Evolution Of Dogs

[Just Midol]

I was reading something the other night about the theories of dog domestication and can't find the link so I am asking for views here, remember, my interest lies in Huskies so the majority of my views are specific to the Husky. I don't know about the history of other breeds.

Does everyone here believe all breeds of dogs evolved in identical ways? I know it is pretty accepted that some dogs were domesticated because they were scavanging around camps and rady rada ra, they were domesticated.

I've seen this theory often discussed on here by two individuals and I have to say, that with all the reading I have done I don't necessarily agree.

While I see why trainers don't like to say training can be breed specific. IMO, the evolution of the dog can be breed specific and I don't see why as dog owners & trainers we have this desire to remove breed from the equation.

I highly disagree with the claim that dogs took the first domestication step in Asia 15,000 years ago. There is no conclusive proof of this at all. I do agree that it occured at least 15,000 years ago. There is evidence to suggest it could have been as long as 140,000 years ago.

Anyway, so lets assume we agree that they man did not have an active role in the domestication process and it occured 15,000 years ago because we started living in smaller villages which meant more food and resources for the dog so they became more comfortable getting closer and turned into scavangers. We'll pretend this is a fact but in reality it is simply a theory with no proof.

Okay, my main question and issue with this theory comes now..........

Why do we make the assumption that all breeds of dogs evolved in the same manner? I see many people do it everywhere. Why does the current popular theory claim all breeds descended from Asia approximately 15,000 years ago? No matter how hard I search I can't find any real proof to this. I can find fairly weak links, they might be the only information we've got but they are still very weak links.

Have you all stumbled across some evidence that I am unable to find? Because from what I've read, this current idea that all dogs descended from the village does simply does not make sense especially when you take into account that some breeds still have very, very high predatory and hunting instincts (like the husky) - if all dogs descended from village dogs who were scavangers then predatory & hunting instinct in my mind should have been almost diminished.

Edited March 22, 2009 by Just Midol

[dog geek]

There is actually a widely accepted theory among anthropologists that humans and dog evolved as a symbiote, more than a hundred thousand years ago. They are thought to have out-competed - as a symbiote - both Neanderthal humans and wolves. I have some articles for you and a couple of links; I will try to put them here, but might have to send them to you by email if I can't do this!

Here are two 'articles' that I wrote - excuse the amateurish writing, I was attempting to explain it for the layman:

Article one:

Although I am not a breeder of dogs – merely a devotee – I am aware that the placement of various colours and patterns on a particular breed of dog's coat is of crucial importance to those who do breed and show our canine companions. I am ( if somewhat vaguely) aware that breeders do endeavour to minimise the unwanted appearance of white markings in their bloodlines, with much agonising over a particular animal which may have multiple desirable characteristics and qualities – but which has white in an unwelcome area on its coat.

So it was with interest that I discovered that those domesticated foxes in Russia, whilst being selected for only one important characteristic – that of friendliness – also developed white markings on their coats. After piquing the interest of various scientists, this particular phenonomen was explored on a genetic basis. It has been confirmed that this particular result of domestication is a spontaneous expression of a gene called “Star”. It has also been found in other domesticated species: dogs, cats, pigs, sheep, cattle, horses, mice, rats, guinea pigs... when humans are involved in a species' reproduction, those animals evolve (amongst other physical and behavioural differences from the wild populations) an increasing proportion of individuals with the “Star” gene.

I have found various photographs of the Russian Foxes showing the white markings; if an individual has only one copy of “Star” then it displays only minimal white markings on its coat. If, however, it has two copies of the “Star” gene – one from each parent – then it frequently displays a large percentage of coat area as white. I am sure the pattern of these markings is familiar to anyone as being common in any number of domestic animals. Quite what this means is a little complicated for the average non-scientist; but I could guess that it explains why breeders never seem to completely erase outcroppings of white within their bloodlines.

So it would seem that whilst the acme of desirability is to completely control the appearance (or non-appearance, as it may be) of white markings on a dog's coat – such control is but an illusion, and white markings will spontaneously appear no matter how rigorous the selection of breeding stock without white markings.

Article Two:

-1Why do humans associate with dogs? And why do dogs associate with humans? I have been curious enough to trawl through the more easily accessible scientific articles on the Web for an answer to these questions. I was astonished to discover that the scientific world has been pondering these precise questions for decades, and that the consensus in the scientific community is that humans and dogs have been so inter-dependant for so long that they are commonly regarded as being in a classifiable symbiotic relationship.

