Wolf-to-dog transition had little to do with humans, ancient skull suggests

[Gawdzilla]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/18/wolf-to-dog-transition-had-little-to-do-with-humans-ancient-skull-suggests/

I'm not sure the thinking here is correct. Anybody else see a problem with it?

[mikeyx]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/18/wolf-to-dog-transition-had-little-to-do-with-humans-ancient-skull-suggests/

I'm not sure the thinking here is correct. Anybody else see a problem with it?

No, you just like to stir the pot

[Weak Kitten]

Um, the article seems to suggest only that wolves may have become smaller and less aggressive as they began scavenging off of humans. It does not rule out the idea that humans may then have noticed these less aggressive wolves and encouraged them.

I don't see how any of this indicates that the process had "little to do with humans". Humans were a driving factor in the change and the only question is how much was done intentionally.

[Myriad]

Well, the title is misleading... the hypothesis discussed in the article is that wolf to dog transition had everything to do with humans, just that the humans didn't do it on purpose via controlled selective breeding.

I'm also not clear on how the skull find specifically supports that hypothesis over the alternatives. They seem to be making some unwarranted assumptions about how humans did and did not behave, circa 33kya. Why would a human-orchestrated selective breeding program not be expected to leave behind evidence of transitional forms?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[quarky]

I just asked my dog what she thought about this.

(She licked my face.)

i'm working on the translation.

[Gawdzilla]

I just asked my dog what she thought about this.

(She licked my face.)

i'm working on the translation.

Sheesh, classic appeal to authority. :mad:



:D

[Jeff Corey]

This is the key statement (to me):
“Traditional anthropological definitions of domestication consider the process to be a deliberate act of selection by humans,” the published study states. “However, this view has been challenged in recent years by the hypothesis that animals colonized anthropogenic environments of their own volition and evolved into new (‘‘domestic’’) species via natural evolutionary processes . . . After initial changes occurred, the resulting new species were modified during their association with people via natural adaptation, human selection, and genetic drift.”

I can't believe a scientist of any flavor would say they did it "of their own volition". That a frackin Gary Larson cartoon.
"Look at Bob, he chose to colonize an anthropogenic environment."

[WhatRoughBeast]

I can't believe a scientist of any flavor would say they did it "of their own volition". That a frackin Gary Larson cartoon.
"Look at Bob, he chose to colonize an anthropogenic environment."

Jeff, do you own a dog, or have you read anything about wolves? Wolves are quite intelligent and capable of making choices about their hunting.

So how is "chose to live near humans, and their readily available food resources" different from "chose to colonize an anthropogenic environment"?

[Robrob]

Seems pretty straightforward. Less aggressive canines were more likely to be allowed to scavenge around camps and less likely to be killed by humans. The eventual "symbiotic" relationship would provide numerous opportunities for human interaction with puppies and the subsequent imprinting and pack effects. Canines instinctively roam in packs. Canines imprinted with a local tribe would tend to accompany its members when they hunted, moved camp, etc... All of this would reinforce their domestication.

[Jeff Corey]

Jeff, do you own a dog, or have you read anything about wolves? Wolves are quite intelligent and capable of making choices about their hunting.

So how is "chose to live near humans, and their readily available food resources" different from "chose to colonize an anthropogenic environment"?

I have had many dogs over the years. There is one next to me now. I am a behavioral psychologist.
Scientists explainig things as if dogs (or humams) had free will is like pssing in the baptismal font.
Just saying "choosing" is just saying "they do this stuff" and doesn't explain any reasons for it, which is the point of science.
I study choice behavior. What are the variables that influence making a choice.
?
So when I see someone say "They choose to...." I see a question. not an answer.

[Madalch]

It's the National Post- Canada's answer to the Daily Mail.

Does it matter what they say?

[Jeff Corey]

Yeah, It does. It exposed some sloppy thinking here, so far.

[ThunderChunky]

I'm also not clear on how the skull find specifically supports that hypothesis over the alternatives. They seem to be making some unwarranted assumptions about how humans did and did not behave, circa 33kya. Why would a human-orchestrated selective breeding program not be expected to leave behind evidence of transitional forms?

I think the argument is that this particular specimen is not believed to be an ancestor to modern dogs but it is clearly partially domesticated. Thus, the domestication of dogs started and stopped multiple times and therefore they argue that it was a 'natural process.'

