General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCan someone prove to me that dogs are canines?
What about wolves? Coyotes? Jackals?
How can all of these different animals be canines?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)antiquie
(4,299 posts)undeterred
(34,658 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)or is asleep the dog's natural state and the brief moments in between when she spins like a dervish and achieves supersonic speed actually inverted naps?
femmocrat
(28,394 posts)Canine - any of various fissiped mammals with nonretractile claws and typically long muzzles
Canidae, family Canidae - dogs; wolves; jackals; foxes
Canis familiaris, dog, domestic dog - a member of the genus Canis (probably descended from the common wolf) that has been domesticated by man since prehistoric times; occurs in many breeds; "the dog barked all night"
wolf - any of various predatory carnivorous canine mammals of North America and Eurasia that usually hunt in packs
Canis aureus, jackal - Old World nocturnal canine mammal closely related to the dog; smaller than a wolf; sometimes hunts in a pack but usually singly or as a member of a pair
wild dog - any of various undomesticated mammals of the family Canidae that are thought to resemble domestic dogs as distinguished from jackals or wolves
Nika
(546 posts)if it were not for us, dogs would not exist.
1monster
(11,012 posts)wolves and dogs have a common ancester...
Dogs And Wolves Evolved From Common Ancestor, Dog Domestication More Complex Than Previously Thought
Dogs and wolves evolved from a common ancestor between 9,000 and 34,000 years ago, a new study suggests.
A new study suggests dogs and wolves evolved from a common ancestor between 9,000 and 34,000 years ago. Wikimedia Commons
Dogs and wolves evolved from a common ancestor between 9,000 and 34,000 years ago, a new study suggests.
This is an incredibly rich new dataset, and it has allowed us to carry out the most detailed analysis yet of the genetic history of dogs and wolves, said Adam Siepel, associate professor of biological statistics and computational biology at Cornell and a co-author of the paper said. There are still many open questions, but this study moves the ball forward. (snip)
"One possibility is there may have been other wolf lineages that these dogs diverged from that then went extinct," study senior author John Novembre, an associate professor in the department of human genetics, said in a statement. "So now when you ask which wolves are dogs most closely related to, it's none of these three because these are wolves that diverged in the recent past. It's something more ancient that isn't well represented by today's wolves." (snip)
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)You wouldn't keep a wolf as a pet, right?
I rest my case. Dogs are not canines.
Orrex
(63,247 posts)femmocrat
(28,394 posts)I wouldn't, but some people have. And then there are the wolf hybrids, which are wolves cross bred with dogs. Why? I have no idea, but people do this.
hlthe2b
(102,468 posts)The distinction is important. In some cases it is appropriate to look at wolf behavior to understand dog behavior, and vice versa. Yet there are significant differences between the species. For instance, wolves use eye contact as a threat, whereas domestic dogs are able to make eye contact with people in a way that encourages our feeling of mutual understanding.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-dogs/2014/02/10/c53c6970-8f46-11e3-b46a-5a3d0d2130da_story.html
Progressive dog
(6,923 posts)article: Origin of The Domestic Dog
hlthe2b
(102,468 posts)No offense intended, but often best not to get your facts from Wikipedia--at least without checking other sources, as wiki does not always update as new information/studies/data discount the old.
.
http://www.livescience.com/42649-dogs-closest-wolf-ancestors-extinct.html
Here is the link to the actual study dated January 14, 2014, so hardly disproven:
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016
Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs
Published: January 16, 2014
Abstract
To identify genetic changes underlying dog domestication and reconstruct their early evolutionary history, we generated high-quality genome sequences from three gray wolves, one from each of the three putative centers of dog domestication, two basal dog lineages (Basenji and Dingo) and a golden jackal as an outgroup. Analysis of these sequences supports a demographic model in which dogs and wolves diverged through a dynamic process involving population bottlenecks in both lineages and post-divergence gene flow. In dogs, the domestication bottleneck involved at least a 16-fold reduction in population size, a much more severe bottleneck than estimated previously. A sharp bottleneck in wolves occurred soon after their divergence from dogs, implying that the pool of diversity from which dogs arose was substantially larger than represented by modern wolf populations. We narrow the plausible range for the date of initial dog domestication to an interval spanning 1116 thousand years ago, predating the rise of agriculture. In light of this finding, we expand upon previous work regarding the increase in copy number of the amylase gene (AMY2B) in dogs, which is believed to have aided digestion of starch in agricultural refuse. We find standing variation for amylase copy number variation in wolves and little or no copy number increase in the Dingo and Husky lineages. In conjunction with the estimated timing of dog origins, these results provide additional support to archaeological finds, suggesting the earliest dogs arose alongside hunter-gathers rather than agriculturists. Regarding the geographic origin of dogs, we find that, surprisingly, none of the extant wolf lineages from putative domestication centers is more closely related to dogs, and, instead, the sampled wolves form a sister monophyletic clade. This result, in combination with dog-wolf admixture during the process of domestication, suggests that a re-evaluation of past hypotheses regarding dog origins is necessary.
