• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wolf -> Dog evolution

Ahh! Thanks. That nails them down. In Denmark, they are called desert rats (ørkenrotter). Not unusual as pets, then. I suppose I should have known, but small rodents have never been my prime interest, as pets go ;). ......Or as anything else goes.

Have had a couple of guinea pigs of the years, though, mainly for the entertainment of the kids (who consistenly ignored them).

Hans
 
BTW; gerbils are the ones that don't need to drink. They get all the water they need as metabolic water. Makes them at least marginally interesting.

Hans
 
The interesting thing about wolf / dog evolution is that the criteria involved in selection are different, because the selective agents are different.
Wolves are selected by wolves and by environmental pressures, to be good at being wolves. One of the environmental pressures is human predation. Wolves are carnivores unlucky enough to be in direct competition with the commonest , largest and best equipped land predator in existence.
Dogs have that same predator on their side, which is why their territory has expanded steadily these last 20,000 years as wolves' has shrunk.

Since the genes in a dog and those in a wolf are much the same, from their POV nothing much has changed.
From the POV of a giant ant palaeontologist in the year 3 million, something odd happened to a vaguely defined land carnivore 3 MY ago. A rather widely dispersed variety underwent accelerated evolutionary change into a number of skeletal forms. They almost certainly could not interbreed, as their size and shape differed radically. Punctuated speciation.

Evolution is just change in beasties. How it looks largely depends on how you choose to look at it.

To me , a dog is a wolf that tends to live around people. A wolf is a dog that tends not to. It's a behavioural description. The wolves in the game park at Longleat are functionally dogs from that POV.

Of course the genomes differ somewhat . So do those of African and Japanese humans. Big deal.
 
So was anyone else out there thinking "Wolf derefrence and select dog" when they saw the title of this thread?

I'm such a nerd.
 
Basically, a dog is a wolf that has had all the brains bred out of it. Sorry dog lovers, but it's the truth!

I think it is mostly recessive traits, and inbreeding that produces different breeds of dogs. There is much genetic variation.

So it isn't that dogs are deliberately bred to be less intelligent than wolves, just that whatever traits are required to induce docility are a side effect of selecting wolves for human compatibility early on.

How long do you need to breed dogs until you have actual speciation?
 
In fact I believe that all the gerbils in captivity originate from an extremely small gene pool - is it this species that's all descended from one pregnant female, or is that the hamster?

Rolfe.

I believe you're right, it's the golden hamster.

Soapy Sam, you said: To me , a dog is a wolf that tends to live around people. A wolf is a dog that tends not to. It's a behavioural description. The wolves in the game park at Longleat are functionally dogs from that POV.

I agree. My neighbors have dogs that are supposedly 'wolf-hybrids'. They are 65% wolf, according to the pedigree papers they have. However, these are DOGS. There is nothing wolfish about them as they have been selected for doglike traits, not wolflike traits. My little Pomeranians are more wolflike than those dogs.
 
I agree. My neighbors have dogs that are supposedly 'wolf-hybrids'. They are 65% wolf, according to the pedigree papers they have. However, these are DOGS. There is nothing wolfish about them as they have been selected for doglike traits, not wolflike traits. My little Pomeranians are more wolflike than those dogs.
And that, my friends, is a highly interesting observation! Little dogs get away with behaviour which would be a euthanasia offence in a big dog. So if the wolf behaviour is preserved anywhere in the dog genome, it's in the terriers and the miniatures.

Rolfe.
 
I'm not sure how tongue in cheek that observation is.
Wolves are not particularly aggressive. Neither are police dogs. Each shares a culture in which socially constrained aggression is a useful characteristic, but while in a police dog that may make him good at his job, it may not be an advantage in passing on his genes. In a wolf it might be.

The characteristics that control the reproductive success (or lack of it) of pedigree dogs are characteristics which appeal to humans rather than to other dogs. It's analogous to sexual selection, but extra-specific sexual selection.
(ie pretty dogs get to breed, even if other dogs don't think they are pretty).

Wolves are pretty social creatures. I suspect (guess) an Alsatian pup reared by wolves would fit in very well.
 
In fact I believe that all the gerbils in captivity originate from an extremely small gene pool - is it this species that's all descended from one pregnant female, or is that the hamster? Anyway, at that time, see one and you'd seen the lot.
I think that's the hamster. I remember reading somewhere that all golden hamsters are descended from a single litter found under a rock somewhere in the middle east. I've no idea how true the story is though.
:hamster:
 
I have in my time been owned by hybrids twice - the first was an accidental coyote-German Shepherd 50/50 mix. Imagine a slightly larger than normal coyote with Shepherd-like markings. She was highly intelligent, hyper-inquisitive, and would talk rather than bark. She lived 13 years.