[Jeff Corey]

That's the way I read it. Makes sense, considering the different possible origins.











A guy in our bio dept was pushing for the Chinese wolf for the origin of all domesticated dogs, but the evidence showed he was only part right.

[WhatRoughBeast]

I have had many dogs over the years. There is one next to me now. I am a behavioral psychologist.
Scientists explainig things as if dogs (or humams) had free will is like pssing in the baptismal font.
Just saying "choosing" is just saying "they do this stuff" and doesn't explain any reasons for it, which is the point of science.
I study choice behavior. What are the variables that influence making a choice.
?
So when I see someone say "They choose to...." I see a question. not an answer.

Well, OK, sort of. In this case, though, it seems to a layman (me) to be making unneccessarily heavy going of the matter. I assume you didn't mind my rephrasing of the question, and let me ask a simpler one.

If a dog (or a wolf, or a person, for that matter) is hungry, and is presented with two pathways, and one of them has food available (by sight or smell as appropriate); is there acually a problem with saying that the dog (or wolf, or person) chooses the path with the food?

If the answer is no, what is the difficulty with "chose to live near humans, and their readily available food resources"? I grant that the details might be fascinating, but the overall use of the term choose would seem pretty unexceptional.

[WildCat]

Some modern hunter/gatherer peoples are known to take pets, for example they might keep a baby monkey after killing and eating its mother. I can see this happening with wolf pups, and I can also see the people killing those that became aggressive as adults. I don't think it would take too long to end up with less aggressive wolves eventually. Certainly they would find them to be beneficial to have around.

[epepke]

Seems to be a false dichotomy here. Either humans deliberately did it or it had little or nothing to do with humans. Bletch.

Domestication of plants was almost certainly going on for a very long time before people knew what they were doing, even before they understood farming. I suspect that this happened a lot with domestication of dogs, too.

[TubbaBlubba]

That's the way I read it. Makes sense, considering the different possible origins.

A guy in our bio dept was pushing for the Chinese wolf for the origin of all domesticated dogs, but the evidence showed he was only part right.

So where does the modern dog appear to have originated from?

Chinese wolf makes a lot of sense given that some of the oldest known domesticated wolves are Chinese, I think? Chow-Chow ancestors?

[Gawdzilla]

"Every domestic dog is descended from a wolf that wasn't smart enough to get away from humans." :D (Sorry, dog-lovers.)

Working at a wolf breeding center makes me very interested in this process, but "are dogs descended from wolves?" is a question I rarely get. I wonder if people just assume they are, or if they just hope they are and don't want their bubble burst.

As for the article, I'm forwarding it to Director of Animal Care for an opinion. I'll post her response if she's okay with that.

[AvalonXQ]

So, the question is whether early dogs were closer tolerated scavengers or to accepted companions?

[Gawdzilla]

So, the question is whether early dogs were closer tolerated scavengers or to accepted companions?

I think it was more companions. Puppies, hard to resist now, hard to resist then. And if the alphas were killed off the pups would be orphaned. At least one might have gone back to the cave tucked into some humans furs. The idea that wolves would be scavenging campsites needs to a midden with enough excess food to keep them supplied. That might be the case, but I'm not sure.

[Bikewer]

Nice National Geographic segment on this recently. Russian experiments with foxes show that a percentage of the critters are decidedly not domesticable. However, a percentage when raised from pups are.
These pups, selected for by their relative compatibility with humans, become more so over a rather few generations, and also begin to show marked physical differences from their wilder cousins.
They change color, for instance. They begin to show more "dog-like" characteristics, since these characteristics are present in the genome; they just don't normally express in the wild. (or if they do they are eventually fatal)
Easy to envision... Wolves scavenging from human encampments... The friendlier ones becoming more and more familiar... Also, pups brought in by hunters (or kids) would have been a food-source but the more domestic ones would have been kept.
"Daddy, can I keep it?"

[Cainkane1]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/18/wolf-to-dog-transition-had-little-to-do-with-humans-ancient-skull-suggests/

I'm not sure the thinking here is correct. Anybody else see a problem with it?
Ancient humans may have bred the more friendlier wolves who were near their camps but I've seen positive relationships between humans and wild wolves. The problem with keeping a wolf for a pet is their strength and their competitive nautre at feeding time. If you feed a wolf its best not to go too near the animal until it gets through.

