The Prehistoric Canidae Thread- Wolves, bonecrushing dogs etc

Rubecula

From BBC teletext service (Science News):

A very well preserved 33,000 year old canine skull has been discovered in the Siberian Altai mountains. It shows the earliest evidence of dog domestication ever found.

The skull, from shortly before the peak of the last ice age is unlike the skulls of wolves or modern dogs.

Adam Khor

Rubecula wrote: »

From BBC teletext service (Science News):

A very well preserved 33,000 year old canine skull has been discovered in the Siberian Altai mountains. It shows the earliest evidence of dog domestication ever found.

The skull, from shortly before the peak of the last ice age is unlike the skulls of wolves or modern dogs.

I wonder what that last part means. Maybe it is kind of like in between wolves and dogs?

Yitzhak Rabin

Adam Khor wrote: »

I wonder what that last part means. Maybe it is kind of like in between wolves and dogs?

Strange sentence given they say it is a domesticated dog? I would have thought that a wolf and a dog skull are so alike, that an inbetween would be hard to distinguish (given the very different and unique shapes a dog skull can have).

Adam Khor

yekahS wrote: »

Strange sentence given they say it is a domesticated dog? I would have thought that a wolf and a dog skull are so alike, that an inbetween would be hard to distinguish (given the very different and unique shapes a dog skull can have).

Unless dogs were developed several times from different animals? Like, didn´t they once say that Golden Jackals were possible ancestors of dogs? What if "dogs" were domesticated more than once? Just a crazy thought.

Manach

Adam Khor idea has merit. AFAIK, the agricultural revolution occurred in different places roughly at the same time-period - so dogs being domesticated by different people has a precedent.

Alvin T. Grey

Adam Khor wrote: »

Unless dogs were "developed" several times from different animals? Like, didn´t they once say that Golden Jackals were possible ancestors of dogs? What if "dogs" were domesticated more than once? Just a crazy thought.

It's not crazy, it's more than likely considering the timeframe that we are talking about. Humans were all over the place by that time in loosely connected groups . So were Cannids. It's not surprising that such an effective symbiotic relationship as the one between man and dog didn't occur more than once.

As for the ancestry of dogs? - Take your pick. The difference between the original and the result even going back to prehistory is huge. And to make matters worse, dogs and wild cannines are genetically compatible and have purposefully been interbred multiple times over the millenia to make a more effective working animal.
This is still happening today but oftentimes lately its more for fashion (****) than function or health.

Sorry, as a huskey owner and dog rescuer....(bad)breeders to me are scum.

Had to vent.

Wibbs

yekahS wrote: »

Strange sentence given they say it is a domesticated dog? I would have thought that a wolf and a dog skull are so alike, that an inbetween would be hard to distinguish (given the very different and unique shapes a dog skull can have).

I'd agree. Well in the very early days of domestication anyway. In general wolves are more robust, bigger teeth, skull and muzzle and paws, narrower in the shoulders and hips(though the latter may be more down to a wild type diet), don't possess dew claws, come into heat only once a year, have caudal glands and a few other things. Even so without DNA testing a robust german shepard skeleton and a wolf skeleton can be hard to tell apart. Eye bones angles can be indicators though. Funny enough husky and wolf are easier to tell apart(unless they've had recent wolf ancestry). The fact that wolves and dogs are just sub species of each other makes this difficult in the first place.

I suspect the domestication event was a continuum and a long one at that. Why? Unlike dogs wolf pups won't respond to humans if introduced after about two weeks. You'd need to find newborns and somehow suckle them(not so mad an idea, in some tribes women have been observed to suckle pet monkeys). That would bond a wolf to the human "pack". But the wolf would come out as it aged so the prey response might have been triggered by kids running around so not very safe. We didn't go from wolf to lapdog that's for sure.

