Dog / Wolf Comparison:

[sandgrubber]

This comes from Blog run by a guy who calls himself Retrieverman. It's an interesting take on the 'wolf behavior as model for dog behaviour' that lots of dog people subscribe to. . . . and an interesting blog.

It seems to me that wolves have experienced a Belyaev [the fox domestication Russian] experiment in reverse. Persecution was a selection pressure against tameness and approachability, and the animals that survived the cull were largely those that were most nervous and emotionally reactive. It is so severe that many wolves won't cross roads. Roads and virtually anything else that appears novel are too much for them. This is one reason why it was found that many captive wolves won't eat beef. They were raised eating deer and elk, and beef is just too novel and too scary. Perhaps one of the reasons why these wolves are so nervous is that nervousness and paranoia are the result of a selection pressure that chooses wolves with shorter critical periods for socialization. Just as Belyaev selected for tameness and got longer critical periods, man could have selected for only those wolves that were paranoid and emotionally reactive– and this may be in some way correlated or associated with a shorter critical period. Maybe it goes like this: If you have a short critical period for socialization, one has only a limited opportunity to learn which things are safe, so almost everything else in the world is scary. Conversely, if you have a longer critical period, one can learn that more things aren't scary and one's brain develops very differently. Both of those courses of development would have profound influence on how one's brain would develop, and perhaps, it can explain many of the differences between dogs and wolves.

. . .

One part that is always missing in the wolf and dog comparison is the tendency to ignore the simple reality that wolves have continued to evolve after dogs were domesticated. The dog didn’t descend from the wolf running wild today, but both descend from a common ancestor. Both may be the same species, but that same species exists in two distinct populations. One has been selected by both nature and man to be very close to humans. The other has been selected to fear humans at all costs.

The error is assuming that the latter has always been this way.

from: http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/ . . .

[Kavik]

Wow that is a very interesting idea! I hadn't thought of it that way before! Thanks for sharing

[WoofnHoof]

That is interesting, although I'd hesitate to say novel, most people would agree that the modern wolf is not necessarily the exact same animal that dogs were derived from while remaining true to the fact that they are the same species. However in some breeds like the Siberian husky where interbreeding with wolves was still happening until relatively recently there has been less divergence between the types IMO.

One study that looked at behaviour showed very little differences in specific behaviours between Siberian huskies and wolves but found marked differences with other breeds, which showed a correlation with morphological similarities as well. I'll see if I can find the paper.

ETA

Abstract. Many of the structural modifications of modern breeds of domestic dog, Canis familiaris, can

be explained by changes in the rate of development, during domestication from the wolf, C. lupus. These

changes have been dominated by paedomorphosis, or underdevelopment, so that the adult passes

through fewer growth stages and resembles a juvenile stage of its ancestor. In this paper the effects of

these processes on the signalling ability of 10 breeds selected for their degree of physical dissimilarity to

the wolf are examined. The number of ancestral dominant and submissive behaviour patterns used

during signalling within single-breed groups ranged from two (Cavalier King Charles spaniel) to 15

(Siberian husky), and this correlated positively with the degree to which the breed physically resembles

the wolf, as assessed by a panel of 14 dog behaviour counsellors. When the signals displayed by each

breed were grouped according to the stage of wolf development in which they first appear, those breeds

with the smallest repertoires were found to draw most of their signals from those appearing before 20

days of age in the wolf, suggesting that physical paedomorphism has been accompanied by behavioural

paedomorphism.

Anim. Behav., 1997, 53, 297–304

Paedomorphosis affects agonistic visual signals of domestic dogs

DEBORAH GOODWIN, JOHN W. S. BRADSHAW & STEPHEN M. WICKENS

Anthrozoology Institute, University of Southampton

Link

Edited June 4, 2011 by WoofnHoof

[Aidan3]

Good find!

[Aidan3]

Good find!

[sas]

To think we should treat dogs like Wolves is like thinking we should treat humans llike Apes.