These animals were useful on hunts and to aid in combat with other tribes. I feel that for the most part dogs evolved on their own until fairly recent times changing their shapes to accomodate human companions.

[Gawdzilla]

Ancient humans may have bred the more friendlier wolves who were near their camps but I've seen positive relationships between humans and wild wolves. The problem with keeping a wolf for a pet is their strength and their competitive nautre at feeding time. If you feed a wolf its best not to go too near the animal until it gets through.
I frequently see wolves feeding on deer carcasses. It's "educational". :eye-poppi
These animals were useful on hunts and to aid in combat with other tribes. I feel that for the most part dogs evolved on their own until fairly recent times changing their shapes to accomodate human companions.
Based on what, if I may ask?

[Damien Evans]

I think the argument is that this particular specimen is not believed to be an ancestor to modern dogs but it is clearly partially domesticated. Thus, the domestication of dogs started and stopped multiple times and therefore they argue that it was a 'natural process.'

The description in the article makes it sound like a Siberian version of a Dingo.

[TubbaBlubba]

Do all of today's dogs originate from a single domesticated wolf, or were there several independent domestications? Is that even known?

[Gawdzilla]

Do all of today's dogs originate from a single domesticated wolf, or were there several independent domestications? Is that even known?
I think the article implies that domestication happened at widely separated locations. That would make sense, as the idea of adopting orphaned pups has even occurred to baboons.

[CORed]

I think it was more companions. Puppies, hard to resist now, hard to resist then. And if the alphas were killed off the pups would be orphaned. At least one might have gone back to the cave tucked into some humans furs. The idea that wolves would be scavenging campsites needs to a midden with enough excess food to keep them supplied. That might be the case, but I'm not sure.

IMO, a significant factor was likely that dogs/wolves can eat stuff that people can't eat, such as cartilage, tendons, small bones, and even hooves. It seems very likely to me that some wolves started scavenging the stuff we threw away, and the relationship progressed from there.

[Gawdzilla]

IMO, a significant factor was likely that dogs/wolves can eat stuff that people can't eat, such as cartilage, tendons, small bones, and even hooves. It seems very likely to me that some wolves started scavenging the stuff we threw away, and the relationship progressed from there.

But would that be a regular and sufficient food source of such a nature as to habituate the wolves to that as a sole means of sustenance? I've seen six wolves reduce a gutted doe to a damp rumor in fifteen minutes.

[Dancing David]

Ancient humans may have bred the more friendlier wolves who were near their camps but I've seen positive relationships between humans and wild wolves. The problem with keeping a wolf for a pet is their strength and their competitive nautre at feeding time. If you feed a wolf its best not to go too near the animal until it gets through.

These animals were useful on hunts and to aid in combat with other tribes. I feel that for the most part dogs evolved on their own until fairly recent times changing their shapes to accomodate human companions.

Excluding combats with other tribes, very rare amongst hunter gatherers, the main issue in the 'domestication' of dogs is one that the study probably can't see in a skull, the retention of juvenile traits in adults. A wolf is a great companion until it decides to test your dominance, so many of the 'companion' traits of dogs are selection for juvenile traits in the species.

:)

[Horatius]

But would that be a regular and sufficient food source of such a nature as to habituate the wolves to that as a sole means of sustenance? I've seen six wolves reduce a gutted doe to a damp rumor in fifteen minutes.



As a sole means, probably not. But it could make the difference between living or dying in hard years, or at hard times of the year, like during extended droughts, or deep winter. A slightly higher percentage survival rate, over the course of thousands of years, could have quite a large cumulative effect.

[Gawdzilla]

As a sole means, probably not. But it could make the difference between living or dying in hard years, or at hard times of the year, like during extended droughts, or deep winter. A slightly higher percentage survival rate, over the course of thousands of years, could have quite a large cumulative effect.

Interesting. The wolves that availed themselves of this source despite the proximity to humans would have an advantage of some kind over those who fled human scent whenever encountered. A possible branching point?

[quarky]

The quarky hypothesis, about this relationship, which I've mentioned in the past in a few threads, is this:

Tribe finds wolf pups. Mother killed, whatever.
Pups are cute and fun. There were children.
Primitive people weren't all business. The did art stuff.

Puppy gets brought into the fold. Entertains children, not much hassle.
Caveat is this: The pups cleaned the baby's butts. Gladly, and with a soft tongue.
This was an invaluable service. It was janitorial.