Progressive dog
(6,923 posts)I did check other sources, but only found reporting by bad science reporters. Thanks
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)Not canon yet
hlthe2b
(102,468 posts)Honestly, if this is your field, then you would not be quoting 17 yo studies or wikipedia and stating THAT as fact. This is a highly anticipated study that has been very well received.
Of course for those who want to quote wikipedia, I guess there is no convincing.
femmocrat
(28,394 posts)The dog, Canis familiaris, is a direct descendent of the gray wolf, Canis lupus: In other words, dogs as we know them are domesticated wolves. Not only their behavior changed; domestic dogs are different in form from wolves, mainly smaller and with shorter muzzles and smaller teeth.
Darwin was wrong about dogs. He thought their remarkable diversity must reflect interbreeding with several types of wild dogs. But the DNA findings say differently. All modern dogs are descendants of wolves, though this domestication may have happened twice, producing groups of dogs descended from two unique common ancestors.
How and when this domestication happened has been a matter of speculation. It was thought until very recently that dogs were wild until about 12,000 years ago. But DNA analysis published in 1997 suggests a date of about 130,000 years ago for the transformation of wolves to dogs. This means that wolves began to adapt to human society long before humans settled down and began practicing agriculture.
This earlier timing casts doubt on the long-held myth that humans domesticated dogs to serve as guards or companions to assist them. Rather, say some experts, dogs may have exploited a niche they discovered in early human society and got humans to take them in out of the cold.
Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_02.html
There seems to be two schools of thought.
hlthe2b
(102,468 posts)discounted, discredited, nor countered. I provided a link to the actual study (and some media stories on the finding) in my posts above, which I will copy below for your convenience. The PBS blurb is old and based on the old assumptions (a 1997 study). In the scientific community, this 2014 brand spanken new study is getting lots of attention because many had predicted as much and it is well done.
http://www.livescience.com/42649-dogs-closest-wolf-ancestors-extinct.html
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016
Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs
Published: January 16, 2014
Abstract
To identify genetic changes underlying dog domestication and reconstruct their early evolutionary history, we generated high-quality genome sequences from three gray wolves, one from each of the three putative centers of dog domestication, two basal dog lineages (Basenji and Dingo) and a golden jackal as an outgroup. Analysis of these sequences supports a demographic model in which dogs and wolves diverged through a dynamic process involving population bottlenecks in both lineages and post-divergence gene flow. In dogs, the domestication bottleneck involved at least a 16-fold reduction in population size, a much more severe bottleneck than estimated previously. A sharp bottleneck in wolves occurred soon after their divergence from dogs, implying that the pool of diversity from which dogs arose was substantially larger than represented by modern wolf populations. We narrow the plausible range for the date of initial dog domestication to an interval spanning 1116 thousand years ago, predating the rise of agriculture. In light of this finding, we expand upon previous work regarding the increase in copy number of the amylase gene (AMY2B) in dogs, which is believed to have aided digestion of starch in agricultural refuse. We find standing variation for amylase copy number variation in wolves and little or no copy number increase in the Dingo and Husky lineages. In conjunction with the estimated timing of dog origins, these results provide additional support to archaeological finds, suggesting the earliest dogs arose alongside hunter-gathers rather than agriculturists. Regarding the geographic origin of dogs, we find that, surprisingly, none of the extant wolf lineages from putative domestication centers is more closely related to dogs, and, instead, the sampled wolves form a sister monophyletic clade. This result, in combination with dog-wolf admixture during the process of domestication, suggests that a re-evaluation of past hypotheses regarding dog origins is necessary.