I personally suspect it went more like this; Wolves follow humans and vice versa in the hunt. we have very similar hunting strategies. Well we moderns do. Humans see the advantage and throw them scraps, maybe even as part of a spiritual thing. The wolf is a very spiritual animal for every hunter gatherer tribe that has them in their environment, so maybe that's a holdover. Interestingly Andaman islanders who didn't have dogs weren't afraid of dogs at all. Got very attached to them. On the other hand cats and cows etc freaked them right out. There seems to be a dog=OK template deep in the modern human psyche.* The wolves become less freaked out by humans and become bolder and able to understand them better(captive wolves bark much more than wild wolves who rarely bark at all. Why? One theory is they know we're a bit deaf by comparison so "shout" "HOY! TWO LEGS!!:D). Every so often they find pups and raise them until they become more aggressive with age and then release them. These wolves are still wild but very comfortable around humans compared to the pure wild ones. So these tame(not domesticated) wolves come into play in the hunt and following feed. We're both mobile hunters so without houses, no huse dogs come into play yet(Inuit leave/left their dogs outside even in that harsh climate). Over time people start to hang onto the more tame ones after puppyhood. Still the tame wild wolves were out there and hanging around following the humans and the humans following the wolves following the prey with crosses going back and forth. It would give us both a huge advantage. IE dogs(domesticated wolves) are along with us among the most populous mammal on this planet. All other "wild" humans are gone and wild wolves are pretty endangered. In the end as we settle more and as we start to domesticate other animals we become more strict about selections and the "dog" is born. I think looking for when wolf stops and when dog starts is going to be vague at best and the timeline above may explain why its not so clear cut.



*in expriments humans when played different dog vocalisations are remarkably accurate in telling the emotional state of the dog behind the sounds. They're pretty good with wolves too. With cats they're not so good at all. Even cat lovers while naturally better are still not as good as they are with dogs. Without experience and training Chimp and other great ape vocalisations are a mystery to people. Dogs for their part "get" us too. They undrstand pointing, which no ape does. Wolves while not as good at pointing still get it and indeed tame wolves in captivity respond better to hand signals than voice signals. Which is very odd in of itself. Though maybe not? Hunters use hand signals more than vocalisations. So if we and the wild wolves were in a loose partnership maybe this is the reason why wolves today respond to hand signals better? If we and the grey wolf have been walking the same path for much longer than before the first true domestication it's possible this is an inherited behaviour and maybe a wolf from 100,000 years ago wouldnt be as adept? After all dog and wolf genes went back and forth it wasn't all one way. EG all black coloured wolves carry a domestic dog gene.

Adam Khor

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd agree. Well in the very early days of domestication anyway. In general wolves are more robust, bigger teeth, skull and muzzle and paws, narrower in the shoulders and hips(though the latter may be more down to a wild type diet), don't possess dew claws, come into heat only once a year, have caudal glands and a few other things. Even so without DNA testing a robust german shepard skeleton and a wolf skeleton can be hard to tell apart. Eye bones angles can be indicators though. Funny enough husky and wolf are easier to tell apart(unless they've had recent wolf ancestry). The fact that wolves and dogs are just sub species of each other makes this difficult in the first place.

I suspect the domestication event was a continuum and a long one at that. Why? Unlike dogs wolf pups won't respond to humans if introduced after about two weeks. You'd need to find newborns and somehow suckle them(not so mad an idea, in some tribes women have been observed to suckle pet monkeys). That would bond a wolf to the human "pack". But the wolf would come out as it aged so the prey response might have been triggered by kids running around so not very safe. We didn't go from wolf to lapdog that's for sure.

I personally suspect it went more like this; Wolves follow humans and vice versa in the hunt. we have very similar hunting strategies. Well we moderns do. Humans see the advantage and throw them scraps, maybe even as part of a spiritual thing. The wolf is a very spiritual animal for every hunter gatherer tribe that has them in their environment, so maybe that's a holdover. Interestingly Andaman islanders who didn't have dogs weren't afraid of dogs at all. Got very attached to them. On the other hand cats and cows etc freaked them right out. There seems to be a dog=OK template deep in the modern human psyche.* The wolves become less freaked out by humans and become bolder and able to understand them better(captive wolves bark much more than wild wolves who rarely bark at all. Why? One theory is they know we're a bit deaf by comparison so "shout" "HOY! TWO LEGS!!:D). Every so often they find pups and raise them until they become more aggressive with age and then release them. These wolves are still wild but very comfortable around humans compared to the pure wild ones. So these tame(not domesticated) wolves come into play in the hunt and following feed. We're both mobile hunters so without houses, no huse dogs come into play yet(Inuit leave/left their dogs outside even in that harsh climate). Over time people start to hang onto the more tame ones after puppyhood. Still the tame wild wolves were out there and hanging around following the humans and the humans following the wolves following the prey with crosses going back and forth. It would give us both a huge advantage. IE dogs(domesticated wolves) are along with us among the most populous mammal on this planet. All other "wild" humans are gone and wild wolves are pretty endangered. In the end as we settle more and as we start to domesticate other animals we become more strict about selections and the "dog" is born. I think looking for when wolf stops and when dog starts is going to be vague at best and the timeline above may explain why its not so clear cut.