The wolf pup; female; remains fairly gentle until coming into adulthood. She goes into heat and gets impregnated by a wild male.

she has the pups while still with the tribe. A few are kept. The mother wanders off or gets chased away as she becomes more adult-like.

Repeat cycle, many times. Neotony takes place, with humans inadvertently enabling the reproduction of the very young females. In the wild, the odds might have been worse for the first time pregnancy to pan out.

Eventually, a male pup was kept. Breeding took place "in-house".
I can imagine that the kids tried all manner of furry babies. The baby wolf worked best.

Immature wolves are much more like dogs than adult wolves. They play; they wag their tails; they bark...all this stops in the adult.

[jj]

I just asked my dog what she thought about this.

(She licked my face.)

i'm working on the translation.

I asked mine, she wagged her tail and put her head in my lap with her leash in her mouth...

I think I'm taking a walk now.

[quarky]

I asked mine, she wagged her tail and put her head in my lap with her leash in her mouth...

I think I'm taking a walk now.

Mine also insists on my exercise.

[quarky]

I hope someone comments on my diaper hypothesis. Its not a joke, yet it seems repugnant enough to not entertain seriously.
If one tries to imagine various nomadic lifestyles, in harsh places, and one has camped out with babies, it becomes a very likely avenue for the bond to take place between man and wolf/dog.

It was the puppies; the kids; the poo patrol; the potential meal in hard times that got the ball rolling. Imho, it wasn't about scavengers in our trash pit that we tolerated. It was about cute, fluffy toys that caused happiness and cleaned poopy butts.

This was how neotony happened in the canine. We stole wild babies for our own needs.

[MuDPhuD]

Do all of today's dogs originate from a single domesticated wolf, or were there several independent domestications? Is that even known?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/abs/nature08837.html

Not sure if that will work?

[blobru]

I hope someone comments on my diaper hypothesis. Its not a joke, yet it seems repugnant enough to not entertain seriously. ...


:scorgi Seriously, one could test for differences between dog and wolf saliva, perhaps. While most diseases are species-specific, there are a few - rabies, of course, plus lyme disease, strep throat... - that are common to both people and dogs. Whether they can be transmitted both ways (can a person infect a dog with rabies?) or through feces, I don't know (can parasites such as ringworm be transmitted human to dog via feces?). If there are infections the dog would be at higher risk from in the diaper hypothesis, one might expect to see a higher resistance to them in dogs - antiseptic enzymes unique to domestic canine saliva, for example - than in wolves. :wolf:

[quarky]

:scorgi Seriously, one could test for differences between dog and wolf saliva, perhaps. While most diseases are species-specific, there are a few - rabies, of course, plus lyme disease, strep throat... - that are common to both people and dogs. Whether they can be transmitted both ways (can a person infect a dog with rabies?) or through feces, I don't know (can parasites such as ringworm be transmitted human to dog via feces?). If there are infections the dog would be at higher risk from in the diaper hypothesis, one might expect to see a higher resistance to them in dogs - antiseptic enzymes unique to domestic canine saliva, for example - than in wolves. :wolf:

Well, even if it wasn't particularly hygienic, what were the more hygienic options? You can't just leave the poo on the butt. that's a bad option.
As per disease vectors?
Dogs have been eating human poo for ages. They still do. We don't have to like the idea for it to be a palatable hypothesis of early sanitation strategy.

In rural mexico, the ****-eating dog is still an important part of a waste removal system. (The chickens, of course, will make eggs from the dog-poo.)

Yucky, i guess. But anyone who's spent some time in 3rd world villages knows the pecking order. I have dogs try to intercept my log on its way to the ground. One has to chase them off to get a clear shot at the pit.

I'm sure that this feature of the hungry dog was not lost on our ancestors, and that it was mostly a plus for sanitation, as the various flies didn't get to use the turd to hatch out really horrible problems.

[autumn1971]

On a side note, I was wondering today if, given a large population of dogs and lots of time, humans could eventually breed the dogs back to a nearly-wolf?

[blobru]

Well, even if it wasn't particularly hygienic, what were the more hygienic options? You can't just leave the poo on the butt. that's a bad option.

Right. I'm not dismissing it; just wondering what, if any, effect your doggy diaper hypothesis might have had on the domestic dog's immune system, something we could test for.

