Talk:Domestication of the dog/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

East Asia

StopPrejudiceNow - You have asked "You mentioned that WP:SECONDARY have rebutted the East-Asian hypothesis, but can you please discuss which sources have rebutted the claims made by the edi tin the talk page?" If you had have read the lede to this article and the secondary sources provided, you would have found that the proposals are Europe, Central Asia, and East Asia. Quoting dubious websites, old research, or in particular what Wang's opinion is not giving WP:DUE weight to the other alternatives and shows WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on your part. For your information, dog genetic diversity does not indicate that dogs originated in southern China, it indicates that dogs in China have mixed with multiple local wolf populations. Additionally, the genetic divergence of the wolf and the dog does not indicate domestication, Wang assumes that it does. Thalmann located in Switzerlad the dog's wolf aunt - if he had have found the dog's wolf mother there would be no need for further discussion nor proposals. However, the article reflects all three proposals as per the secondary sources - MacHugh 2016, with similar views reflected in Thalmann 2018. William Harristalk 19:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@William Harris: - I will edit the article to make it more neutral and balanced, as well as adding the weaknesses of the East-Asian origin hypothesis. However, I dispute your claim that the sources that support an East Asian origin for dogs are "dubious" or "old research".

• Ding (2012) supports an East Asian origin. https://www.nature.com/articles/hdy2011114
• Pang (2009) supports an East Asian origin. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775109/
• Ardalan (2011) supports an East Asian origin. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3287314/
• Savolainen (2002) supports an East Asian origin. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12446907
• Caprona (2012) supports an East Asian origin. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/621836

It is really only Thalmann that supports a European origin of dogs (based on fossil evidence).Also, genetic and phenotypical diversity have long been accepted as valid ways to analyze the geographic origin of a species by means of parsimony analysis.

Such as the fact that all modern humans originate from Africa is supported by the fact that the human populations with the greatest genetic diversity tend to be found in Africa. Thus, supporting a human origin in Africa.

The law of parsimony would suggest that the area where the basal, unique, and diverse lineages are found, would be where the geographical origins would be. Currently, the area that is considered to have the greatest genetic diversity - with the most basal and unique lineages - is East Asia. And, I believe the majority of scientific papers support a East Asian origin too. So, therefore WP:DUE is not required if the majority of the current evidence points to East Asia as the center of origin of dogs.

The European origin hypothesis is still valid, and I have maintained and preserved all the evidence pointing to a European origin for dogs. But, it is really only Thalmann who supports a European origin.

LightFromABrightStar (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

As I have stated above, you are referring to outdated studies that were based on short sequences of DNA and and many assumptions to form their conclusions. Therefore, we need to be referring to the latest, whole genome sequencing that has involved huge international teams, and that is Thalmann 2013 (Western Europe) Shannon 2015 (Central Asia), and Wang 2015(East Asia) - all supported by McHugh 2016 WP:SECONDARY sourcing (i.e. Greger Larson, Professor of Paleobiology at Oxford University, the man who proposes two domestication events for the pig in both Europe and East Asia - refer to the McHugh 2016 author list)). Your claim that East Asia is the most likely source is not supported by secondary sourcing, although Savolainen has been pushing that line for years (refer to the Wang 2015 author list). Additionally, numbers of papers do not out-weigh scientific findings. You intend to give WP:UNDUE weight to one of three valid findings, for what reason I cannot fathom. William Harristalk 22:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@William Harris: Did you even read my revisions regarding the East-Asian origin hypothesis? You should read my revisions before blindly reverting them. Everything in my revision is simply repeating findings that previous researchers have published. You should read my revision before accusing me of WP:UNDUE, I gave equal weight to both European and East-Asian origin hypothesis.

Also, there is no reason to call the sources mentioned as "outdated". What is your definition of "outdated"?

Previous studies have been conducted, analyzing the Y-DNA, MT-DNA, and autosomal DNA that have supported an East-Asian origin for domestic dogs. These insignificant "short sequences of DNA" you are talking about are Y-DNA and mt-DNA. Y-DNA and MT-DNA are extremely important snippets of DNA to use when performing genetic analysis for the purposes of determining evolutionary relationships, ancestry, and geographical origins due to their nonrecombinant nature.