The second was a high percentage (96/4) wolf-malamute hybrid. She was indistiguishable from a 100% wolf except for the eyes - they were sky blue. She was never a pet, in the sense that a dog is a pet, but she was very much part of the family social-group. Her behavior was entirely wolf-like and, interestingly for a hybrid, predictable. She lived with us for 11 years and was the dearest animal I knew.
 
Then we get into the question of whether you can call anything "evolution" if it only involves selecting from among the existing gene pool, or whether you actually need to have new genes emerging before you can truly apply the term. Which I'm not going to get into because it only results in a sterile fight.

Rolfe.
I am pretty sure that evolution involves 2 processes at least. One is the mutation of genes which become incorporated (possibly at low numbers) in the gene pool depending on how advantageous or disadvantageous it is. The other is selective pressure for particular genes. Once selective pressure is applied. Evolution to any extent cannot occur without both of them. People don't realize it but even within a breed there are all kinds of genes that are present within the breeding population of dogs which are not commonly expressed and often harmful. In pure breeding you can find them by doing close crosses (breeding closely related individuals) which unfortunately happens too often. There are many different ways that genes work. Most people with a little familiarity with genetics will know of simple recessive and dominant genes but there are many other traits which have more complicated genetics such as additive , polygenic, incomplete dominance, incomplete penetrance, and probably some others which are not so simple. In addition there is still much we don't know about DNA. Without the accumulation of new genes there will be a steady loss of genetic variability due to genetic drift (random non selective changes in the gene pool) and selective pressure eliminating certain genes.
 
To me, a dog is a wolf that tends to live around people. A wolf is a dog that tends not to. It's a behavioural description. The wolves in the game park at Longleat are functionally dogs from that POV.
I'm afraid I have to disagree to some extent. There are some obvious physical differences between wolves and even the most similar dogs, such as Siberian Huskies and Alaskan Malamutes. Wolves are "keel-chested," narrowly built with thin legs ending in large paws; when walking, they place their paws one in front of the other, leaving one line of tracks. Dogs, by contrast, are more barrel-chested, with stockier legs, and leave parallel tracks. We have couple of wolf/dog hybrids at the sanctuary where I volunteer, and the difference with "pure" wolves is visible, albeit not always obvious. The eyes usally reveal the answer: wolves' eyes are yellow to amber, hybrids' often are not, even if they physically resemble wolves in every other particular. Moreover, wolves' brains are about half again as large of those of an equivalent-sized dog. WildCat's observation that "a dog is a wolf that has had all the brains bred out of it" is not far off the mark (though it's more like one-third, rather than "all").

And while there are varying degrees of socialization to humans, it's simply impossible to fully domesticate an individual wolf, even one hand-raised from birth. First, they are, for all practical purposes, impossible to house-train. Second, they retain their hunting instinct, and will chase anything small that runs, like the neighbors' cat or, indeed, the neighbors' kids. Third, when they reach sexual maturity (around age three), they will start entertaining thoughts about challenging for leadership of the "pack," i.e. your household. An oft-heard story from idiots who got a wolf (which is legal in many of the United States) because they thought it would be cooler than a Rottweiler, or because they're into some Newage garbage about it being their "totem animal," and didn't bother reading up on them properly beforehand goes along the lines of "and then, one day, (s)he just turned on me!" Further questioning will almost invariably reveal that this occurs around the time the wolf is three years old. As a result, most pet wolves over the age of three end up in sanctuaries like ours; in the case of wolf/dog hybrids, 80% are euthanized before or at age three. Metullus' experience is, with all due respect, extremely rare. Allow me to refer to some of our propaganda on wolf and hybrid ownership and why it's generally a really bad idea (and remember, propaganda is "information disseminated for the purpose of influencing opinion"; it is not necessarily untrue); incidentally, it also addresses some of those claims about "percentages" in hybrids' bloodlines (spoiler: they're mostly spurious).

Wolves (plural) can, of course, be domesticated, as the existence of dogs shows, but you're looking at many generations of selective breeding. All the wolves at our sanctuary are captive-born, and many of them are comfortable with humans, provided we remain outside their enclosure, i.e. outside their territory. If we have to go into an enclosure (which we try to avoid if at all possible, but in summer, you gotta clean up the scat at least once a week), the wolves will generally stay as far away from us as possible, even though they know who we are, and recognize us as the people who bring them food.
 
