Pages have been written on the origin and ancient history of the dog, theories advanced, speculations urged, and yet we still remain in complete ignorance on the subject. Some contend, in the anatomical structure of certain parts that he resmbles the wolf. There are however, differences to reconcile, before this supposition can be accepted. Others have traced to the fox, and still others to the jackal, each party being satisfied in his own mind of the correctness of his theory, and yet the same differences remain.

A knowledge of the primitive state and habits of the animal might aid much on this subject, but that being denied us, we are forced to turn to the anatomical mechanism and natural promptings for guidance.

It is admitted that the dog belongs to the family of carnivora, or flesh eaters, and a study of his digestive organs verifies this assumption. The instinctive desire of animals for certain substances is a sure indication that they are in reality required for the nutritive process, while the indifference or repugnance manifested for others, injurious and valueless, is an equal evidence of their unfitness as articles of food.

Starch is very abundant in corn, wheat, rye, oats and rice, and in almost all vegetable substances used as food, and during the progress of digestion is converted into sugar. That these articles alone are an unfit diet, is proven by the experiments of Magendie, who found that dogs fed exclusively on starch or sugar perished after a short time with symptoms of profound disturbance of the nutritive functions. On the other hand, experiments have been made by Claude Bernard and others, proving that carnivorous animals can be kept for an indefinite time, exclusively on a diet of flesh, and yet the body be maintained in a perfectly healthy condition.

Dogs have no natural cravings for vegetables. To be fed chiefly on them, or on puddings, bread and starchy food continuously, invites debilitated constitutions and attendant diseases. The writer is firm in his conviction, that eczema is propagated by this abuse more often than by any other.

Meat, unquestionably, should be the principle article of diet for dogs. An acceptance of this theory is by no means an indorsement of that extreme dootrine advanced by some - that starchy foods are detestable to the canine race. On the contrary, saccharine substances in small quantities are essential, and conducive to the health of the animals (see page 96).

The question arises whether meat should be fed cooked or raw. Both have advantages. Certain constituents are lost in the process of cooking. The muscular fibres are almost always more or less hardened by boiling or roasting, but at the same time, the fibrous tissue by which they are held together is gelatinized and softened, so that the muscular fibres are more easily separated from each other, and more readily attacked by the digestive fluids. The organic substances contained in meat, which are insipid in the raw state, acquire, by the action of heat and cooking, a peculiar and agreeable flavor. This flavor excites the appetite and stimulates the flow of the digestive fluids, and renders in this way the process of digestion more easy and expeditious.

In cooking meat, it is desirable that it be rendered palatable, and the flavor varied from time to time. This may be done by the addition of vegetables, which should be well crushed after boiling.

The different kinds of meal, thoroughly cooked in strong broths, constitute a diet nutritious and inviting. Puddings so made must not alone be depended upon, but meat should be generously added to them or given after they are eaten.

Sheep's heads and the feet of animals may be boiled to a jelly. They are « highly nutritious, and dogs are very fond of them.

Beef flour is a valuable substitute for flesh, is excellent for puppies and matured dogs alike; it can be added to boiling water, a strong broth made, and then thickened with a little bread, crackers or meal.

Pork scraps, in pressed cakes, keep for an indefinite time, and may be fed once or twice a week; they should be soaked for some hours until soft, and then boiled.

Milk, sweet or sour, can be given freely, and is valuable for a change. Dog biscuits, so called, have within a few years become very popular in large kennels; when honestly prepared, they are an excellent diet. The manner of feeding them should be frequently changed; at times given dry, at others soaked in milk or broths, or crushed with vegetables.

Bones, the dog's tooth brush, are an essential. By their use the muscles of the jaws are kept strong, and the pleasure they give the animals is very evident; their value may be lessened however, by too frequent feeding, as many a broken well worn tooth testifies.

While the use of vegetables adds flavor to the food and excites the appetite of the animal, it has still another important action as a gentle laxative. Liver has the same property, and the conditions of the bowels' should direct its use.