I have read numerous articles, and Dr C. Groves of the ANU was kind enough explain some of the key concepts I had found. I added a number of his articles to my reading list, and investigating further, I found that there are significant numbers of researchers, from a variety of disciplines, investigating pre-historic sites of human habitation dating back 400,000 years and more. There is now a body of evidence, all peer-reviewed and supported empirically, that places dogs in these habitations concurrently with humans. Analysis of this body of evidence, and of earlier fossilised remains of both hominids and canids, supports a conclusion that explains this symbiosis:

Most people are aware that Neanderthal Man and Modern Man are separate “breeds” as it were. Attempts to explain the dominance of our own ancestors over the Neanderthal gradually led to the comprehension that the Neanderthal was actually far better suited to survival than previously thought. Both types of hominid had sophisticated social and cultural structures. The Neanderthal had, overall, far more effective senses than contemporary Humans. The Neanderthal was more physically robust, and had a significantly larger brain, than those ancient Humans. The Neanderthal were, in fact, more suited to survival, and researchers were puzzled as to how they failed to evolve in a dominant position.

After nearly a decade of various theories being proposed, tested, and then discarded, it became clear that the significant difference between Neanderthals and our ancestors was categorically - the dog. There is more and more evidence supporting the importance of this social interaction; far from being just a cordless vacuum cleaner around human campsites, dogs substituted for key Human senses. Acting as ears and noses, co-operating in assessing the immediate environment for threats and for food sources, dogs enabled Humans to out-perform the stronger, more perceptive Neanderthal.

In a similar fashion, humans have given the dog the edge over the wolf. Because it now is accepted that the dog is of far more ancient origin than previously supposed, a similar question regarding the prevalence of the dog over the stronger, more effective wolf arose. Amazingly, the wolf - just like Neanderthal Man - was physically more robust, had a much larger brain, and in addition was socially better organised than the dog. Again, with all other factors accounted for, the significant advantage to the dog is its relationship with Humans.

Conclusively, it is the existence of the dog/human interface that secured the survival of both species. In direct competition with the Neanderthal and the wolf, neither of the more vulnerable species should have succeeded. But dogs and humans merged and pooled their capabilities, with both species sacrificing certain aptitudes, but contributing specialties that enhanced their combined chances of survival. In compensation, the new entity evolved and became the dominant life form on the planet.

Up until the new millennium, we have completely overlooked the importance of the dog in society. Objectively, the dog is regarded as an artifact, and a possession. Subjectively, the dog fascinates most human cultures. Even if the dog is periodically the focus of intense disapproval and subjected to rigorous control, there is always a countering re-engagement and a return to the norm of dogs being accepted once more as a factor in our society. In demonstrating the existence of the human/dog entity, scientists have now thrown up a new question: have we really outgrown our dependence on the dog?

Indeed, now the focus of those busy scientific minds is directed towards facilitating the existence of dogs in modern society. Dr D. Paxton, an Australian academic, concluded in his thesis that there is an urgent need to re-organise urban structure to facilitate dogs living comfortably among us. Unequivocally, his research makes a case that it is ignoring fact to try to control dogs in the urban environment. It is increasingly clear that dogs and their needs should be facilitated in urban planning.

To facilitate the human/dog entity is not anthropomorphism. We have run in conjunction with dogs for hundreds of thousands of years; without dogs as part of our society, we are uncomfortably, subconsciously aware that threats lurk; our main defense - the alert senses of the dog - has been disabled. That stress is alleviated only by the inclusion of the dog in our immediate environment. That is the cause of the relaxation that we feel in 'owning' dogs. That is the cause of dogs behaving appropriately only when they are given the role of 'watchdog' rather than 'executive' within the family unit. We need to stop categorizing dogs as 'domestic animals' and assign them enhanced status as more than just equipment - they are in reality part of the entity that is the human race.

[sandgrubber]

Try Jonica Newby's Animal Attraction, eg.

http://www.abc.net.au/animals/

The link includes lots of serious references, including the Russian fox domestication work, and anthropological and DNA work relating to the domestication of dogs.

there's a book by the same name that come out in 1997 & 1999.

Edited March 22, 2009 by sandgrubber

[Kelpie-i]

Midol, Ray Coppinger is visiting Australia (Sydney) in August.

I would highly recommend you attend his seminar as this is the person you need to speak with and ask questions to about the evolution and domestication of the dog.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Kelpie-i

[Cosmolo]

Kelpie i- do you have dates for this?

[Kelpie-i]

Cosmolo at this stage, all I know is that it will be the last week of August. That's all I know unfortunately but I am sure that there will be notices coming out soon.

[Kavik]

It would be great if you could keep us informed of when he is coming That would be a very interesting seminar to go to.

[sandgrubber]

For some videos, try . . . includes white spots etc. First entry has a lovely video of a fox (with white markings) playing with a big Rotti.

http://blog.videosift.com/lucky760/Turning...Into-House-Pets

[sandgrubber]

For some videos, try . . . includes white spots etc. First entry has a lovely video of a fox (with white markings) playing with a big Rotti. I could easily burn my whole monthly download quota looking at these . . . loads of stuff.

http://blog.videosift.com/lucky760/Turning...Into-House-Pets

[Dova]

What a coincidence I'm trying to find a canine evolution chart, one that looks like a family tree but for dogs, no particular breed, can anyone point me in the right direction for that.