[corvus]

Yes, but there are other selection pressures on wolves aside from persecution. A bold wolf that does cross roads may well find a larger patch of habitat that has a lower frequency of human habitation and therefore less intense persecution. The population has gone through a bottleneck and it would be foolish to think that humankind has had no impact on the behaviour of wolves, but there are some serious benefits to be had from being bold. Some serious threats as well, but it seems most wild populations that we know of have a stable ratio of shy to bold animals, even in species where predation rate is very, very high. Not to ignore the fact that it is definitely possible for shy individuals to learn to be bold and bold individuals to learn to be shy if their environment favours one strategy over the other. We know that occurs in fish. Anyway, what I'm getting at is two things: 1) I don't quite buy that humans have been such a strong selection pressure on wolves that bold individuals have become genetically extinct and 2) even if we have an environment with a very high rate of predation, the moment we remove that pressure or even reduce it, I think we can expect bold individuals to appear very quickly, perhaps even from the current generation of 'shy' individuals. Coyotes have done fantastically well being bold around humans and it's not like they haven't been persecuted. I think it's fair to say they continue to be persecuted because of their boldness.

[moosmum]

Yes, but there are other selection pressures on wolves aside from persecution. A bold wolf that does cross roads may well find a larger patch of habitat that has a lower frequency of human habitation and therefore less intense persecution. The population has gone through a bottleneck and it would be foolish to think that humankind has had no impact on the behaviour of wolves, but there are some serious benefits to be had from being bold. Some serious threats as well, but it seems most wild populations that we know of have a stable ratio of shy to bold animals, even in species where predation rate is very, very high. Not to ignore the fact that it is definitely possible for shy individuals to learn to be bold and bold individuals to learn to be shy if their environment favours one strategy over the other. We know that occurs in fish. Anyway, what I'm getting at is two things: 1) I don't quite buy that humans have been such a strong selection pressure on wolves that bold individuals have become genetically extinct and 2) even if we have an environment with a very high rate of predation, the moment we remove that pressure or even reduce it, I think we can expect bold individuals to appear very quickly, perhaps even from the current generation of 'shy' individuals. Coyotes have done fantastically well being bold around humans and it's not like they haven't been persecuted. I think it's fair to say they continue to be persecuted because of their boldness.

The idea shouldn't be dismissed either.

I believe North American wolves are less human aversive than the european wolves.Interesting that North americans had a more acepting attitude to their wolves untill white sttlement.

40 years ago in Canada,living in a small rural village our G.S.D had a litter of 1st cross puppies.I had seen the wolf 200 yards from our back door.

2 years later the last of the pack was shot in our neighbours back yard(he was the local sheriff)

A shame,because as far as I know they were never threatening or actualy causing any damage.

[WoofnHoof]

To think we should treat dogs like Wolves is like thinking we should treat humans llike Apes.

That analogy is incorrect, humans and apes are different species (indeed there are different species of ape too) however dogs and wolves are the same species. A more accurate analogy would be comparing subspecies or subtypes within a species.

Although I agree to a certain extent that comparisons can be fraught with danger as modern dog breeds have predominantly had vastly different selection pressures placed on them as a result of selective breeding there are still certain commonalities with regards to behaviour that allow some comparisons to be made.

The problem tends to occur when allowances are not made with regard to the divergence of the subtypes and the impact of domestication and artificial selection pressures. I've had this argument before with horse people who think that every horse should be barefoot because horses in the wild are barefoot and that's what nature intended, the problem with this is that horses have been selectively bred away from the wild horse in many many aspects and while some breeds have retained good and hardy feet some haven't as that hasn't been a selection priority. This is but one example of where some breeds of domestic horse have diverged significantly from the wild type and therefore cannot be effectively compared.

The same has occurred with dogs but to an even greater extent, many aspects of wolf behaviour have been selectively bred away from in many breeds while others are closer to their ancestral behaviour hence why we have so called 'primitive breeds'. It doesn't mean that the ancestral wolf doesn't play a big part in interpretation of behaviour it just means that it's not the only factor we should consider.

[corvus]

The idea shouldn't be dismissed either.

Just to be clear, I very carefully didn't dismiss it. But it is a pretty broad statement and I think the reality is probably a lot more complicated than that. Evolution operates on a surprisingly small scale and the most successful animals tend to be the most adaptable. I think that should make us cautious about accepting an idea that would ultimately reduce adaptability across an entire population, or indeed, species. I do not think that means the idea has no merit.