As per disease vectors?
Dogs have been eating human poo for ages. They still do. We don't have to like the idea for it to be a palatable hypothesis of early sanitation strategy.

In my experience, especially growing up on a farm, dogs are split about 50/50 on poop as cuisine: some are tail-wagging, ****-eating grin wild about it; some yelp and run the other way when it hits the fan (or spills out of the critter's guts, whatever).

In rural mexico, the ****-eating dog is still an important part of a waste removal system. (The chickens, of course, will make eggs from the dog-poo.)

And then the babies eat the chicken poo (or at least they did in rural Nova Scotia, left to their own devices); twas the gift that kept on giving.

Yucky, i guess. But anyone who's spent some time in 3rd world villages knows the pecking order. I have dogs try to intercept my log on its way to the ground. One has to chase them off to get a clear shot at the pit.

Why I wonder if domestic dogs (or some of them, those with the ****-eating grins) have evolved an immunity to any diseases that might expose them to that wolves don't have.

I'm sure that this feature of the hungry dog was not lost on our ancestors, and that it was mostly a plus for sanitation, as the various flies didn't get to use the turd to hatch out really horrible problems.

I've never heard or read about the practice; but, as you say, as a primitive waste disposal system, the butt-licking hound might have been better than most, for the out-of-the-litter-box thinking cromagnon or neanderthal.

[Gawdzilla]

Immature wolves are much more like dogs than adult wolves. They play; they wag their tails; they bark...all this stops in the adult.

Really? I'll have to tell our wolves to stop that **** then. :rolleyes:

[quarky]

Really? I'll have to tell our wolves to stop that **** then. :rolleyes:

The adults howl, and their tails move, but its not like a dog. Have you observed differently?

blobru, i see your point. But how hungry were these dogs? The disease vector stuff is interesting. It would be difficult to determine.

[Gawdzilla]

The adults howl, and their tails move, but its not like a dog. Have you observed differently?
Yes. I'm around them about 20 hours a week normally. And they bark when they chose to do so. They also play no matter what their age.

[quarky]

Yes. I'm around them about 20 hours a week normally. And they bark when they chose to do so. They also play no matter what their age.

If you live in Mo., I assume you must be around caged wolves. If so, is it possible that their normal behavior is affected? What I mentioned is fairly well documented. Dogs are like wolves, frozen in their immature state.

[Cayvmann]

So, humans were the environmental pressure that started changing wolves to dogs then. Then they later started the breeding, etc. Okay, now what?

[Gawdzilla]

If you live in Mo., I assume you must be around caged wolves. If so, is it possible that their normal behavior is affected? What I mentioned is fairly well documented. Dogs are like wolves, frozen in their immature state.

Not caged, but captive, they're in enclosures up to 2.3 acres. I'm familiar with Canus lupus baileyi and Canus rufus.

[quarky]

So, humans were the environmental pressure that started changing wolves to dogs then. Then they later started the breeding, etc. Okay, now what?

He takes you on a walk.

The point of my take on it, however wrong it may be, describes a scenario that favors a quick neotony; selecting for youthful; initially bonding with youth; kidnapped pups vs/ hunting partners; the inevitable toilet and clean up toy; cuteness. Accidental impregnation from a wild wolf; babies in camp.

This hypothesizes that there never was any partnership with wolf packs.
We absconded with babies, for our babies.

As the Russian fox experiment has shown, this may not have taken very long.
Canines are exceptionally fluid.
Hopefully, this is interesting.

My guess is that early dogs were employed to keep wolves away. Its likely that a pack of wolves could make life hard for a deer hunter, armed with a rough bow and arrow. The pack would steal the meat, before it was dead.

[Dinwar]

As the Russian fox experiment has shown, this may not have taken very long.
I believe you've misinterpreted the Russian fox experiment--it demonstrated that the genes associated with domistic behavior are also associated with specific morphological trates. Thus, any selection pressure that would prefer those behaviors associated with domestic animals (for example, hunting and murdering wolves that eat us) would necessarily but indirectly cause those morphological changes. It certainly did not demonstrate that we chose juvenile-looking animals as companions; that was a biproduct.