Really, it is only Thalmann who supports a European origin based on samples collected from ancient fossils, which as Wang (2016) discussed - is problematic. The vast majority of other scientific papers and evidence has come in favor of an East-Asian origin.

Also, the sources I cited, don't just include genetic evidence based on Y-DNA and MT-DNA diversity, they also include phenotypical evidence, such as Caprona (2012). There is no reason to remove the sources included in the East-Asian section. These are all reliable sources that are not "outdated".

• Ding (2012) supports an East Asian origin. https://www.nature.com/articles/hdy2011114
• Pang (2009) supports an East Asian origin. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775109/
• Ardalan (2011) supports an East Asian origin. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3287314/
• Savolainen (2002) supports an East Asian origin. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12446907
• Caprona (2012) supports an East Asian origin. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/621836

I included the methods they used in their findings in the revisions I made to the article.

There is no reason to remove information regarding these sources and their findings which support an East-Asian origin as "outdated" from the article. These are all peer-reviewed papers, that have all been cited.

LightFromABrightStar (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

You may drop your rhetoric in the edit summary - at no time have I supported a "European origin" - I have maintained a neutral point of view and supported all three proposals of origin, given that nobody really knows. (In my opinion, all three are wrong.)

If it is your position that this article should reflect outdated or rebutted studies, then brace yourself, you know what is coming. I have been on this page for a while - you position has been taken by other editors in the past. William Harristalk 00:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@William Harris: I have maintained a neutral point of view in the article, there is now both an East Asia and Europe subsection, which includes evidence cited from relevant sources.

I don't know why you keep calling Ding, Pang, Ardalan, Savoleinen, and Caprona as rebutted and outdated sources. To my knowledge, no paper has been published that has rebutted their methods or findings. And you keep mentioning their findings are based on "short sequences of DNA", because they primarily analyzed mt-DNA and Y-DNA.

But, to the best of my knowledge, Thalmann used the same methods to analyze the ancient dog fossil samples to support his European origin hypothesis. Thalmann analyzed the mitochondrial DNA of ancient specimens to infer that dogs have originated from Europe (or at least were independently domesticated there).

The sources I included used the same methods to analyze modern dog genomes, to infer that the region with the highest ydna and mtdna diversity is East Asia.

Nonrecombinant DNA is pretty much the only useful piece of DNA to infer geographic origin, and Thalmann, who you have no problem with citing, also only used mitochondrial DNA to support his findings. So, I don't understand how you can say the studies I cited have been rebutted or outdated. When to my knowledge,

• there have been no rebuttals published criticizing their methods or findings
• thalmann used the same methods as the sources I cited by analyzing mtdna to support his findings.

You keep saying it has been rebutted, where are the rebuttals? Please show me secondary sourcing that have rebutted them. And even if there have been rebuttals arguing against them, that doesn't mean it's appropriate to remove them from this article as sources.

LightFromABrightStar (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

What I am about to do is not what I would have chosen for this article, but you are about to be seriously enlightened. I will be importing back sections which I removed in the past. It is already written and well-referenced similar to the resIt of this article, I only need to import it from the article's archive, to commence shortly. I had assumed that this article had moved on from the old studies that used SHORT lengths of DNA and EXTANT specimens, and into using the entire mitochondrial genome and the entire nuclear genome with ANCIENT specimens - it would appear that I was wrong. So back into the past we go. William Harristalk 09:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

If other editors who watch this page have a position on editor LightFromABrightStarproperly deleting properly cited material, attributing to sources what they did not say, and the pushing of an East Asia origin of the dog above all other proposals, now would be a good time to state it. William Harristalk 08:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Now you finally have the rebuttal that you asked for above, which is now included in the article. All of these studies that you have cited above were based on comparing east Asian indigenous dogs to breed dogs from other regions. Breed formation leads to a genetic bottleneck and reduced genetic diversity. These comparisons were not appropriate (Freedman & Wayne 2017). Arguments between researchers was not what I had hoped for in this article, that is why it simply stated that there were 3 plausible locations of origin. It would have been convenient if you had left it at that. My real concern regarding this matter is that no other editor offered a point of view, as if nobody was watching nor cared. William Harristalk 11:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2019