Wolves are "keel-chested," narrowly built with thin legs ending in large paws; when walking, they place their paws one in front of the other, leaving one line of tracks. Dogs, by contrast, are more barrel-chested, with stockier legs, and leave parallel tracks.

The comment we heard most from people when they first met Kismet was that her paws were huge.

And while there are varying degrees of socialization to humans, it's simply impossible to fully domesticate an individual wolf, even one hand-raised from birth. First, they are, for all practical purposes, impossible to house-train.
Our experience exactly.

Second, they retain their hunting instinct, and will chase anything small that runs, like the neighbors' cat or, indeed, the neighbors' kids.
Kismet would chase down and capture cats, but she never killed one. She never chased a child, although she would happily steal anything she could reach and lead you on a merry chase around the yard.

She absolutely hated racoons and oppossums - neither could survive a walk across the back yard.
Third, when they reach sexual maturity (around age three), they will start entertaining thoughts about challenging for leadership of the "pack," i.e. your household.
Kismet never challenged any member of the family and indeed was submissive towards my Bouvier. The problem was that Doughboy (the Bouvier) did not speak the same language and had no clue that he was, in Kismet's eyes, the Alpha Male.

She was agnostic towards strange dogs - she would ignore them unless they approached her. Only once did she have a "discussion" with another dog - it was a large Rhodesian Ridgeback that became quite aggressive towards me when I was walking Kismet on a leash. She flipped the dog onto its back in a flash and held it there by its throat for a moment before releasing it unharmed.
Metullus' experience is, with all due respect, extremely rare.
Absolutely. We were fortunate in that we were able to raise Kismet from a young age, never treated her as a pet, we had plenty of space, and the time and inclination to invest in our relationship with her. And it just worked out.
 
OK...I need a crazy pet lover as my boyfriend. Too many pet lovers I know are into woo-◊◊◊◊ like Bach flower remedies, pet acupunture, and animal chiropractic. I need some one that loves animals for what they are -- without any woo-woo shi*t and silliness. Domestic pets have evolved in conjunction with humans and are tied to us. I love the critters but they are animals, the same as we are. Where are the people who understand this?
 
OK...I need a crazy pet lover as my boyfriend. Too many pet lovers I know are into woo-◊◊◊◊ like Bach flower remedies, pet acupunture, and animal chiropractic. I need some one that loves animals for what they are -- without any woo-woo shi*t and silliness. Domestic pets have evolved in conjunction with humans and are tied to us. I love the critters but they are animals, the same as we are. Where are the people who understand this?

I met a person online that seemed like he had a good grasp of reality about dogs. (Just a person, not looking for a boyfriend) then I find out that he's an advocate of Rescue Remedy, boyoboy, did my opinion of him plummet. I don't get how someone could rationally think that a flower floating in water, then diluted, could do anything unless it happened to be packed in brandy...wait a minute, it IS! ;-)
 
Euromutt- I am never upset to be disagreed with by someone who knows more than I do. That's how we learn.

My point is more about the human concepts "species" and "evolution" than about either dogs or wolves specifically.

There clearly are physical, as well as behavioural differences between the two animals. Both arise from the different course their evolution has taken and the role of humans in both is crucial, only in different ways.

We are back to Darwin's old bugbear- the species vs variety question.

Clearly the animals can interbreed, so are the same species by that definition. Yet even pre scientific classification of mammals filed them differently, as is still our practice.

Dogs are the transitional fossils the giant ants will wonder about someday.

A pity the unwashed of our own age can't perceive that.

I do envy both Metullus and yourself your experience. I was recently offered the chance to go on a "wolf walk" at a sanctuary in England. After much agonising, because I really, really wanted to, I decided not to.
I understand the owners of the sanctuary want to familiarise people with wolves and dispel the myths about them. I don't think it's such a good plan. I think their long term goal may be the reintroduction of wolves to the UK, which I don't think is a great idea either. That time is past.
I feel wolves are headed for extinction, sooner or later. Their best chance is not to be loved by humans. Their only chance in the long run is to have no contact with humans at all.
Since you are associated with a similar sanctuary (though in an area where a viable population of wild wolves remains), I'd be intrigued to hear if you think I chose wrongly.
 

Back
Top Bottom