The framented lower jaw found from Nilgala (Sarasin and Sarasin, 1908)
Canis familiaris L. (or Canis aureus L.).
A fragment of a lower jaw (Plate IX, Fig. 235), containing two incisors, a canine tooth missing its tip, the first premolar, and the root of the second premolar in its socket, unquestionably belongs to a Canid. However, it is not possible to determine with absolute certainty whether it belongs to the Pariah dog or the jackal. Due to the relative thickness and shortness of the symphyseal part, which appears more elongated in the jackal, Dr. Stehlin and I were inclined to assign the fragment to the dog. However, I did not dare to make a final decision, so I sent the jaw to our eminent Canid expert, Professor Th. Studer in Bern, asking for his judgment. Here is his response: "Unfortunately, the fragment belongs to a part of the skull that shows the least characteristic features; moreover, it comes from a young animal, about 8 months old, in which the permanent canine has not yet fully developed its crown, and the three premolars are still close together, with the front one still close to the canine. The second one has broken off near the root, which is still in the sockets. I have now compared the whole thing with skulls of jackals from Ceylon. There, the canine is much slimmer, less sagittally widened, and less flattened on the inside; it shows a ridge towards the back that is less pronounced in the jackal; also, the front end of the jaw is thicker and more robust than in the jackal. On the other hand, the first premolar, due to the strong development of its tip, resembles more that of the jackal. In Pariah dogs and Dingoes, it is weaker and lower. The height of the jaw at the first premolar and the sagittal diameter of the canine crown correspond to the proportions of a Sumatran Pariah; the Dingo shows stronger dimensions. For now, my diagnosis leans towards a dog, not a jackal. However, that's all I can say after comparing it with numerous Dingoes and Pariahs, as well as two jackal skulls from Ceylon; unfortunately, the small piece doesn't allow for a definitive judgment."
Even if we, with all due caution, attribute the jaw in question to a dog based on this assessment, it remains difficult to explain how a dog's jawbone ended up among the bones of prey animals, as dogs were certainly not used as food. While it's unlikely that jackals were eaten either, they often prowled around human settlements and were likely hunted frequently. Whether the bite marks found on some bones are from jackals or from a domesticated form cannot be determined.
In the past, we had a tendency to believe that dogs were introduced to the Weddas by the Sinhalese (26, page 450), partly because the Wedda dog seems to be nothing more than the Pariah dog of the Sinhalese and Tamils, and also because the Weddas occasionally exchange young dogs with the village Sinhalese, indicating that they do not seem to have enough of their own breeding stock. Furthermore, there are still isolated groups of native Weddas in remote mountain regions who do not own dogs, such as the small tribe on Danigala, which we visited in March 1907.
There are also examples of ethnic groups that only came to know dogs very late. For instance, the Andamanese had no dogs before the European occupation of the island group and only started using them for hunting since 1865; now they highly value them (see Man, 17, page 341). Similarly, the Tasmanians received dogs, which they had soon began to appreciate (see H. Ling Roth's compilation, 24, page 111).
With the discovery of the presumed dog jaw in the Nilgala Cave, the question of the Wedda dog becomes open again and should be carefully considered by future cave researchers.
--- Translated by Blogger from the original source.