In Paleobiogeography section: change 16 °C (61 °F) to 16 °C (29 °F)

In the text the above refers to a temperature _change_ not an actual weather temperature. The change is 16 °C * (1.8 °F/°C) =~ 29 °F 108.213.71.57 (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for picking that up and alerting us to it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2019

Regarding the previous suggested change to 29 °F, for example please see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_extinction_event Section: Increased temperature 108.213.71.57 (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2019

In answer to the question someone asked why the standard conversion doesn't work here:

As units 1 °C = 1.8 °F but as temperatures TempF = 32 + 1.8 * TempC 108.213.71.57 (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Point noted. In the future, please refrain from creating extra edit requests when adding extra information. Thanks, Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 13:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2020

Delete or clarify the paragraph at the start of "Convergent Evolution" section. It suggests that issues such as cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses evolved because of the close relationship between dogs and humans, but these diseases also occur in many other organisms. Cancer can even occur in trees, for example. It is likely just a clarity issue. Tchalmers23 (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

We will be deleting none of it because there are reliable expert sources cited. The wording has been amended and is in accordance with the main reference, Ostrander 2019. Please let me know if this is not sufficient. William Harristalk 07:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

"Dental microwear as a behavioral proxy for distinguishing between canids at the Upper Paleolithic (Gravettian) site of Předmostí, Czech Republic"

Could you please integrate the findings of this new study, reported on here: "New study results consistent with dog domestication during Ice Age" into section Time of domestication? The report says:

Analysis of Paleolithic-era teeth from a 28,500-year-old fossil site in the Czech Republic provides supporting evidence for two groups of canids—one dog-like and the other wolf-like—with differing diets, which is consistent with the early domestication of dogs
[...]
This greater durophagy—animal eating behavior suggesting the consumption of hard objects—among the dog-like canids means they likely consumed bones and other less desirable food scraps within human settlement areas, Ungar said. It provides supporting evidence that there were two types of canids at the site, each with a distinct diet, which is consistent with other evidence of early-stage domestication

I think this also implies that genetic and/or behavioral changes could have occurred before deliberate/proactive domestication by humans as in self-domestication.

They write:

Central Europe maintains the strongest uncontested early fossil record of dog domestication (Thalmann et al., 2013) and the presence of earlier, albeit contested, protodogs supports the genetic evidence for a middle or late Upper Paleolithic timeline (Thalmann et al., 2013; Skoglund et al., 2015; Botigue et al., 2017; Ciucani et al., 2019)

I think one could say that their study shows that the process of domestication by dogs themselves and/or humans started at least 28,500 years ago.

Furthermore protodog should probably then redirect to this section of the article.

The finding is featured in 2020 in science. You may also want to edit its entry there.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Prototyperspective, some issues with this research article:

• This Origin article is divided into two major sections, "Divergence" and "Domestication". That the ancestral dog diverged from a Pleistocene wolf long before it was "domesticated" by humans is supported by a number of expert WP:SECONDARY sources in that section and is now beyond debate. The ancestral dog was genetically a dog - but looked like a wolf - long before "domestication", somewhere between 20,000-60,000 years ago.
• The canids from the Gravettian site of Předmostí are regarded as Paleolithic dogs. Whether these are a proto-dog, or a Pleistocene wolf previously not known to science, is still being debated. In that article you will find the debate. What some scientists claim is a morphological dog is rebutted by others that point out that the morphology also falls within the Pleistocene wolf range. (Curiously, these may have been domesticated wolves, but not the ones that led to the dog - they may have been our "practice run".)
• You will also find a section there on the Paleolithic dog's diet. That it had a different diet has already been demonstrated using bone collagen. If you are in agreement, I believe that is the best place for the dental microwear entry. Please note that there exist subspecies of wolf today that have different diets to others e.g. the coastal wolves. (For one group of researchers to produce a report and claim they can infer all of the answers I believe is a little presumptuous of them.)