*in expriments humans when played different dog vocalisations are remarkably accurate in telling the emotional state of the dog behind the sounds. They're pretty good with wolves too. With cats they're not so good at all. Even cat lovers while naturally better are still not as good as they are with dogs. Without experience and training Chimp and other great ape vocalisations are a mystery to people. Dogs for their part "get" us too. They undrstand pointing, which no ape does. Wolves while not as good at pointing still get it and indeed tame wolves in captivity respond better to hand signals than voice signals. Which is very odd in of itself. Though maybe not? Hunters use hand signals more than vocalisations. So if we and the wild wolves were in a loose partnership maybe this is the reason why wolves today respond to hand signals better? If we and the grey wolf have been walking the same path for much longer than before the first true domestication it's possible this is an inherited behaviour and maybe a wolf from 100,000 years ago wouldnt be as adept? After all dog and wolf genes went back and forth it wasn't all one way. EG all black coloured wolves carry a domestic dog gene.

Maybe you should write a book

Being a cat lover and having five cats in my home, I agree that cats seem to have a hard time communicating to humans- sometimes you can actually see their frustration in their eyes when you fail to understand what they're "saying".
Interestingly, almost all cat communication (that is, cat to cat) is gestures and body language- meows are directed mostly at humans.

Alvin T. Grey

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd agree. Well in the very early days of domestication anyway. In general wolves are more robust, bigger teeth, skull and muzzle and paws, narrower in the shoulders and hips(though the latter may be more down to a wild type diet), don't possess dew claws, come into heat only once a year, have caudal glands and a few other things. Even so without DNA testing a robust german shepard skeleton and a wolf skeleton can be hard to tell apart. Eye bones angles can be indicators though. Funny enough husky and wolf are easier to tell apart(unless they've had recent wolf ancestry). The fact that wolves and dogs are just sub species of each other makes this difficult in the first place.

Depends on the Huskey breed/Mix. Mals are easy to tell. Sibes are sometimes not so much. - And Alaskan (unofficial as all Alaskans are by def a mongrel) can be very much either wolf or Mal like.

The wolves become less freaked out by humans and become bolder and able to understand them better(captive wolves bark much more than wild wolves who rarely bark at all. Why? One theory is they know we're a bit deaf by comparison so "shout" "HOY! TWO LEGS!!:D).

We don't communicate non vocally (as far as the wolf is concerned) They bark more in captivity because they learn quickly that that is what we respond to AFIK. And they do it loud and long probably because of what you mentioned.
Wolves and the way they interact within the pack is very different to the way dogs do, and this often leads to complications.
A wolf is not a dog.
But that doesn't stop some idiots trying to own/cross breed them. Huskeys (especially Sibes) tend to have that vocal quality. And like wolves, they often 'Grin' (bare their teeth). To a dog, that's a definate no-no. To a wolf thats a 'look what I had for dinner, there is some left, you want it?'.
That leads to even more confusion, and a lot of dog fights.

But back to the OP, even size or robustness alone makes it sometimes difficult to tell the dog from the wolf, I agree. So we are left to inferr what we are looking at by it's association and estemated date.

Adam Khor

Alvin T. Grey wrote: »

Depends on the Huskey breed/Mix. Mals are easy to tell. Sibes are sometimes not so much. - And Alaskan (unofficial as all Alaskans are by def a mongrel) can be very much either wolf or Mal like.