Thanks.
2naSalit
(86,880 posts)the link to this study. You are correct, much anticipated and far more accurate than studies conducted some time ago. I have been interested in reading it, now that you have located it, I thank you for doing that legwork!
2na
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)Fastcars
(204 posts)Wolves are sometimes kept as exotic pets, and in some rarer occasions, as working animals. Although closely related to dogs (which are generally thought to have split from wolves between 10,000 and 100,000 years ago), wolves do not show the same tractability as dogs in living alongside humans, and generally, much more work is required in order to obtain the same amount of reliability. Wolves also need much more space than dogs, about 10 to 15 square miles so they can exercise.[1]
DBoon
(22,414 posts)Are humans and bonobos both primates?
I wouldn't let a bonobo repair my car, therefore you are not a primate
PCIntern
(25,619 posts)can you prove to me that Ted Cruz is a Homo sapiens?
Demonaut
(8,934 posts)Behind the Aegis
(54,032 posts)H2O Man
(73,655 posts)all people, to point to his teeth.
PCIntern
(25,619 posts)Question: how many rows of permanent teeth does he possess?
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Like some shit you'd see in freeperland
Cirque du So-What
(26,020 posts)I haven't been around much lately, so I miss a lot of the sideshows.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Cirque du So-What
(26,020 posts)I now realize that my life would be an empty farce without having seen all that
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Cirque du So-What
(26,020 posts)but I am still oblivious to what the 'something else' is.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)in retrospect. Most thngs around here are.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)And I am looking at one now. Or at least I think I am or at least I am telling you that or maybe you just think I am.
Orrex
(63,247 posts)Just like my dog ate my homework.
[url][/url]
hunter
(38,339 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)or are they merely convenient mnemonic constructions to hold recognized types with diacritically varying ancestor-descendant lineages?
I don't mean to say that old questions means -very- old...S.J. Gould had some fascination with the concept of macroevolution of higher taxa.
Cirque du So-What
(26,020 posts)They've got 'dog' right in their name, after all.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Therefore, wolves are Hitler.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)ergo.
funny.
The Wolf That Was Hitler.
aristocles
(594 posts)NoGOPZone
(2,971 posts)It all makes sense now
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)cop drama team, lol.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)no matter what the breed, but she ignores other animals. I think it's kind of amazing that she recognizes that they're dogs even though she can't smell them or anything.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Since they are so genetically similar to a wolf, they should be able to bring down some big game to feed themselves, no?
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)and I believe him.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)IDemo
(16,926 posts)okaawhatever
(9,478 posts)your dog.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)Or "shepsky", as I've heard them called.
A vet who used to work at a wolf recovery center told me last year that he thinks there is a good chance he has some wolf blood. Only a DNA test would tell, but I'm not inclined to bother. All I know for sure is he's a great dog, and he's warming my feet right now.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Dr. Strange
(25,927 posts)They're molars.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,380 posts)All Canines are Photoshopped.
Orrex
(63,247 posts)Who wants to see a dog with haunches like a ten-week old pup?
quaker bill
(8,225 posts)For many generations now they have been running an experiment where they have been cross breeding the most tame foxes in captivity as well as cross breeding the most aggressive.
Over a dozen generations they have developed some very tame and some very aggressive foxes. The very aggressive foxes breed more or less to type, except that they become nasty hyper aggressive, they otherwise look and sound pretty much like the wild animals.
However the interesting bit comes from the tame x tame crosses. Not only do these foxes become more or less completely domesticated, the body shape changes, the coat coloring and patterning changes to look more like patterns commonly seen in dogs, even their vocalization changes to something more dog-like. Another dozen or so generations breeding for body type and coat pattern and they likely would have any number of different appearing models of pet foxes, just like dogs, but generally smaller.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Very interesting, especially on the coat and color variations.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Orrex
(63,247 posts)This thread isn't the joke.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Dogs eat ice cream. Coyotes are on your desk and wolves have Godlike eyes. Jackals defy parameters. Ergo they are all canines eating ice cream on your desk but, you can't see them.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)God has system that works something like this ...
He just has lots and lots more jars.