Domestic Dogs

On 26 February 1806 at Fort Clatsop, for example, Lewis summarized all he had learned about the badger, or Braro, as their French-Canadian hired hands had called it. The body, he observed, was rather long in proportion to its thickness, and “the forelegs [are] remarkably large and muscular and are formed like the ternspit [turnspit] dog” (Fig. 1).

Lewis thought of a typical turnspit dog as having forelegs bent —elbows outward, wrists inward —like those of the badger. In dogdom that conformation is a genetic anomaly known as achondroplasic dwarfism. It occurs in the dog’s legs, which are short for the body’s length, and in its head and face, which are foreshortened like those of a pug-dog. In fact, a turnspit’s short legs could be either crooked or straight, depending on its bloodline. Either attribute would be acceptable for this job, since both would center the dog’s weight close to the outer radius of the wheel, and result in more efficient transfer of the dog’s energy through the turnspit mechanism. A short muzzle, if not the stubby nose of a pug-dog, would prevent the working animal from bumping that most sensitive part of his anatomy. It all added up to a simple exercise in plane geometry. There was some disagreement also as to which side of the body a turnspit’s tail should curl toward (compare Figures 2 and 3), but the consensus was that it should curl over the dog’s right hindquarters.

Bewick described the turnspit as “a bold, vigilant, and spirited little Dog.” He and his collaborator, an English engraver on steel and silver named Ralph Beilby (1744-1817), maintained that the typical turnspit dog had a blue-grey coat with black spots. William Bingley (1774-1823) said it was usually all black except for the white streak over the head.^[5]The Rev. William Bingley (1774-1823) published his Animal Biography in 1802, aiming to offset a tendency among the faithful to regard the new popular science of “natural history” as … Continue reading Georges Buffon said that a turnspit dog was “generally a dusky grey, spotted with black; or entirely black, with the under parts whitish.”^[6]Georges-Louis Leclerc, count de Buffon, Histoire naturelle, genérale et particuliére, Vol. 5 (Paris: de L’Imprimérie, 1755), 123. Internet Archive.

Bewick insisted, moreover, that a good turnspit dog was often identifiable by its eyes, the iris of one being black, the other white. But that condition, called heterochromia iridis (varicolored irises) is but another genetic anomaly, and may simply have been a coincidental feature of a few conspicuously talented turnspit dogs. By 1829, turnspit dogs were of merely historical interest, but the British naturalist Captain Thomas Brown, perhaps prompted by illustrations such as those of Bewick, Beilby and Bingley, in retrospect felt obliged to clarify one point: The shape of a turnspit’s head was “something between that of the pointer and hound, with long ears.”^[7]Captain Thomas Brown, Biographical Sketches and Authentic Anecdotes of Dogs (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1829), 418.

By the end of the 18th century, Bewick noted, turnspit dogs in England were being replaced by more certain methods of covering the business of the spit, such as Benjamin Franklin’s “Pennsylvania Fireplace” of 1740, which basically eliminated the hazards, inefficiencies and inconveniences of the open hearth for cooking.

In general the word turnspit referred to any dog possessing the physical characteristics and temperamental proclivities to do that particular job, and did not identify a particular breed. Carl Linnæus (1707-1778) however, in his Systema naturæ of 1758, defined the turnspit dog as a unique species, giving it the trinomial Canis familiaris vertagu, which translates as “common tumbler dog.” Linnæus may have called it a “tumbler dog” on the mistaken impression that the turnspit would have been “tumbled” about in the treadwheel. However, that name had at least one other long-standing connotation in the British Isles, where tumbler dogs—also known as lurchers—were particularly adept at hunting rabbits because, according to John Caius, “they turne and tumble, winding their bodyes about in circle wise, . . . so that the simple Conny [coney, rabbit] is debarred quite from his hole.” Neither the tumbler nor the lurcher were mentioned in the journals of the Lewis and Clark expedition.^[8]John Caius, De Canibus Britannicis (London: Gulielmum Seresium, 1570). Translated by William Fleming as Of Englishe Dogges, 1576, reprinted 1729.

Meriwether Lewis embellished his comparison of the badger and the turnspit with his judgment that the badger’s head was formed “much like the common fist [feist; rhymes with “iced”] dog only that the skull is more convex.” William Clark used feist once too. He noted that at about 5 o’clock in the evening of 12 August 1804, he and Captain Lewis went on shore “to Shoot a Prarie wolf”—coyote, that is—that barked at them as they passed on the river. It “barked like a large fest [feist],” he noticed, “and is not much larger.”

Noah Webster didn’t include “feist” in either his first (1806) or second (1828) dictionaries, nor is it found in any of the books on dogs that we have consulted so far for this article, most of which were written by British authors and published there.

However, the Dictionary of American Regional English lets us in on the story of the type: “a small bad-tempered dog.” No feist-lover would agree with that, but that is after all where we got the adverb feisty. Feists are bred not for show, but for hunting, so there exists much variety in their appearance. In general, they are under 18 inches with short hair and long legs. They are adept at chasing and treeing prey and typically do not bark during the chase.^[9]http://www.ireference.ca accessed on 15 November 2010.