We don't communicate non vocally (as far as the wolf is concerned) They bark more in captivity because they learn quickly that that is what we respond to AFIK. And they do it loud and long probably because of what you mentioned.
Wolves and the way they interact within the pack is very different to the way dogs do, and this often leads to complications.
A wolf is not a dog.
But that doesn't stop some idiots trying to own/cross breed them. Huskeys (especially Sibes) tend to have that vocal quality. And like wolves, they often 'Grin' (bare their teeth). To a dog, that's a definate no-no. To a wolf thats a 'look what I had for dinner, there is some left, you want it?'.
That leads to even more confusion, and a lot of dog fights.

But back to the OP, even size or robustness alone makes it sometimes difficult to tell the dog from the wolf, I agree. So we are left to inferr what we are looking at by it's association and estemated date.

I never bought the idea of wolves and dogs being the same species- I don´t like using Canis lupus for a chihuahua or a French Poodle. Yes, genetically they may be practically the same, but there's plenty of behavioral differences like you pointed out. (Let alone physical differences). Maybe dogs are an artificially created species, but they are a species of their own. Don´t believe me? Ask wolves. They are much more likely to prey on dogs than to mate with them. A study in Minnesota found that out of 19 wolf attacks on domestic dogs, 14 were undoubtely predatory (as the wolves fed on the carcasses); also, most attacks took place near human settlements, or even in the dog owner's backyard, which means wolves didn´t attack dogs because they perceived them as a territorial rival or threat. I should also mention that wolves only seem to eat other wolves when these are already dead or gravely injured; it is very rare for them to actively kill and eat other wolves, so these attacks on dogs can´t be considered as cases of "normal" cannibalistic wolf behavior.

Shouldn´t this be enough prove that they are two separate things?

Rubecula

I am more inclined to think of them as separate sub-species. However I will stand to be corrected on this.

Incidentally I just watched a documentary on the Dire Wolf.

Interesting 'facts' include:

The Dire Wolf was the largest Canid ever.

The Dire Wolf up until it's extinction outnumbered the Grey Wolf by at least 30 to 1. (It became extinct in a relative blink of an eye. Estimates vary between a few years and a thousand years)

The Dire Wolf was immensely powerfully built and tests show it fed on bison, horses and even Mastodons. (Tests were done on the bones for this as the bones contain information on what was eaten during the animal's life time.)

The Grey Wolf did not push it to extinction, but rather filled the niche it left when it vanished.

Adam Khor

Rubecula wrote: »

I am more inclined to think of them as separate sub-species. However I will stand to be corrected on this.

Incidentally I just watched a documentary on the Dire Wolf.

Interesting 'facts' include:

The Dire Wolf was the largest Canid ever.

The Dire Wolf up until it's extinction outnumbered the Grey Wolf by at least 30 to 1. (It became extinct in a relative blink of an eye. Estimates vary between a few years and a thousand years)

The Dire Wolf was immensely powerfully built and tests show it fed on bison, horses and even Mastodons. (Tests were done on the bones for this as the bones contain information on what was eaten during the animal's life time.)

The Grey Wolf did not push it to extinction, but rather filled the niche it left when it vanished.

I wouldn´t trust that documentary's claim that Dire wolf was the biggest canid ever- borophagines (bone-crushing dogs) got bigger. Some like Epicyon haydeni could weigh up to 170 kgs (being quite a bit larger than Dire wolves) and the obscure Aelurodon taxoides has been described as "tiger-sized" (made even scarier by the fact that it probably hunted in packs).
These animals are very obscure so it's not surprising documentary makers pay little to no attention to them... although they certainly deserve some glory.

Its interesting though the part about grey wolves filling the niche of Dire wolves and becoming more abundant after the latter's extinction- exactly what happens when wolves are exterminated and coyotes fill their niche, even adopting pack hunting and chasing after large prey.

Galvasean

Silly evolution, always trying to get big... then dying.

Rubecula

Many a true word spoken in jest as they say. I have a theory about this though.

There is only so much organic matter around at any one time, so anything big is going to have a bit more than it's fair share. Extinction is nature's way of making sure we have more variety of species.

