Talk:Origin of the domestic dog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary of this article appears in Dog.

Contents

[edit] Wolf prehistory

Article still requires the prehistory of the wolf, but it is a good starting point SirIsaacBrock 15:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

The title is 'Origin of the domestic dog'
Do we need 'domestic'? If this article is to describe the "Ancestry of the dog", it will apply to all dogs , not just domestic i.e. Dingo and Carolina Dog , infact it would be nice to include a section on feral dogs. GameKeeper 20:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No this a domestic dog. Dogs that have become feral after domestication is a different subject. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed material from molecular systematics

[edit] Example: the phylogeny of the domestic dog

For example, Vilà et al (1997) determined haplotypes from a sequence of 261 base pairs in the mitochondrial DNA of 140 domestic dogs, 162 wolves, 5 coyotes, and 10 jackals (of three different species). The dogs were drawn from 67 different pure breeds and 5 cross breeds, and the wolves were drawn from 27 distinct geographically defined populations. The coyotes and jackals were used as the out group.

Vilà et al found 27 distinct haplotypes among the wolves, and 26 among the dogs. The wolf haplotypes differed from each other by no more than 10 bases, and the dog haplotypes differed from each other by no more than 12. The maximum difference between a dog haplotype and a wolf haplotype was 12 substitutions, whereas the minimum difference between a dog haplotype and any coyote or jackal haplotype was 20 substitutions. Vilà et al therefore concluded that their data supported the current classification of the domestic dog as a subspecies of the wolf rather than a domesticated form of some other species of canid.

Vilà et al then proceeded to use cluster analysis to construct dendrograms that grouped the different wolf and dog haplotypes by similarity. There are many different forms of cluster analysis, so they used several of them and showed that they all gave the same results, which were that:

  1. The correlation between traditional dog breeds and haplotypes was poor: many breeds contained several haplotypes and many haplotypes were found in several breeds.
  2. The dog haplotypes fell into four distinct clades, one of which included 19 of the 26 dog haplotypes and no wolf haplotype; the highest estimate of the mean divergence within this large clade was 1% (2.6 substitions).
  3. This major dog clade, and two of the other three dog clades, fell into a single larger clade which also included some wolf haplotypes.
  4. The haplotypes in the fourth dog clade were more similar to a number of wolf haplotypes than to any other dog haplotype, and the wolf haplotypes in these clades were more similar to the dog haplotypes than to the other wolf haplotypes. The hypothesis that all the dog haplotypes fell into a single clade that did not include any wolf haplotypes was rejected in a significance test.

From their cluster analysis results, Vilà et al concluded that:

  • From 1: Traditional dog breeds are genetically diverse (i.e. they have been derived from a range of individuals of different descent)
  • From 2: Dogs and wolves have been largely isolated from each other for long enough for genetic coalescence to have occurred in most of the dog population.
  • From 3 and 4: Dogs do not derive from a single parentage. Hybridisation between dogs and wolves must have continued after the initial domestication of dogs, introducing new wolf genes into the domestic stock.

From the quantitative data on haplotype similarity, Vilà et al also proposed a new date for the first domestication of the dog. The first archaeological evidence of morphologically modern dog remains found in association with human remains is from 14000 years ago. On the other hand, palaeontological evidence shows that wolves and coyotes were separated about 1 million years ago. Since wolves and coyotes show a minimum 20-base divergence, we can estimate that divergence grows at a rate of about 1 substitution per 50,000 years. If all the dogs whose haplotypes are found in the large clade derive from a single parental line, we would expect that the 2.6-base divergence within that clade would have taken 130,000 years to emerge. Vilà et al therefore propose that the initial domestication of dogs occurred around 130,000 years ago, with some other event about 15,000 years ago leading to morphological change within the domestic dog population.