[Aidan3]

People's understanding of wolf behaviour is largely guided by inaccurate or even grossly fallacious reporting, too. In any case, dogs live in completely different environments.

[WoofnHoof]

People's understanding of wolf behaviour is largely guided by inaccurate or even grossly fallacious reporting, too. In any case, dogs live in completely different environments.

You can take the dog/wolf out of the environment but can you take the environment out of the dog/wolf? That is the balance we need to find, how much is inherently 'wolf' behaviour and how much is 'man made'. In the study I linked earlier there are very clear and quantifiable behaviours that correlate between dogs and wolves and correlate with alterations in morphology which have been influenced by artificial selection.

[sandgrubber]

People's understanding of wolf behaviour is largely guided by inaccurate or even grossly fallacious reporting, too. In any case, dogs live in completely different environments.

You can take the dog/wolf out of the environment but can you take the environment out of the dog/wolf? That is the balance we need to find, how much is inherently 'wolf' behaviour and how much is 'man made'. In the study I linked earlier there are very clear and quantifiable behaviours that correlate between dogs and wolves and correlate with alterations in morphology which have been influenced by artificial selection.

A big ask! What if common behaviours between dog and wolf come from a common proto-wolf / proto-dog that is no longer available for behavioral study?

I'm happy to buy into the notion the wolves have been more persecuted in Europe than North America. Has anyone seen comparative study of wolf behaviour, or, for that matter, morphology, on different continents?

p.s. Anyone following this thread might want to read the article WoffnHoof posted in 'Studies About Dogs'.

Edited June 5, 2011 by sandgrubber

[poodlefan]

People's understanding of wolf behaviour is largely guided by inaccurate or even grossly fallacious reporting, too. In any case, dogs live in completely different environments.

You can take the dog/wolf out of the environment but can you take the environment out of the dog/wolf? That is the balance we need to find, how much is inherently 'wolf' behaviour and how much is 'man made'. In the study I linked earlier there are very clear and quantifiable behaviours that correlate between dogs and wolves and correlate with alterations in morphology which have been influenced by artificial selection.

Experience with wolf hybids seems to indicate you can't take the wolf out of its environment. Wild is wild no matter how much dogs may have descended from wolves. Selective breeding has altered many traits - that was the aim.

[sas]

To think we should treat dogs like Wolves is like thinking we should treat humans llike Apes.

That analogy is incorrect, humans and apes are different species (indeed there are different species of ape too) however dogs and wolves are the same species. A more accurate analogy would be comparing subspecies or subtypes within a species.

Although I agree to a certain extent that comparisons can be fraught with danger as modern dog breeds have predominantly had vastly different selection pressures placed on them as a result of selective breeding there are still certain commonalities with regards to behaviour that allow some comparisons to be made.

The problem tends to occur when allowances are not made with regard to the divergence of the subtypes and the impact of domestication and artificial selection pressures. I've had this argument before with horse people who think that every horse should be barefoot because horses in the wild are barefoot and that's what nature intended, the problem with this is that horses have been selectively bred away from the wild horse in many many aspects and while some breeds have retained good and hardy feet some haven't as that hasn't been a selection priority. This is but one example of where some breeds of domestic horse have diverged significantly from the wild type and therefore cannot be effectively compared.

The same has occurred with dogs but to an even greater extent, many aspects of wolf behaviour have been selectively bred away from in many breeds while others are closer to their ancestral behaviour hence why we have so called 'primitive breeds'. It doesn't mean that the ancestral wolf doesn't play a big part in interpretation of behaviour it just means that it's not the only factor we should consider.

Ok, you totally over analysed such a black and white comment......simply saying that just because they evolved from wolves doesn't mean they should be treated the same in terms of understanding pack/behaviour/communication etc.

Edited June 5, 2011 by MEH

[WoofnHoof]

People's understanding of wolf behaviour is largely guided by inaccurate or even grossly fallacious reporting, too. In any case, dogs live in completely different environments.