William Harristalk 10:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

As you have concurred I have actioned. Also, your suggested Protodog redirect is in place. Please be aware that the reason this proto-dog may have eaten more bone was not because it was hanging around human camps waiting to be fed, but because it was a scaled-down (warmer latitude-adapted) version of its ancestor - the mighty Megafaunal wolf that smashed bone with its powerful jaws and teeth and then gulped it down as part of its normal diet! (Think of that next time you pat an affable Labrador...) William Harristalk 11:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I think it's also relevant that these were (/are being?) found at settlement areas. The study has:

However, in the context of a major Gravettian settlement, this may also support evidence of early stage dog domestication
[...]
Losey et al. (2014) reported a higher incidence of tooth fracture among historic dogs compared to wolves as evidence of such scavenging behaviors, and even a proclivity for bone consumption by dogs when otherwise fed at human settlements
[...]
Modern free ranging and feral dogs do scavenge and consume bone (Lyon, 1970; Butler and Du Toit, 2002; Forsyth et al., 2014), and a shift towards increased scavenging in association with human settlements is plausible. This would have left distinct dietary traces on the dentition of protodogs

So this might be added as an explanation to why they think that they "consumed more bone along with other less desirable food scraps within human camps" beyond just considering it plausible/likely. Furthermore I think it should also be added to the table under "Early dog specimens" there and somehow to this "Origin of the domestic dog" article with at least a short sentence.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I would be against including this in the Origin article because M. Germonpre (see the study's author listing, and much at Paleolithic dog) has yet to show that her "Paleolithic dogs" - or what she is now referring to as "proto-dogs" - has anything to do with the ancestral dog or its lineage, which is why I have created the Paleolithic dog article in the first instance. All she needs to do is conduct ancient DNA analysis; to date this has not been undertaken. The section in the Origin article named "Early dog specimens" is based on expert, reliable WP:SECONDARY sourcing which is not in dispute.

Rob Losey was referring to dogs in historic times (i.e. near modern times, on the historical record) and I do not believe that Germonpre can extrapolate that to a canine that existed 28k years ago. Quite simply we do not know enough about the diet of Pleistocene wolves, and given that they have not been formally described and taxonomically classified we are not sure if they were even Canis lupus. (There are sources available that state this.)

"Modern free ranging and feral dogs do scavenge and consume bone", but so do modern wolves.

I have included this matter in the table at Paleolithic dog and linked it to the diet section, which is a good idea. The table already shows that one of these canines was buried with a bone in its mouth, the meaning of this symbolic act is not clear to researchers (but you and I probably share the same opinion - it was buried as being a "Good Boy!")

In summary, the record shows that humans have lived or are now living with tame wolves, foxes, and jackals, and have provided food for them. To then claim that this demonstrates the early stages of "domestication" is not supported. Just because a research paper makes a claim does not mean that we need to reflect it on the English-speaking world's online encyclopedia (Wikipedia) without question, especially when the rebuttal is possibly already in the pipeline. Were it to be supported by reliable, secondary sources then we certainly should reflect it. William Harristalk 00:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the edits you made!

I still think it should be added to the article somehow but I guess it's also reasonable not to and wait for less dispute and more / better sources on it which I think will exist sooner or later anyway. I myself won't try to add any information on this here. It's not just a research paper and there are good secondary sources for it and I don't propose to add it without question. If there is a debate/dispute it should be clarified in the article. But maybe one would need to wait for more sources on it to be able to accurately reflect this debate/dispute. The separation and relation between behavioral and genetic modification in general and in relation to domestication is certainly an interesting research topic imo. I would think that "taming" could be considered early domestication if it's successful enough once the animals "tamed" are 2nd generation. They don't necessarily have to be a domesticated lineage of the present. Maybe the article transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is relevant. Some show that "behavior can serve as a marker for specific genetic alterations" (e.g. [1]) and that changes in diet can change the practical effects of genes in an inheritable manner. I would think that domestication can start before DNA is changed. Anyways, also thanks for your explanations - they were very interesting.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank-you for the links, I shall read with intent. The field of behavioral and genetic modification is fascinating. I would dearly love to add to this article the Ancient DNA findings regarding "domestication changes" found in ancient canid specimens based on genes - I believe it will be the only true way to identify an ancient "domesticated wolf" from a wild wolf - but I fear your average reader would not understand it and there is a strong risk that it would be simply deleted by an editor in the future as being too hard to follow (I have seen this happen in other articles!). Therefore, I have left this area for the Animal domestication article, should editors there wish to go down that path.