Feel free to use! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger Proposal

The "Dog#Dog_breeds" section is actually "Dog#Dog_breeds#Neoteny in the rapid evolution of diverse dog breeds", which doesn't belong under "Dog breeds", but should logically be in any discussion of ancestry. Unfortunately, Wiki cannot address level 3 headings, so I have to stuff around this way.  Gordon | Talk, 07:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Yes Wiki can. So I didn't have to stuff around, and now I have to fix it. But it's not a serial address scheme, which it should be.  Gordon | Talk, 07:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Support

I agree with the merge. Perhaps with the merger the article title should be changed from "Origin of the Domestic Dog" to "Evolution of the Domestic Dog." Geohevy 01:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)...
I support the merge. Discussion of neoteny after a discussion of Dmitry Belyaev's experiment is appropriate. The changes to physical traits mentioned: "spotted or black-and-white coats, floppy ears, tails that curl over their backs", are generally considered products of neoteny in mammal species. However: I would oppose a change in title as the article discusses both social and biological developments during domestication. Kulervo 21:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


I really support the merge. I'm tired of having to look a thousand different places to get bits of information.--Jake Da Snake 22:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

i think that it is easier to find the information if it is in multipul places.

[edit] Oppose

This article deals more with the social evelution of the domestic dog, and neoteny more with the science. I thiink two articles are needed. One to study the social evelution, and how it affected the development, and one with the science. There may be some overlap, but that is to be expected. JoKing 13:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support

Not only should the articles be merged, but the version contained in the "dog" article is factually incorrect. It is based on the earlier "Science" article that proposed multiple origins from wolves. That is now discredited by the same authors in their more recent "Science" article, as summarized in the version contained in the "origin of the domestic dog" article, which should be retained. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OccDoc (talk • contribs) 00:03, 4 April 2007 OccDoc 23:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strong support

See WP:BETTER#Size. -- Boracay Bill 05:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

All the information should be in one place (here) to avoid contradictions (which currently exist). --Joelmills 22:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Its Basically The same article, so it should be merged, and its best if all the information is together. 219.88.78.200 20:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support

This section is was too detailed for a general article on dogs. It is also a bit speculative, almost into the territory of fringe theories. Still very interesting. I will go ahead and remove it from Dog, and paste to this article. Steve Dufour 16:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt to reconcile Cites with refs/footnotes

I noticed today that the cites & footnotes in this article had apparently become disassociated from one another, probably in the course of previous edits. I also noticed that this page did not follow the guidelines in WP:GTL and WP:FN. I have done my best to fix this, as followes:

  1. I have inserted a References section
  2. I have inserted an External links section
  3. I saw that clicking the ^ on the footnote using {{note|1}} apparently does not connect with a matching {{ref|1}} template. I have mentioned the apparantly orphaned target page in the External links section using {{cite web}}.
  4. I saw that clicking the ^ on the footnote using {{note|2}} took me to the {{ref|2}} template in the text. I have replaced the {{ref|2}} instance with a <ref name=Brewer2002>{{cite book}}</ref>.
  5. I saw that clicking the ^ on the footnote using {{note|3}} apparently does not connect with a matching {{ref|1}} template. The text of this cite is an op cit. matching Brewer2002, but I don't know where the matching cite might be expected in the text. I have deleted this {{note|3}}.
  6. I saw that clicking the ^ on the footnote using {{note|4}} took me to the {{ref|4}} template in the text. I have replaced the {{ref|4}} instance with a <ref name=Scott1965>{{cite book}}</ref>.
  7. I saw that clicking the ^ on the footnote using {{note|5}} took me to the {{ref|5}} template in the text. I also noted that the content of the target of the link to [1] which the note provides apparently has no connection at all with the context of the article where the ref appears. I have deleted both the ref and the note.
  8. I saw that clicking the ^ on the footnote using {{note|6}} took me to the {{ref|6}} template in the text. The text of this cite is an op cit. matching Scott1965, so I replaced the ref with a <ref name=Scott1965/>.
  9. I saw that clicking the ^ on the footnote using {{note|7}} took me to the {{ref|7}} template in the text. I have replaced the {{ref|4}} instance with <ref>{{cite web}}</ref>. I suspect that a <ref>{{cite journal}}</ref> citation of the jo0urnal article mentioned on the cited web page might be a better cite, though.
  10. I saw that clicking the ^ on the footnote using {{note|8}} took me to the {{ref|8}} template in the text. I have replaced the {{ref|8}} instance with a <ref>{{cite web}}</ref>.
  11. I have deleted the former Footnotes and References sections.