Its likely that a pack of wolves could make life hard for a deer hunter, armed with a rough bow and arrow. The pack would steal the meat, before it was dead. You're not overly familiar with animal behavior, are you? You can keep a lion in a pen with sheep, so long as you never let the lion get hungry. And animals learn pretty quickly that humans retaliate with wholly disproportionate force to any attacks on us, our domestic animals, or our prey. What all this means is, wolves would learn pretty quickly that making life hard for humans results in most of your pack being WORN by humans, and thus would tend to shy away from us unless they were starving and/or had massively overwhelming force.

In relatively undeveloped areas, humans have more to fear from the herbivores than the carnivores. The reasoning is simple: the carnivore is fighting for its supper, and can always just avoid the situation (the preferred response of most carnivores). The herbivores are fighting for their lives, and either kill the hunter or die (and not infrequently both).

Dogs have been eating human poo for ages. They still do. We don't have to like the idea for it to be a palatable hypothesis of early sanitation strategy.
I'm sorry, but I'd need to see a LOT more evidence before I believe something like this. Wolves didn't evolve to eat fecies--some do, but they certainly don't do so as a major portion of their diet. And tooth breakage patterns are highly indicative of wolves engaging in osteophagy, or eating bones. You don't break your teeth eating poop.

Besides, it doesn't really solve the problem. You're just converting human fecies to canine fecies--hardly an improvement in sanitation. You're left with a convoluted and unsanitary process to get to the same place you started at.

[dogjones]

Look, it was entirely of our own volition. Damned fools.

[dogjones]

I believe you've misinterpreted the Russian fox experiment--it demonstrated that the genes associated with domistic behavior are also associated with specific morphological trates. Thus, any selection pressure that would prefer those behaviors associated with domestic animals (for example, hunting and murdering wolves that eat us) would necessarily but indirectly cause those morphological changes. It certainly did not demonstrate that we chose juvenile-looking animals as companions; that was a biproduct.

You're not overly familiar with animal behavior, are you? You can keep a lion in a pen with sheep, so long as you never let the lion get hungry. And animals learn pretty quickly that humans retaliate with wholly disproportionate force to any attacks on us, our domestic animals, or our prey. What all this means is, wolves would learn pretty quickly that making life hard for humans results in most of your pack being WORN by humans, and thus would tend to shy away from us unless they were starving and/or had massively overwhelming force.

In relatively undeveloped areas, humans have more to fear from the herbivores than the carnivores. The reasoning is simple: the carnivore is fighting for its supper, and can always just avoid the situation (the preferred response of most carnivores). The herbivores are fighting for their lives, and either kill the hunter or die (and not infrequently both).

I'm sorry, but I'd need to see a LOT more evidence before I believe something like this. Wolves didn't evolve to eat fecies--some do, but they certainly don't do so as a major portion of their diet. And tooth breakage patterns are highly indicative of wolves engaging in osteophagy, or eating bones. You don't break your teeth eating poop.

Besides, it doesn't really solve the problem. You're just converting human fecies to canine fecies--hardly an improvement in sanitation. You're left with a convoluted and unsanitary process to get to the same place you started at.


Look, so long as you leave the trees alone... I'm cool.

[Dinwar]

Look, it was entirely of our own volition. Damned fools. Not quite as facitious as I think you intended it. One way to look at it is that, in exchange for barking when something comes too close to camp, dogs get food, shelter, protection from predators and parasies, etc. It's a sweat gig, and humans have been falling for it for ten thousand years!

Though that argument is more direct with cats--we give them everything we give dogs, in exchange for them acting aloof and disdainful, ripping apart our property, and occasionally pretending, if they're in the mood, to chase down a rodent.

[quarky]

I believe you've misinterpreted the Russian fox experiment--it demonstrated that the genes associated with domistic behavior are also associated with specific morphological trates. Thus, any selection pressure that would prefer those behaviors associated with domestic animals (for example, hunting and murdering wolves that eat us) would necessarily but indirectly cause those morphological changes. It certainly did not demonstrate that we chose juvenile-looking animals as companions; that was a biproduct.

You're not overly familiar with animal behavior, are you? You can keep a lion in a pen with sheep, so long as you never let the lion get hungry. And animals learn pretty quickly that humans retaliate with wholly disproportionate force to any attacks on us, our domestic animals, or our prey. What all this means is, wolves would learn pretty quickly that making life hard for humans results in most of your pack being WORN by humans, and thus would tend to shy away from us unless they were starving and/or had massively overwhelming force.