I am probably talking total tripe here mind you.

Galvasean

Well, the big things do need more food, space etc. so when it starts running out they are usually first to go.

Wibbs

Alvin T. Grey wrote: »

Wolves and the way they interact within the pack is very different to the way dogs do, and this often leads to complications.

Different yes, very different not so much. The problem with many breeds of dog is that their ability to communicate can be restricted by breed characteristics. EG wolves use their ears to transmit info to other wolves depending on positioning. Something like a basset hound is screwed there. Wolves also rely on tail positioning as a communication method too. Again many dogs can't do this, either because their tails are purposely removed for fashion or they're selected for odd shapes through selective breeding. Plus domestication of canids tends to make their tails curl at rest. Wolves have straight tails at rest.

A wolf is not a dog.

Well technically it is. They're very close in the DNA. They are most certainly the same species, just sub species of each other. EG the maned wolf, coyote and red wolf is further away from the grey wolf than a labrador sitting at your feet. The big difference and the main one that affects behaviour is that a dog is and acts like a juvenile wolf with a reduced pack competition instinct. Behaviourally a dog is a wolf that never grows up retaining juvenile behaviours throughout life(some breeds more than others). It's one of the aims and side effects of domestication. Pretty much all domesticated animals show signs of neotony.

But that doesn't stop some idiots trying to own/cross breed them.

Agreed, though 9 times outa 10 so called wolfdogs are anything but and have little wolf in them if any. Cross a shepard with a husky and most people would think "wolf". Cue big pricetag. Behaviour issues are as much down to the dopey owner not controlling a large working dog breed. Even if you crossed a pure wolf with a compatible dog breed you don't know what you're going to get. You could get pups that all favour the wolf or all favour the dog or a mixture of both. It's a crap shoot and a potentially dangerous one at that. Wolves individually can vary more than dogs in temperment so again you dunno what you're going to get. Indeed it's the dog side that adds more to the danger. Wolves are much more "cowardly" and submissive around humans, but they're a lot stronger than dogs and more aggressive overall. Dogs are much less intimidated by people(naturally) and mixing that with something stronger and more aggressive that ends up with no fear of humans is baaad. Though careful breeding can introduce more robustness to the dog and have a dog that's trainable. The Czech wolfdog as an example.

And like wolves, they often 'Grin' (bare their teeth). To a dog, that's a definate no-no. To a wolf thats a 'look what I had for dinner, there is some left, you want it?'.
That leads to even more confusion, and a lot of dog fights.

TBH I dunno where you get that from. Baring teeth in wolves along with other ear and tail signals is very much an aggressive posture. The only time it's not is when adult wolves come back from the hunt with full bellies and the pups lick their mouths and teeth looking for regurgitated food. It's a bonding thing in that instance. Dogs who try to lick their owners mouths are just carrying that pup behaviour into adulthood. Captive wolves do the same. Though having been in a pen with them they do try to slip you the tongue and french kiss you way more than a dog and try to lick your teeth. And frankly you let them A adult dog or wolf baring it's teeth while approaching is an aggressive/dominance display(along with other ear and tail signs). I'd say confusion if it arises is with floppy eared breeds encountering this and only seeing one part of the puzzle misread the signs.

Adam Khor wrote: »

Don´t believe me? Ask wolves. They are much more likely to prey on dogs than to mate with them. A study in Minnesota found that out of 19 wolf attacks on domestic dogs, 14 were undoubtely predatory (as the wolves fed on the carcasses); also, most attacks took place near human settlements, or even in the dog owner's backyard, which means wolves didn´t attack dogs because they perceived them as a territorial rival or threat. I should also mention that wolves only seem to eat other wolves when these are already dead or gravely injured; it is very rare for them to actively kill and eat other wolves, so these attacks on dogs can´t be considered as cases of "normal" cannibalistic wolf behavior.

Shouldn´t this be enough prove that they are two separate things?

