Talk:Domestication of the dog/Archive 1

Addition of morphologies in the domestic dog

This article talks about specialization of the different breeds of dogs bred for different jobs, but does not discuss the many different morphologies. For example, companion dogs have a wide variety in skull shape, where as working dogs have little variety, and wild dog species have almost no variation at all. Snodgrass.370 (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Domesitication

The domestication of dog also brought about negative changes to the dog's DNA. Although many genetic mutations are now bred for, some have proved to be deleterious. The nature of positive assortative mating and possible positive selection at certain loci which may coincide with deleterious mutations caused nonsynonymous mutations to accumulate. Domestication also caused two major bottlenecks in the dog species. The first was during the original domestication of the dog and dealt with population changes and migration with humans. The second bottleneck was more recent, during the rise of breed creation. Human selection may alter the effectiveness of the purifying effects natural selection imposes on animals. The bottlenecks that have occurred only increased genetic drift and caused these deleterious mutations to be more prevalent. These mutations have given rise to a wide variety of genetic diseases. The second bottleneck especially may give reason as to why certain conditions seem to be breed specific among dogs, such as demyelination in German Shepherds. Snodgrass.370 (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Specialization

The wide variety of specialization in dogs stems from the selection of dogs for their tamability. Selection for this one trait alone brought along a vast number of new morphological features. Selecting for a tame dog to breed changed the physiological features of that dog’s offspring, affecting the hormones and neurochemicals of the dogs. With domestication came variations in size, coat, color, behavior, and even reproductive cycles. Once these changes were present, it became easy for humans to breed dogs for their own personal preference. Snodgrass.370 (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Specialization

These specializations originated simply from human selection for tameness alone.

Trut, Lyudmila N. "Early Canid Domestication: The Farm-Fox Experiment: Foxes Bred for Tamability in a 40-year Experiment Exhibit Remarkable Transformation That Suggest an Interplay between Behavioral Genetics and Development." American Scientist 87.No. 2 (MARCH-APRIL 1999) (1999): 160-69. JSTOR. Web. 1 Jan. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/27857815>. Snodgrass.370 (talk) 06:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of issues that have now emerged regarding the "farm fox" experiment. The definition of "tame" was changed at least once during the experiment, and the second group of foxes that showed neither tameness nor aggression also had some offspring that exhibited signs of domestication. However, please feel free to contribute to the article.William of Aragon (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

PS - I note that you have made a similar suite of comments in September (when you first registered on Wikipedia) and in November, and you might be awaiting some "expert" to update the Origin of the domestic dog page (as I once thought this worked). Please be aware that at this specific time, on this specific page, on this specific topic, that YOU are the expert. Simply make your suggested amendments on the Origin of the domestic dog page in the appropriate section using citations, with the page number if possible. You can do not damage here because "super-editors" patrol this site from time to time and will suggest to you amendments if necessary. Welcome aboard and all the best. Regards, William of Aragon (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Wolf prehistory

Article still requires the prehistory of the wolf, but it is a good starting point SirIsaacBrock 15:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Several tens of thousands....should just be tens of thousands, page is locked please change its redundant.

Done. -cool (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Title

The title is 'Origin of the common domestic dog'
Do we need 'domestic'? If this article is to describe the "Ancestry of the dog", it will apply to all dogs , not just domestic i.e. Dingo and Carolina Dog , infact it would be nice to include a section on feral dogs. GameKeeper 20:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No this a domestic dog. Dogs that have become feral after domestication is a different subject. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Example: the phylogeny of the domestic dog

For example, Vilà et al (1997) determined haplotypes from a sequence of 261 base pairs in the mitochondrial DNA of 140 domestic dogs, 162 wolves, 5 coyotes, and 10 jackals (of three different species). The dogs were drawn from 67 different pure breeds and 5 cross breeds, and the wolves were drawn from 27 distinct geographically defined populations. The coyotes and jackals were used as the out group.