Hopefully, I have removed more problems than I have introduced. -- Boracay Bill 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dog prehistory; out of Africa

Please make clear whether dogs originated in Africa. And of course provide references. Thanx Dogru144 23:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Dogs from Africa? Not likely. Humans went north from Africa where big cats were common into mid-latitude Eurasia where wolves were common but big cats were scarce. Dogs and wolves are superpredators where the big cats... aren't. All four big-cat species (lion, tiger, leopard, and jaguar) prey upon dogs and wolves. Forget the Cape hunting dog; it's not the source of the wolf, let alone the dog.

Big cats may have preyed upon early humans, but they didn't compete so obviously for food items. Humans and wolves were competitors for food -- and the competitor that doesn't fare so well in the competition for food doesn't survive in the presence of its more efficient competitor unless it finds another niche. Wolves may have slowed the entry of humanity into Eurasia.

Humans and dogs are omnivores. Dogs are faster and more powerful for the same size and have better senses except for color vision. Dogs have larger teeth and better-leveraged jaws. Humans may be smarter, but that's not much of an advantage if the resulting intelligence requires even bigger caloric support. Both organize similarly; if anything, human families and wolf packs have similar structures. Humans make tools, so that is their big advantage.

Humans and dogs are complements as predators, and the dog/human tandem rivals bears and big cats in effectiveness as killers. As it turns out, this pair uses each other to advantage. The dog gets more reliable food and -- perhaps the big advantage -- less need to participate in dangerous fights. Humans, in turn, get better protection from each other. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Different theories

I know that the theory, that dogs "evolved" from wolves is most likely the one that fits. But I thought, whether it would be good to write a history section in the article which includes the other theories of which some are still around. I mean the ones which place the coyote, dingo, golden jackal or some other dingo-like canid of europe (there are still people who support this theory, despite the lack of evidence for another canid in europe after the last Ice Age). And also the one which says, that the domestic dog originated from many different canids (that theory even includes south american foxes). So I thought it would be good if people know about these theories, about there pro and contras, so that tehy are better informed if that topic shows up again.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theories should not be introduced into articles on mainstream knowledge. That some people support a fringe theory does not justify its inclusion in an article about a mainstream subject. Discussion of a fringe theory is possible on the discussion page, and of course in an article on a fringe theory.

Dogs evolved in Europe? Probably not. It's hard to believe, but Europe was mostly a hostile world of ice caps, tundra, and cold semi-deserts at the Last Glacial Maximum. Human settlement in much of Europe -- even in some places now densely populated, like the British Isles and Germany -- may have been later than the appearance of humans in the New World. Not until human populations are significant do the wolf-human contacts that led to the partnership of two of the deadliest killers in the animal world.

Heck, I have cause to believe that the wolves that became dogs partially tamed humans, changing human behavior subtly... but that the changes to wolves were sharper than the changes to humans.Paul from Michigan (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There are at least two questions here. (a) is a theory suggesting that locations where canine evolution occurred included european locations a fringe theory? and (b) is it appropriate to mention a fringe theory in a mainstream article? It seems to me that the answers to these questions are (a) no (see this: "In both trees, dog haplotype clakes II and IV are most closely related to wolf sequences from eastern Europe (Greece, Italy, Romania, and western Russia)."), and (b) yes (see WP:FRINGE: "Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects. However, if the idea is notable in some other way such as coverage in the media, the idea may still be included in articles devoted to the idea itself or non-scientific contexts."). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)