In relatively undeveloped areas, humans have more to fear from the herbivores than the carnivores. The reasoning is simple: the carnivore is fighting for its supper, and can always just avoid the situation (the preferred response of most carnivores). The herbivores are fighting for their lives, and either kill the hunter or die (and not infrequently both).

I'm sorry, but I'd need to see a LOT more evidence before I believe something like this. Wolves didn't evolve to eat fecies--some do, but they certainly don't do so as a major portion of their diet. And tooth breakage patterns are highly indicative of wolves engaging in osteophagy, or eating bones. You don't break your teeth eating poop.

Besides, it doesn't really solve the problem. You're just converting human fecies to canine fecies--hardly an improvement in sanitation. You're left with a convoluted and unsanitary process to get to the same place you started at.

I have objections to almost all of your points. The fox experiment selected for the most immature behavior. The youthful, playful attitude.

You're not very familiar with bow hunting an herbivore, are you?
After a successful shot, there is a long time spent tracking the wounded animal. This is when the pack carnivores would steal.

I don't buy the herbivore threat, either. It would be easy enough to shoot from a safe place; up a tree. It wasn't all giant mammals. There were small ones too; likely pursued and preferable.

I don't know how you jumped to "wolves didn't evolve to eat feces' argument. of course not.
But a puppy would gladly clean a baby's butt, and, at the times, that would have been a darn handy feature.

For a proto dog in a camp, the sanitation would be a plus because the wolf/dog would wander away from the camp to dump one.

[WhatRoughBeast]

I believe you've misinterpreted the Russian fox experiment--it demonstrated that the genes associated with domistic behavior are also associated with specific morphological trates.


Sorry to nitpick, but the study showed the commonality of genes for domestic behavior and morphological traits in Russian foxes.

Such commonality suggests that something similar occurs in wolve, but no more.

Thus, any selection pressure that would prefer those behaviors associated with domestic animals (for example, hunting and murdering wolves that eat us) would necessarily but indirectly cause those morphological changes. It certainly did not demonstrate that we chose juvenile-looking animals as companions; that was a biproduct.


Maybe yes, maybe no. As with any coevolution scenario, it doesn't have to be either/or. For instance, one can imagine pups being reared by humans, and most being killed or rejected when they reach adulthood and get dangerous. The occasional submissive/neotenous adult might be tolerated, prosper, and have the genes selected. I don't really see the need to choose one mechanism or the other.

[Dinwar]

I have objections to almost all of your points. The fox experiment selected for the most immature behavior. The youthful, playful attitude.I doubt that those behaviors are immature. I think you're anthropomorphising Canidae too much.

You're not very familiar with bow hunting an herbivore, are you?
After a successful shot, there is a long time spent tracking the wounded animal. This is when the pack carnivores would steal. Believe it or not, yes, I am. However, I'm also familiar with hunting techniques from around the time dogs started to become domesticated. Bows and arrows were the neutron bombs of that time period--uber-powerful and largely fictional. Atlatls, spears, and simply running prey off cliffs were more common. And again, you're using modern experiences to judge prehistoric activities. Bow hunting would be NOTHING like it is today--the prey would be larger, and there'd be more than one hunter.

I don't buy the herbivore threat, either. It would be easy enough to shoot from a safe place; up a tree. It wasn't all giant mammals. There were small ones too; likely pursued and preferable.Archaeological and paleontological evidence strongly suggests that humans preferentially hunted the larger animals in any ecosystem they entered. And you've completely missed my point, which was that predators don't generally attack humans, which are relatively large, come in packs, and are pretty good at fighting back. Prey may not maim too many people, but they definitely maimed more than predators did. Look at how many people are killed by elephants or hippos vs. sharks or lions or wolves sometime.

I don't know how you jumped to "wolves didn't evolve to eat feces' argument. of course not.
But a puppy would gladly clean a baby's butt, and, at the times, that would have been a darn handy feature.You're arguing that wolves were domesticated, in part, as toilet paper. I'm saying that I seriously doubt, given the fact that 1) wolves didn't evolve to do it, meaning that the activity stands a good chance of making them ill, and 2) it wouldn't solve the problem you think it would anyway, as all it does is replace human fecies with dog fecies. I'm not saying it never happened--I've seen enough weird stuff in the fossil record to avoid the "never" word--I'm just saying that I seriously doubt that it was anything close to a driving force.