You can take the dog/wolf out of the environment but can you take the environment out of the dog/wolf? That is the balance we need to find, how much is inherently 'wolf' behaviour and how much is 'man made'. In the study I linked earlier there are very clear and quantifiable behaviours that correlate between dogs and wolves and correlate with alterations in morphology which have been influenced by artificial selection.

A big ask! What if common behaviours between dog and wolf come from a common proto-wolf / proto-dog that is no longer available for behavioral study?

I'm happy to buy into the notion the wolves have been more persecuted in Europe than North America. Has anyone seen comparative study of wolf behaviour, or, for that matter, morphology, on different continents?

p.s. Anyone following this thread might want to read the article WoffnHoof posted in 'Studies About Dogs'.

It makes sense that the original wolves which were the mould for the modern dog are no longer the same wolves due to those changing pressures already mentioned. They are still the same species though and share 99.9% of their genetics so fundamentally they are more similar than any other animal available for comparison. It is a matter of taking this into account and allowing for environmental and evolutionary differences which while not enough to actually separate them taxonomically are still significant nonetheless.

Then like I said before you have the siberian husky and also some animals in America where interbreeding with the wild wolf population has occurred and influenced the degree to which the animal has diverged from it's ancestral form.

I dont know of any comparative studies between regional wolves I know there are some morphological differences between the regions but those are very slight when compared to the differences between dog breeds so whether any differences in behavior could be correlated with it I'm not sure. I agree that human predation on wolves has influenced behaviour to a certain extent but has it influenced the wolves behaviour towards each other or just their responses to humans?

[WoofnHoof]

Experience with wolf hybids seems to indicate you can't take the wolf out of its environment. Wild is wild no matter how much dogs may have descended from wolves. Selective breeding has altered many traits - that was the aim.

See my example of the Siberian husky, a dog which until very recently has been regularly interbred with wolves, although having said that it is obvious that due to this influence they are not what I would classify as a 'normal dog' and therefore probably proves both points, that in many ways they are similar and in may ways they are different, and IMO all should be taken into account particularly the degree of divergence as this can help explain the differences between breeds.

Ok, you totally over analysed such a black and white comment......simply saying that just because they evolved from wolves doesn't mean they should be treated the same in terms of understanding pack/behaviour/communication etc.

That's kind of the point of the discussion, IMO it's not black and white

[corvus]

I think it's fairly obvious that if we all had wolves instead of dogs we'd have a disaster on our hands. We wouldn't be able to do most of the things we do with dogs. There are plenty of wild or near wild populations of dogs. I think we should be looking at those rather than wolves to further our understanding of dog behaviour and development.

[poodlefan]

I think it's fairly obvious that if we all had wolves instead of dogs we'd have a disaster on our hands. We wouldn't be able to do most of the things we do with dogs. There are plenty of wild or near wild populations of dogs. I think we should be looking at those rather than wolves to further our understanding of dog behaviour and development.

As I've said before on here, I like the African Painted Dog as potential study subject. I figure if human beings originated in Africa, why not the human/dog relationship? The fact that we don't find bones or cave paintings depicting it might be more reflective of the environment/terrain than anything else.

Edited June 5, 2011 by poodlefan

[WoofnHoof]

I think it's fairly obvious that if we all had wolves instead of dogs we'd have a disaster on our hands. We wouldn't be able to do most of the things we do with dogs. There are plenty of wild or near wild populations of dogs. I think we should be looking at those rather than wolves to further our understanding of dog behaviour and development.

I don't see anything here suggesting that wolves are dogs? It's accepted they are genetically the same species and do share plenty of behaviours but also that many breeds have diverged from those behaviours as well. It's quite common for the ancestral or wild type of a species to be used for comparison to the domesticated type, doesn't mean anyone is under the illusion that they are exactly the same. personally I feel the silver fox experiment is a more significant comparison of the changes associated with domestication. However nothing can replicate the domestication of dogs as it has occurred in such a diverse way with many different selection pressures applied not just tameness.

Eta PF the African Painted dog (sp Lycaon pictus) cannot be the ancestor of dogs as dogs have been identified genetically as Canis lupus, not Lycaon pictus.

Edited June 5, 2011 by WoofnHoof