Vilà et al found 27 distinct haplotypes among the wolves, and 26 among the dogs. The wolf haplotypes differed from each other by no more than 10 bases, and the dog haplotypes differed from each other by no more than 12. The maximum difference between a dog haplotype and a wolf haplotype was 12 substitutions, whereas the minimum difference between a dog haplotype and any coyote or jackal haplotype was 20 substitutions. Vilà et al therefore concluded that their data supported the current classification of the domestic dog as a subspecies of the wolf rather than a domesticated form of some other species of canid.

Vilà et al then proceeded to use cluster analysis to construct dendrograms that grouped the different wolf and dog haplotypes by similarity. There are many different forms of cluster analysis, so they used several of them and showed that they all gave the same results, which were that:

1. The correlation between traditional dog breeds and haplotypes was poor: many breeds contained several haplotypes and many haplotypes were found in several breeds.
   
2. The dog haplotypes fell into four distinct clades, one of which included 19 of the 26 dog haplotypes and no wolf haplotype; the highest estimate of the mean divergence within this large clade was 1% (2.6 substitions).
3. This major dog clade, and two of the other three dog clades, fell into a single larger clade which also included some wolf haplotypes.
4. The haplotypes in the fourth dog clade were more similar to a number of wolf haplotypes than to any other dog haplotype, and the wolf haplotypes in these clades were more similar to the dog haplotypes than to the other wolf haplotypes. The hypothesis that all the dog haplotypes fell into a single clade that did not include any wolf haplotypes was rejected in a significance test.

From their cluster analysis results, Vilà et al concluded that:

• From 1: Traditional dog breeds are genetically diverse (i.e. they have been derived from a range of individuals of different descent)
• From 2: Dogs and wolves have been largely isolated from each other for long enough for genetic coalescence to have occurred in most of the dog population.
• From 3 and 4: Dogs do not derive from a single parentage. Hybridisation between dogs and wolves must have continued after the initial domestication of dogs, introducing new wolf genes into the domestic stock.

From the quantitative data on haplotype similarity, Vilà et al also proposed a new date for the first domestication of the dog. The first archaeological evidence of morphologically modern dog remains found in association with human remains is from 14000 years ago. On the other hand, palaeontological evidence shows that wolves and coyotes were separated about 1 million years ago. Since wolves and coyotes show a minimum 20-base divergence, we can estimate that divergence grows at a rate of about 1 substitution per 50,000 years. If all the dogs whose haplotypes are found in the large clade derive from a single parental line, we would expect that the 2.6-base divergence within that clade would have taken 130,000 years to emerge. Vilà et al therefore propose that the initial domestication of dogs occurred around 130,000 years ago, with some other event about 15,000 years ago leading to morphological change within the domestic dog population.

Feel free to use! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Just asking a question that came to mind on a quick review of the above. I am definitely not well versed in evaluating mtDNA. Do the recent studies include any inclusion of the hybridization of wolves from coyotes (such as the Eastern grey wolf) or hybridization of wolf/wolf-coyote/and/or wolf-dog-coyote in all its permutations? You could also apply this in principle to nuclear genetics as well although I don't know how. Jobberone (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

The "Dog#Dog_breeds" section is actually "Dog#Dog_breeds#Neoteny in the rapid evolution of diverse dog breeds", which doesn't belong under "Dog breeds", but should logically be in any discussion of ancestry. Unfortunately, Wiki cannot address level 3 headings, so I have to stuff around this way.  Gordon | Talk, 07:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Yes Wiki can. So I didn't have to stuff around, and now I have to fix it. But it's not a serial address scheme, which it should be.  Gordon | Talk, 07:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

I agree with the merge. Perhaps with the merger the article title should be changed from "Origin of the Domestic Dog" to "Evolution of the Domestic Dog." Geohevy 01:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)...