Sorry to nitpick, but the study showed the commonality of genes for domestic behavior and morphological traits in Russian foxes.

Such commonality suggests that something similar occurs in wolve, but no more.A fair criticism. But it doesn't negate my point: there's NOTHING in the Russian experiment to support the notion that these behaviors were juvenile, nor the notion that we took wolf pups for our babies, as quarky suggests.

Maybe yes, maybe no. As with any coevolution scenario, it doesn't have to be either/or. For instance, one can imagine pups being reared by humans, and most being killed or rejected when they reach adulthood and get dangerous. The occasional submissive/neotenous adult might be tolerated, prosper, and have the genes selected. I don't really see the need to choose one mechanism or the other. It's not a matter of choice; the data suggest that there are genes associated with traits we associate with domesticity, and that those traits tend to be bundled with other genes. It's not just foxes--Bovidae has a specific gene sequence that's associated with domestication, and that gene affects temperament, intelligence, some morphology, etc. The Russian fox experiment illustrated that a similar gene is found in at least some members of Canidae. Don't get me wrong--there's certainly other stuff going on. But domestication is demonstrably not as complex, genetically speaking, as people usually think.

[JihadJane]

I hope someone comments on my diaper hypothesis. Its not a joke, yet it seems repugnant enough to not entertain seriously.
If one tries to imagine various nomadic lifestyles, in harsh places, and one has camped out with babies, it becomes a very likely avenue for the bond to take place between man and wolf/dog.

It was the puppies; the kids; the poo patrol; the potential meal in hard times that got the ball rolling. Imho, it wasn't about scavengers in our trash pit that we tolerated. It was about cute, fluffy toys that caused happiness and cleaned poopy butts.

This was how neotony happened in the canine. We stole wild babies for our own needs.

Getting licked in the face shortly after diaper cleansing put me off dogs for a long time (along with their infantile, dependent natures!)

[WhatRoughBeast]

Getting licked in the face shortly after diaper cleansing put me off dogs for a long time (along with their infantile, dependent natures!)

Don't you know what face-licking means? It's doggish for "Please barf! I'll lick it all up! Please!"

[Dinwar]

This YouTube video shows another problem with the dogs-as-toilet-paper argument. (http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa?feature=g-user-c#p/c/0C606FE36BEDAC75/2/bJ-DawQKPr8)There are two important bits: First, we have at least one dog that represents the group that was originally domesticated: the chow chow of China. We can see if there's a larger tendency in chow chows to lick butts than in wolves. Human behavior probably wouldn't remain the same, but the tendency of the dog should still be there, and should be much stronger than in wolves, if we selected the dogs for that.

Second, humans domesticated "dogs" of several different groups--meaning that for quarky's idea to be correct multiple groups of animals must have had a taste for human fecies, and been able to be controlled to such an extent that we could have the "dog" lick the baby's butt without biting it. I somehow doubt it--a relationship where we offer food and they offer protection seems much more likely, as it gets to fundamental traits of organisms and therefore traits which cross all taxonomic groups.

[quarky]

Wolf pups, taken from their pack, would not necessarily know what to eat.

As per the advantage of the service I hypothesized, one may need to imagine being holed-up in a tee-pee like structure, with a howling winter outside...and no running water or easy diapers...along with a hungry puppy inside.

Its hard (for me) to imagine this wasn't happening, on purpose.
Modern pups have a proclivity for said behavior, given the opportunity.

The hunting-partner scenario ignores our modern relationship with wolves.
I doubt that our scrap-heaps were very enticing to wild canines.
If it was more about our raiding a wolf kill, which is plausible, it would have reinforced our incompatibility.

Harmless speculation, i hope.

[Roboramma]

I doubt that our scrap-heaps were very enticing to wild canines.

Modern garbage and that of our hunter-gatherer ancestors are certainly very different things, but just some food for thought:
http://www.cmiae.org/_img/bear4.jpg
http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000QVT4XY8KoCY/s/600/TK7915D.jpg

[quarky]

Modern garbage and that of our hunter-gatherer ancestors are certainly very different things, but just some food for thought:
http://www.cmiae.org/_img/bear4.jpg
http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000QVT4XY8KoCY/s/600/TK7915D.jpg

Yeah. If I was more linky, I'd show pics of humans chasing big predators away from those dumps.

Did i see a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup in that trash?