Among the medicinal agents often administered with the food, sulphur may be properly referred to while on the subject of feeding. It is laxative and resolvent, and is supposed to be rendered soluble by the soda of the bile. It is thrown out of the system by the bowels and through the skin, and for that reason has an influence on cutaneous diseases. Its occasional use can do no harm, and unless a perfect condition of the animal contra-indlcates, It may be given once or twice a week in summer, and once or twice a month in colder weather.

The dose for a fifty pound dog is one teaspoonful, and may be mingled with the food or given in milk.

Many authors have dwelt upon the dirt-eating propensity of dogs, and concluded therefrom, that the proper method of feeding is to throw the food on to the ground. The writer is of the opinion that if such a propensity exists, it is wiser to leave the dogs to nature's promptings and let them eat dirt when they choose, rather than insist upon its being eaten at every meal. He therefore prefers to feed his animals from clean dishes, and the cleaner the better.

The greatest importance is attached to the quality of the food given. It should be of the very best, and no tainted meat, mouldy bread, or food changed in its Integrity, should ever be used in any form. Many people consider decomposing meat better for a dog, and attempt to fortify their arguments, by illustrating with the fact, that the animal will occasionally bury a bone or part of his food, to be dug up and eaten later. The fact is true, but the inference an ancient absurdity. A dog never buries meat when he is hungry, but after a hearty meal will often do so, proving our supposition that it is his natural food, an evidence of his great craving, which he will eat in any form, no matter how badly decayed. Give him sufficient fresh meat and he will never seek carrion.

Chloride of Sodium or common salt, some authors state, "is poison to a dog". In this the writer cannot agree, but on the contrary deems it essential to perfect health. It is found throughout the tissues and fluids of the body, exerts an important influence on the solution of various other ingredients with which it is associated, and the blood globules are maintained by it in a state of integrity. Since common salt is so universally present in all parts of the body, it is an important ingredient of food. It occurs in all animal and vegetable food as well, though In smaller amount in the latter, and acts in a favorable manner as a condiment, by exciting digestion, and assisting in this way the solution of the food.

In connection with the subject of feeding, reference to the appetite is pertinent. Remember dogs will eat when hungry. For them to refuse a meal occasionally, means nothing. Evidence is not wanting where they have passed days and even weeks in confinement without food, and yet recovered without injury from their long fast. If food is placed before the animal and he turns from it, something else should be prepared to tempt him. If he still declines, it should be removed and another attempt be made at his next regular time of feeding. If a dog is in good health, simply dainty, this method repeated again and again, if needed, will prove effectual, and he will finally eat whatever may be offered him.

Regularity in the hour of feeding should be observed. The number of times to feed is a disputed question, with the weight of authority on the side of once a day, at night, and all they can then eat. Owners must decide for themselves, influenced by what has been their custom, the condition of their animals, and the amount of work required of them. Where only one dog is kept, no doubt in many Instances it is over fed, especially if allowed the freedom of the kitchen While the fact is apparent, that once a day is all a dog actually needs to be fed, the question arises: would it not be wiser to give him a little less at night, and a mere trifle in the morning? It would seem thereby that the dangers of indigestion would be lessened.

It might be said that even of greater importance than good wholesome food, is a constant supply of good fresh water. The system suffers more rapidly when entirely deprived of fluids than when the solid food only is withdrawn. Magendie found In his experiments on dogs subjected to fasting, that if the animals were supplied with water alone, they lived six, eight, and even ten days longer than if they were deprived the same time of both solid and liquid food.

Some will dissent from this theory of feeding, arguing that domestication has wrought changes in the canine race which make meat no longer aneoessity. To them be it said, that if the dog, since recalled from his vicious life, has as the companion of man been so changed in nature, instincts, constitution and habits, if he now, like man, is omnivorous, even then organic substances found only in animal food are as essential to the maintenance of the integrity of the body.