As Germonpre is a morphologist, the bones of these "proto-dogs" will be a topic of disagreement until someone finally decides to do a DNA analysis of them. For some reason, research teams keep hedging around it for reasons which I cannot fathom. In the Origin article, under the section "Two origins", Frantz 2015 conducted an aDNA analysis on a number of ancient dog specimens but states "As the taxonomic classification of the "proto-dog" Paleolithic dogs as being either dogs or wolves remains controversial, they were excluded from the study." Then would have been an opportunity! However, the initial results might be similar to the recently found 18,000 year-old Siberian puppy - it could not be identified as either a dog nor a wolf, and further tests will be required.

It is always good to chat with an editor who believes in bringing science to the public. Regards, William Harristalk 11:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Prototyperspective, thanks for bringing the article transgenerational epigenetic inheritance to my attention. Along with the other articles you have provided, I believe the topic of epigenetics warrants its own section under the "Domestication" half of the Origin article, and replicated in Animal domestication. (The Origin article requires an overhaul every 12-18 months to keep it current.) I shall see what sources are available. Basically changes in diet→epigenetic changes→domestication changes, without DNA changes. So DNA says wolf, but behaviour says dog - exactly what we are looking for. I have found a similar article that proposes changes in behaviour→epigenetic changes→ongoing new behaviour, without DNA change. (In short, the study proposes that wolves and humans out on the Pleistocene steppe had similar social structure, similar prey, saw each other often, did not bother each other, eventually lost fear of each other over many generations, resulting in the first "hanging out together".) There are also some articles which touch upon being able to read some epigenetic changes through ancient DNA. The topic is fascinating, and holds much potential. William Harristalk 05:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It's fascinating indeed. Thank you for the explanations and that interesting article on the conserved Siberian puppy.

Glad I provided something of value / interest. If it's not yet featured in the article it probably should be added if some sources have investigated it. I think behavioural changes such as those made when starting to live near human settlements and new/changed methods of obtaining food might have had epigenetic effects as well. But it looks like you already found an article on that. Here an article says "epigenetic mechanisms modulated by environmental cues such as diet, disease or our lifestyle take a major role in regulating the DNA by switching genes on and off". I also think there's a lot of potential there – lots of major discoveries on epigenetics can probably still be made. This might be relevant to further inquiry: "New epimutations are often not maintained over the long term. 'Only when selection wins out over reversion can these epimutations affect evolution,'".

--Prototyperspective (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello there. Things have moved on a bit since those articles: Physiological pathways to rapid prosocial evolution. It will take me some time to pull all of these together into a rather stiking section, but it needs to be done properly. I am still searching for other current, related papers. Regards, William Harristalk 07:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It is a case of serendipity where the breakthrough did not come from multi-national research teams of evolutionary biologists and paleo-geneticists operating out of universities - although these set the path - but from independent research conducted by a psychiatrist and a psychologist! How the mechanism of the brain functions, how it changes, and what that means for behaviour. William Harristalk 03:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Terminology: "sister"

The use of the term sister in this article caught my eye. I infer that there is some specialized meaning peculiar to archaeology or fossil classification, but it seems to me that this needs clarification here and/or a wikilink to an article with such clarification. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

In phylogenetic analysis sister groups are those sharing a common ancestor. Sister often gets used as a short hand. I have changed the first occurrence to sister group and wikilinked it. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Contradictions

The dog domestication section repeats several things already covered in the wolf section - and also contradicts it, saying several times grey wolves were the ancestor of dogs while the wolf section of the article denies that. Rmhermen (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Regarding "the wolf section" above, please clarify which section of the article that term refers to. William Harris (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)