Molina’s book was written in Italian and published in several editions (1782, 1810). It was translated in several European languages including German (1786) and English (1808). The English version from the text cites above reads as: “South America possesses but a very few species of animals that are similar to those of the old world, and these have preserved their original appearance, or rather, as might be expected from the influence of so mild a climate, have improved it. Of this number, in Chili, are the fox, the hare, the otter, and the mouse. The foxes are of three kinds: the guru, or the common fox, the chilla, or the field fox, and the payne-guru, or the blue fox. This last is very common in the Archipelago of Chiloe, where it is black. All these foxes are of the same size as the European fox." (p.191, 1808, Middletown, Conn.)

Darwin (1834)

Darwin (6th December 1834) Darwin, in Naturalist’s Voyage Round the World: “In the evening we reached the island of San Pedro where we found the Beagle at anchor. In doubling the point, two of the officers landed to take a round of angles with the theodolite. A fox (Canis fulvipes), of a kind said to be peculiar to the island and very rare in it, and which is a new species, was sitting on the rocks. He was so intently absorbed in watching the work of the officers that I was able, by quietly walking up behind, to knock him on the head with a geological hammer. This fox, more curious or more scientific, but less wise than the generality of his brethren is now mounted in the museum of the Zoological Society.”

Willson & Armesto (1996, Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 69) comment on this: “Calmess in the presence of humans is sometimes taken to mean stupidity, as seen in the common name “booby” for seabirds (Sula spp.) that failed to flee early sailors with murderous intensions, and as seen in our Victorian’s comments about the Chiloé fox. It seems unfortunate that humans should so despise animals that lack experience with our so-often malignant attitudes; perhaps it is the ultimate arrogance to suppose that all creatures should naturally fear us.” (p.156).

Martin (1837)

Martin (1837, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, p11) described the specimen brought back by Darwin as Vulpes fulvipes. “Mr. Martin described a species of Fox brought by Mr. Darwin from the island of Chiloe, respecting which he made the following remarks: -- The animal in question is probably identical with the Culpeu of Molina, especially as the account of its surprise at the presence of man, uncombined with any exertions to escape, as given by Mr. Darwin, agree with the observations of Molina. Still, however, the description of the Culpeu is too vague to render its identity with the present species a matter of certainty; and as I regard it to be the best and safest plan in all doubtful cases to set the matter in such a light as to prevent if possible any confusion, I shall here describe and name the animal, for which I propose the specific title fulvipes”.

Martin cites Darwin’s opinion that the fox is identical to the culpeo fox described by Molina, notably because of the similar fearless attitude observed by Darwin for the fox killed in Chiloe and by Molina for the culpeo. Both Martin and Darwin do not cite Molina’s description of Payne-gùrù as a fox specific to the archipelago of Chiloé. Both do not cite that Molina specifically writes of the Payne-gùrù as an additional species alongside the culpeo fox. Notably, the description of the culpeo fox, which Molina names Canis culpeo does not refer to the Payne-gùrù from in Chiloé.

Waterhouse (1839)

Waterhouse (1839, Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle, Mammalia. p12/3 and plate 6) uses the species name Canis fulvipes and Darwin comments “I killed this animal on the sea-beach, at the southern point of the island; it is considered extremely rare in the northern and inhabited districts. Molina mentions this fox, which he falsely considered as the C. lagopus, under the name of Payne Gurù, and he adds, that in the Archipelago of Chiloe, it is found of a black colour. From this circumstance I am induced to believe that the species is confined to these islands.”

Darwin does not justify his assertion that Molina “falsely” mentioned this fox as C. lagopus or Payne-gùrù. As outlined above, Molina first introduces the analogous European species names on page p.271/2: Canis vulpes, C. alopex, and C. lagopus. He then describes in detail the Chilean equivalent of the common fox Canis vulpes, namely the culpeo fox (Canis culpeo). One can, therefore conclude that Molina did not intend to name or classify the Chiloé fox as C. lagopus.

