Dear Andy!
I come back to a problem of difference the fox from a dog once again at
least. The point is these differences are so great, that some special
technique is not necessary to distinguish one from another.
First attribute - size.
Primitive prehistoric husky-like breed of dogs were ALWAYS appreciablly
larger than fox. It begins to vary in the end of bronze age - beginning
of iron age, when the small homeless dogs have begun to appear in cities
and settlements and, on the other hand, first decorative breeds have
begun to be formed.
Here second attribute - the form of a skull begins to work.
The dog (especially a little dog) has rather more convex frontale, than
any wild form of Canidae. It can be demonstrated by one - two simple
indexes, which you can to elaborate yourself on the basis of specificity
of those remains of skulls, which you have (unbroken skulls, fragments
of muzzle, fragments of visceral part etc.).
Well, and third attribute at last - general proportions.
For example, if distance from back edge of infraorbital foramen to back
edge of the alveola of a tusk is less than tusk's width of muzzle - it
is a genus Canis. But if this distance is longer or is equally to width
- we deal with Vulpes. By the way, this attribute is quite suitable to
distinguish wild specieses of Canis too. For example for difference the
fox from small jackal! Basically these attributes are enough known and I
do not know even who has published it for the first time.
If you have fragments of jaws only - the situation is a little bit more
difficultly. However there is a system of attributes which enable to
distinguish the fox from a dog (and Canis from Vulpes in general!)
authentically enough. If it is interesting to you - I shall willingly
answer your questions.
Sincerely, Alexey Kasparov
St-Peterburg.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|