bas-relief and monumental delineations picture the dog as distinct in its characteristics thousands of years ago as at the present day, and fossil remains have been repeatedly discovered so little resembling either the wolf, jackal, or fox, and so different in type, as to be classified with the spaniel, terrier, hound, bulldog, pointer, and pug; and as we know these to be made dogs, or in other words hybrids, the species must have been fully as numerous as at the present time.

There are numerous species of wild dogs differing from one another almost as much as our own domestic animals of to-day. Granting that the spaniel, greyhound, and terrier sprang originally from the wolf, as some argue, why not point out first why the male dogs are so dissimilar? And again, why are the wolves of different countries unlike, and which species of wolf is the true and only one?

Without wishing to conflict with the opinions of those so much more learned on the subject than ourselves, we would ask, would it not be much more reasonable to suppose, without positive proof, that the origin of the domestic dog can be referred to numerous aboriginal species, crossing with the wild varieties-as we know our dogs will frequently do, including the wolf, jackal, and the fox, if we like, climate assisting, and man aiding by judicious intermixing and breeding until the present high standard of this useful animal has been reached?

It is noticeable that we have in America far more well-bred setters than pointers, and greater attention seems to have been paid in the last few years in procuring the former blood than the latter. This arises from the fact that the setter is the greater favorite of the two, and justly the choice of the sportsman when he desires a dog that will unflinchingly stand the rough-and-tumble nature of our shooting. Of the two, the point of the shorter-haired animal is far the more marked when on game, and the training once received by him is always retained, and on each returning season he enters the field to be depended upon, while the setter oftener has to be partially rebroken each year; and if not owned by a sportsman who shoots continually, becomes headstrong and unreliable.

"For the person whose business will not allow him to take his gun in hand but two or three times in the autumn," says an authority, "we advise by all, means that his dog should be the pointer; but for the one who takes advantage of the open season for different game from its beginning to its close, we recommend the setter as best able to bear continued work in all descriptions of cover."

The short hair of the pointer enables him to do work on the prairies while "chicken" shooting where water is seldom found, and which he can do without for a longtime; but in New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, and in countries where the game invariably takes to the briery thickets on being started, the pointer is at a disadvantage, as it refuses to enter them.