Mivart (1890)

Mivart (1890, Monograph of the Canidae) regards the fox as a subspecies Canis azarae, var. fulvipes. “Among the South-American Canidae there are a variety of forms to which different specific names have been assigned, but which, at present, we can only regard as so many, more or less local, varieties of that kind which was first described by Prince Weid under the name Canis azarae” (page 67; Prinz Max. zu Weid, Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte von Brasilien, vol. ii p.338, 1826).

Mivart writes about the Darwin’s fox (page 69/71): “A skin which was brought from the island of Chiloe was described by Mr. Martin as a distinct species, under the name of C. fulvipes. This skin, which is the type of the species, is deposited in the British Museum and it is the scull extracted from it which we here figure. We do not perceive that it differs from C. azarae by any important character, though the fourth upper premolar is somewhat smaller compared with the length of the two upper molars. Bearing in mind the variability we have found to exist in other species, we cannot bring ourselves to regard this as more than a dark local variety ofC. azarae”.

Osgood (1943)

Osgood (1943, The mammals of Chile, Field Museum Nat. Hist., Zool. Ser., 30) classifies the fox as a distinct species Dusicyon fulvipes (p. 71). He is the first person to use the common name “Darwin’s fox”.

Osgood notes “That a small, dark-colored fox inhabited Chiloe island was known to Molina in the eighteenth century. Its native name Payne-guru, meaning “blue fox,” doubtless caused him to record it as Canis lagopus. The species was really discovered by Charles Darwin, who obtained a specimen December 6, 1832, near the mouth of San pedro channel on the southern end of Chiloe Island. (p. 71/2)”.

During an expedition in 1922, he tries to find information on the fox by questioning locals in Quellon. They say that such fox does not exist. “Inquiry among natives and settlers here elicted only negative information as to the occurrence of any species of fox on the island. One well-educated and well-informed Chilean, holding a responsible position with a lumber company, produced a Spanish translation of Darwin’s “Voyage” in which he had marked the passage about the fox. This, he insisted, was obvious proof that the great English naturalist had no regard for the truth, first because the idea of killing a free, wild fox with a hammer was preposterous and second, because no such fox had since been seen on the island. He stated that he had been especially interested and had carefully questioned many natives.” Osgood finds later fox tracks in the south of Chiloé, “near the mouth of the Rio Inio and within twenty miles of the spot described by Darwin”.

In his description, Osgood underlines the marked peculiarities of colour and cranial characters, which distinguish this fox from mainland forms. Even if it seems clear to him that the fox is closely related to griseus on the mainland, Osgood defends the species status. “However, since it is so well characterized and since its distribution apparently is limited to the southern end of Chiloe Island, its status as a separate species perhaps should not be disturbed (p.75).”

Langguth (1969)

Langguth (1969, Zeitschrift der Wissenschaften, Zoologie), Clutton-Brock et al. (1976, Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Zoology), Pine (1979, Mammalia) and others, all regard the fox as a subspecies of the Chilla fox Canis giseus fulvipes.

Miller et al. (1983)

Miller et al. (1983, Biological Conservation) treats the fox as a distinct species Dusicyon fulvipes and lists it as a Chilean species of major conservation concern. “Darwin’s fox is apparently restricted to Chiloe Island, where it seems to prefer undisturbed forest habitats near the coastline. These are the habitats currently most affected by logging and agricultural activity (p.341)”. Miller et al. seem to consider it as a separate species despite of the view of other scientists.

Medel et al. (1990)

Medel et al. (1990, Biological Conservation) re-emphasize the species-status in their paper “Discovery of Continental Population of the rare Darwin’s Fox, Dusicyon fulvipes (Martin, 1837) in Chile”. A small population of Darwin’s foxes was discovered in the 1960s in Nahuelbuta National Park, mainland Chile. The sympatry with the Chilla Dusicyon griseus indicates that D. fulvipes is a separate species.

Yahnke et al. (1996)

Yahnke et al. (1996, Conservation Biology, 10) confirmed that species status using molecular genetics. “To clarify the phylogenetic position of Darwin’s fox, we analyzed 344 bp of mitochondrial DNA control-region sequence of the three species of Chilean foxes. Darwin’s foxes from the island and mainland populations compose a monophyletic group distinct from the two other Chilean fox species (p. 366).“