Not really. A dog is going to be an easy target, just like a coyote or a fox. Just because they eat the carcass doesn't mean it's a predatory act either. They'll eat coyotes too in territorial disputes. Either way meat is meat. They eat less other wolves because they're more equally matched and both have packs behind them. I'd put good money where predation on other wolves occurs it's with lone wolves. Most usually contact is going to be between two competing packs, but woe betide any wolf getting separated in such a dispute. Wild domestic dogs act in a similar way. Italy has a bit of a problem with feral dogs and they observe very similar wolf behaviour in such populations. Look at sheep worrying in Ireland. The cutest little pooch can go out at night meet up with his mates and the wolf comes out all too easily. Look at the australian dingo. A domesticated dog that has subsequently gone wild. Similar behaviour.

Galvasean

Nice image of the skull on NatGeo:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110819-dogs-wolves-russia-domestication-animals-science-evolution/

Rubecula

The arrow is pointing to a hole. Is it hole made post mortem or a killer blow? Is it a tooth hole or a spear point hole?

Just a few idle thoughts as it doesn't matter to the dog as it is dead.:D

Galvasean

Stolen from the NatGeo comments:

ZombieDuck wrote:

"How old is that Doggie in the window? arf arf
The one with the primordial tail
How old is that Doggie in the window ?
His carbon dating should tell." arf arf

Adam Khor

Rubecula wrote: »

The arrow is pointing to a hole. Is it hole made post mortem or a killer blow? Is it a tooth hole or a spear point hole?

Just a few idle thoughts as it doesn't matter to the dog as it is dead.:D

It is most obviously a bullet wound, probably caused by time travelers from (our) future or maybe by aliens from outer space.

Yitzhak Rabin

Very interesting video about the domestication of foxes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbcwDXhugjw

Adam Khor

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120227152721.htm

The prehistoric coyotes were more in the range of modern day wolves. Here's a pic with a wolf and two coyotes:

Galvasean

I had lots of jokes about giant baby eating, but then realised that's dingos

Adam Khor

Including the business end:





http://phys.org/news/2012-11-extensive-sample-early-fossil-wolf.html

Rubecula

I was reading an article in the dentist's waiting room yesterday. Dogs are descended from wolves. BUT they sre descended from an eastern wolf that was not quite as aggressive as modern wolves. This wolf is now extinct (apart from it's dog descendents) and it was very very different from European and American wolves.

Could this be the remains of a doggy ancestor?

Wibbs

The domestication of the dog is a big and really fascinating question* and the jury is still out on which wolves contributed to the modern dog. EG in North America early travelers with the native Americans noted that their dogs regularly crossbred back and forth with American Gray wolves that followed the tribe in their migrations through the great plains. The tribe camp would be in the middle, ringed by their dogs close by and through the camp with the wolves beyond. Interestingly their dogs were rarely used in a hunting capacity, but as pack animals and guards. Even the wolves would sometimes alert them to incoming dangers. Good deal for all as the dogs, wild and "tame" would get scraps and protection.

In historical times Europeans, particularly in the east would consider the pups of a European wolf/dog cross(which was a rare enough event) as welcome. Dangerous though as many of the European wolf attacks from the middle ages on are now thought quite likely to be such crosses. The Beast of Gévaudan may be one such example(hybrid vigour usually means the first crosses are larger for a start. The unusual colouring another possible clue). Crosses may have the strength and aggression of the wild dog, with the lack of fear of humans of the domesticated. That said the European wolf is reported to be less aggressive and more "tame" in captivity compared to the American Gray and can take living closer to human settlement. Makes sense as they've been around humans for longer. They're smaller, with bigger ears and more "dog like". This guy a good example. Not so horror movie/little red riding hood.

Other problems come up when trying to decide if a fossil is of a dog or a wolf. There are clear differences in the skull in modern examples, but with early dogs it's not so clear cut. Snout/muzzle length is used by some researchers. Muzzles get shorter with domestication. However wolves can show a range of morphology so it's not that indicative. Plus captive wolves fed softer dog food type diets also show shortened muzzles over a pretty short time. This happened with humans too. We got shorter muzzles. Interestingly it still happens. One pretty strong notion why so many of us in the west require braces for tooth crowding is because the jaw's development is reduced because we eat softer foods. Tooth crowding is rarely seen among modern hunter gatherers on native diets and very rarely seen in fossils of our early ancestors. So finding a 40,000 year old fossil dog it would be hard to tell from the bones if it was a doggie or a wolfie, even if human remains were close by. After all it takes many generations for domesticated animals to change morphology.