Lewis summoned the image of the “common cur” in order to convey some sense of the look of “the Indian dog.” It was, he reported on 16 February 1806, “usually small or much more so than the common cur.” Moreover, the Indian dog’s hair was “short and smooth except on the tail where it is as long as that of the curdog and streight.”

Captain Lewis wrote of them on 16 February, at Fort Clatsop:

The Indian Dog is usually small or much more so than the common cur.    they are party [parti-]coloured; black white brown and brindle are the more usual colours.^[10]Brindle has commonly been used since the late 17th century in describing cattle and, especially, dogs. The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “tawny or grayish with streaks or spots of … Continue reading the head is long and nose pointed eyes Small, ears erect and pointed like those of the wolf, hair Short and Smooth except on the tail where it is as long as that of the Cur dog and streight.    the nativs [at the mouth of the Columbia] do not eate them, or make any further use of them than in hunting the Elk as has been before observed.^[11]Clark, 2 February 1806: “The natives of this neighbourhood have a Small Dog which they make usefull only in hunting the Elk.”

Their description applied only to the dogs they saw in the vicinity of Fort Clatsop, to all dogs west of the Bitterroot Mountains, or to the dogs belonging to all the native people that the Corps met.

On 11 September 1806, twelve days from the end of the expedition, Clark admitted that he as well as most of his men often mistook the barking of coyotes for that of the “Common Small Cur dogs.”

the barking of the little prarie wolves resembled those of our Common Small Dogs that ¾ of the party believed them to be the dogs of Some boat assending which was yet below us.     the barking of those little wolves I have frequently taken notice of on this as also the other Side of the Rocky mountains, and their Bark so much resembles or Sounds to me like our Common Small Cur dogs that I have frequently mistaken them for that Speces of dog —

By the end of the 18th century, according to Thomas Bewick, selected cur-dogs or cur-tykes were known to be trustworthy and useful servants to farmers and “graziers.” The cur-dog’s typically black and white coat was short and smooth. Its ears were “half-pricked”—the lower part erect, the upper bent forward.

“Many of them,” Bewick continued,

are whelped with short tails, which seem as if they had been cut: These are called Self-tailed Dogs. They bite very keenly; and as they always make their attack at the heels, the cattle have no defence against them: In this way they are more than a match for a Bull, which they quickly compel to run . . . . They know their master’s fields, and are singularly attentive to the cattle that are in them: A good Dog watches, goes his rounds; and, if any strange cattle should happen to appear amongst the herd, although unbidden, he quickly flies at them, and with keen bites obliges them to depart.

In general they were larger, stronger, and fiercer than most purebred shepherd dogs, but above all, Bewick emphasized, “their sagacity is uncommonly great.”^[12]Bewick, Quadrupeds, 286.

A cur-dog did not represent a distinct race or species, but was a mongrel—an animal of obscure parentage—selected from a litter for its potential for training to herd cattle or sheep; hunt rabbits, squirrels, or some game birds; exterminate rodents, or merely to serve as a household companion and watchdog.

From the time of Shakespeare and Addison on, the word cur was also used in a pejorative sense, denoting a worthless, noisy, snappish dog of no recognizable breed. Or worse, “a surly, ill-bred, low, or cowardly fellow.”^[13]Oxford English Dictionary Online, s.v. “cur,” 1. and 1b.

On the day the Corps of Discovery returned to Travelers Rest (1 July 1806) from the Pacific, Lewis wrote his longest dissertation on prairie dogs, concluding with the remark that “they generally set and bark at you as you approach them, their note being much that of the little toy dogs, their yelps are in quick succession and at each they a[dd?] a motion to their tails.” On the day (7 September 1804) when the captains and some of their men discovered the “burrowing squirrels” that the French engagés called petite chien, Sgt. Ordway remarked that those rodents were indeed “about the Size of a little dog,” although he didn’t name a specific breed.

Of whatever breed, the essential attributes of the canine type recognized as “toy dogs” include small size, friendly disposition, and endearing facial features. It is still a very popular class of pet, especially among older persons, or in densely populated urban neighborhoods, or in bustling commercial neighborhoods where walking one’s dog is inconvenient or inappropriate. Recent genetic analyses have suggested that toy dogs were among the first canids to be domesticated. For many centuries they were symbols of affluence, especially among women of leisure, who used them as hand and foot warmers in chilly salons, theaters, chapels and cathedrals.

From time to time various breeds of toy dogs have become faddish, resulting in over-breeding and potential damage to bloodlines, as was the case with the Mexican chihuahua early in the 21st century. In the era of Lewis and Clark there were fewer than a half dozen distinct breeds of toy dogs; today the American Kennel Club recognizes more than twenty.^[14]A Bichon Frise (Fig. 7) was named Best in Show in the 124th (2001) Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show.