I've tried the museum, local library & a couple of uni's but no luck so far.

[dog geek]

Yes - i can!

But I will have to hunt it down later, I have to go and do the 'school run' now.

[WoofnHoof]

As far as I'm aware most animal scientists accept the concept of the co-evolution of dogs and humans as pretty much fact, however I think Midol is getting at the breed-specific differences which impact on training. I think that this is where evolution leaves off and artificial selection takes up. Artificial selection can be an extremely strong selection pressure on a species and it would be difficult to say at which point of canine evolution the environmental forces made less of an impact than the artifical selection forces (ie those made by humans in selective breeding processes). It would be logical to say that many of our breeds are not just the result of artificial selection but were also shaped by regional differences, that is not to say that the species itself has changed at it's most fundamental aspect (skeletal, muscular etc) but there have been sufficient changes for their to be logically a different approach needed towards different breeds.

I have often argued that something like recall in a sibe has never been selected for as there has never been a need for it, the musher never required his dog to come towards him, only left right go and stop were required. Sibes also do not rely on the visual cues that many other breeds have been developed to utilise, they are not required to watch the musher for every direction but more to listen for those basic cues and handle the rest themselves.

In training I think that the development of the breed and it's original purpose should always be at the forefront of the trainer's mind, I wouldn't say that evolution in the truest sense is as signficant a factor in this as artificial selection though.

[Kelpie-i]

tkay, yes I understood Midol's questions and Ray is the best person for this as he has researched both LGDs and sledding dog breed's evolution.

[sandgrubber]

What a coincidence I'm trying to find a canine evolution chart, one that looks like a family tree but for dogs, no particular breed, can anyone point me in the right direction for that.

I've tried the museum, local library & a couple of uni's but no luck so far.

The leading article, based on DNA sequences, is found at

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/304/5674/1160

DNA sequencing is really the only way to get at this information. Archaeological finds of dogs are not available in large enough quantities to trace the evolution of breeds.

You'll have to register to download the full text. It will be technical. It's free.

[Just Midol]

Yeah, Kelpie, I will definitely go along. Is he the fella you told me about in the past?

tkay, you got it. My main point of interest lies on how the crossing with wild wolves, as in those that did not have this "symbiotic" relationship could have impacted on the breeds we have now. Not all breeds have the mixing of wolves so recently in their breeding, so imo, any breed with that mixing is rather unique in the way they are trained. This is all dependent on breed lines though and I'd hazard a guess that this is more relevant in countries that actually have wolves.

In my research (limited) it's very very controversial and no real proof exists which is far from widely accepted, the only "proof" I could find is that we've found dog remains in human camps. It's the best we have now, but imo, it is far from conclusive unless I have missed something. So while I'd agree that most animal scientists agree with co-evolution everything else is very controversial.

[Erny]

If a person is breed specific in their attitude when they train, it leaves out the very real and high potential for individuality, as each dog within each breed can be and often are different. But when training I will bear in mind the breed I'm working with - (eg) its potential genetics and inclination to sensitivies etc. and approach training and behaviour in that way. But I don't have in my mind "it's a xxx breed and therefore I train in a yyy fashion".

To approach training and behaviour with 'breed' uppermost in your mind IMO serves only to narrow the field of thinking. Approach it more open-mindedly but certainly with a knowledge of the breed you're working with ever in the back of your mind.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Erny

[sandgrubber]

Yeah, Kelpie, I will definitely go along. Is he the fella you told me about in the past?

tkay, you got it. My main point of interest lies on how the crossing with wild wolves, as in those that did not have this "symbiotic" relationship could have impacted on the breeds we have now. So while I'd agree that most animal scientists agree with co-evolution everything else is very controversial.

Publication of the dog genome in 2005 and related studies looking at variation of dog genome between breeds have added a lot of substance to this debate. I think it's pretty clear from DNA studies that the domestication of wolves has occurred in more than one location and that there has been varying amounts of back breeding from domesticated dogs to wolves. If I remember correctly, the studies looking at genetic distance between breeds tended to follow expectations, eg, the Asiatic dogs were off on a separate branch, as were the basenjiis. See the link to Science posted earlier in this thread. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/304/5674/1160

Archaeologists found a dog ceremonially buried along with an old woman dating from around 10k yrs ago (or was it 10,000 BC?). I think this remains the first blaziningly obvious evidence of domestication, but there are hints that domestication of dogs may go back as far as 100,000 yrs. Those working with solid scientific evidence don't seem to have much disagreement. People speculating go off in different directions. See the link to ABC Animal Attraction (Jonica Newby) I posted earlier.

Edited March 23, 2009 by sandgrubber