It may also have been a "part time" domestication. That would be my personal idea. IE early humans may have kept wolf cubs/pups as companions/novelties/pack animals. They hung around until they sexually matured and then they left to join a wild pack(possibly one that followed the humans like the INdian example) or started up their own. This is the main area where wolves and dogs differ. Dogs are neotonous wolves. They remain pups for life, they never grow up. Wolves grow up, generally leave the family and start their own family/pack. Humans may have been a part of the extended early family of puppyhood. Some wolves do stay as part of the main family/pack even as adults. If this happened with tame wolves then domestication would largely have conducted itself without much selection from us as over time the submissive ones who stayed would have bred with each other.

It seems domestication happened many times, in many different places with it seems a few dead ends. EG an early dog in Russia whose male and female genetic lines don't show up in modern dogs(or wolves).



*especially as it seems we were the only humans who ever had a symbiotic relationship with dogs. It may well have been one of the "killer apps" that had all our other human cousins die out.

Ziphius

Rubecula wrote: »

I was reading an article in the dentist's waiting room yesterday. Dogs are descended from wolves. BUT they sre descended from an eastern wolf that was not quite as aggressive as modern wolves. This wolf is now extinct (apart from it's dog descendents) and it was very very different from European and American wolves.

Could this be the remains of a doggy ancestor?

Interesting. Do you remember the magazine you read this in? My understanding was that domestic dogs are descended from (and strictly speaking are) modern grey wolves (Canis lupus).

Adam Khor

I think that, like Wibbs said, there is no consensus over which kind of wolf gave rise to the domestic dog (which I insist on considering a separate species mostly because I find it kinda sad to call a French poodle or chihuahua a "Canis lupus"), or even if it was only one kind of wolf...

I had read that the ancestor of the dog was the Indian wolf, which is sometimes said to be a separate species- Canis pallipes- whereas other, older sources say that the golden jackal may be another candidate (I don´t think this idea is favoured nowadays but it is true that Golden jackals are more related to wolves and dogs than they are to the other jackal species).

And then there are dingoes and New Guinea singing dogs, which are said to be descended from Chinese ancestors...

Tombo2001

Wibbs wrote: »

*especially as it seems we were the only humans who ever had a symbiotic relationship with dogs. It may well have been one of the "killer apps" that had all our other human cousins die out.

Please forgive the gaping hole in my knowledge of what went on several hundred millenia ago....

......are you saying there were many different types of human....the way there are many different types of ape.....

......and that one particular type survived and the rest didnt?

Adam Khor

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Please forgive the gaping hole in my knowledge of what went on several hundred millenia ago....

......are you saying there were many different types of human....the way there are many different types of ape.....

......and that one particular type survived and the rest didnt?

Yes, that's the way it was. May be the explanation behind our species' persistent xenophobia...

Wibbs

Yea it's only in the last 12000 years(at last count) that modern humans, homo sapiens sapiens have been the only human species on the planet. 12000 years ago you had the "Hobbits" of Flores. Go back to say 30,000 years ago and you had us, Neandertals, Hobbits, pockets of Homo Erectus and Denisovians and with the exceptoin of the hobbits it seems we had hanky panky going on with all of them. Now that's just the cousins we know about. There may have been more, or more that survived to more recent times. EG Personally I'd not be shocked if a neandertal bone came back with a verified date of 15,000 years ago.

Going even further back a few million years, there were a load of pre hominid upright walking apes knocking about in Africa. It seems that evolution took it's damned time coming up with bipedalism and when it did made up for lost time. Sad we're the only ones left. The nice thing is that all of us in our DNA have echoes of those folks who went before us. All non africans have neandertal DNA and recent work in Africa shows they have some of their own ancient cousins DNA too. They're not just stone tools and dry bones in museum drawers, they're still here. They gave us advantages too. Some of the genes we got from Neandertals conferred immunity to certain viruses. Who knows what else they gave us.