I support the merge. Discussion of neoteny after a discussion of Dmitry Belyaev's experiment is appropriate. The changes to physical traits mentioned: "spotted or black-and-white coats, floppy ears, tails that curl over their backs", are generally considered products of neoteny in mammal species. However: I would oppose a change in title as the article discusses both social and biological developments during domestication. Kulervo 21:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I really support the merge. I'm tired of having to look a thousand different places to get bits of information.--Jake Da Snake 22:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

i think that it is easier to find the information if it is in multipul places.

Oppose

This article deals more with the social evelution of the domestic dog, and neoteny more with the science. I thiink two articles are needed. One to study the social evelution, and how it affected the development, and one with the science. There may be some overlap, but that is to be expected. JoKing 13:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Support

Not only should the articles be merged, but the version contained in the "dog" article is factually incorrect. It is based on the earlier "Science" article that proposed multiple origins from wolves. That is now discredited by the same authors in their more recent "Science" article, as summarized in the version contained in the "origin of the domestic dog" article, which should be retained. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OccDoc (talk • contribs) 00:03, 4 April 2007 OccDoc 23:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong support

See WP:BETTER#Size. -- Boracay Bill 05:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

All the information should be in one place (here) to avoid contradictions (which currently exist). --Joelmills 22:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Its Basically The same article, so it should be merged, and its best if all the information is together. 219.88.78.200 20:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Support

This section is was too detailed for a general article on dogs. It is also a bit speculative, almost into the territory of fringe theories. Still very interesting. I will go ahead and remove it from Dog, and paste to this article. Steve Dufour 16:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to reconcile Cites with refs/footnotes

I noticed today that the cites & footnotes in this article had apparently become disassociated from one another, probably in the course of previous edits. I also noticed that this page did not follow the guidelines in WP:GTL and WP:FN. I have done my best to fix this, as followes:

1. I have inserted a References section
2. I have inserted an External links section
3. I saw that clicking the ^ on the footnote using {{note|1}} apparently does not connect with a matching {{ref|1}} template. I have mentioned the apparantly orphaned target page in the External links section using {{cite web}}.
4. I saw that clicking the ^ on the footnote using {{note|2}} took me to the {{ref|2}} template in the text. I have replaced the {{ref|2}} instance with a <ref name=Brewer2002>{{cite book}}</ref>.
5. I saw that clicking the ^ on the footnote using {{note|3}} apparently does not connect with a matching {{ref|1}} template. The text of this cite is an op cit. matching Brewer2002, but I don't know where the matching cite might be expected in the text. I have deleted this {{note|3}}.
6. I saw that clicking the ^ on the footnote using {{note|4}} took me to the {{ref|4}} template in the text. I have replaced the {{ref|4}} instance with a <ref name=Scott1965>{{cite book}}</ref>.
7. I saw that clicking the ^ on the footnote using {{note|5}} took me to the {{ref|5}} template in the text. I also noted that the content of the target of the link to [1] which the note provides apparently has no connection at all with the context of the article where the ref appears. I have deleted both the ref and the note.
8. I saw that clicking the ^ on the footnote using {{note|6}} took me to the {{ref|6}} template in the text. The text of this cite is an op cit. matching Scott1965, so I replaced the ref with a <ref name=Scott1965/>.
9. I saw that clicking the ^ on the footnote using {{note|7}} took me to the {{ref|7}} template in the text. I have replaced the {{ref|4}} instance with <ref>{{cite web}}</ref>. I suspect that a <ref>{{cite journal}}</ref> citation of the jo0urnal article mentioned on the cited web page might be a better cite, though.
10. I saw that clicking the ^ on the footnote using {{note|8}} took me to the {{ref|8}} template in the text. I have replaced the {{ref|8}} instance with a <ref>{{cite web}}</ref>.
11. I have deleted the former Footnotes and References sections.

Hopefully, I have removed more problems than I have introduced. -- Boracay Bill 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Dog prehistory; out of Africa

Please make clear whether dogs originated in Africa. And of course provide references. Thanx Dogru144 23:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Dogs from Africa? Not likely. Humans went north from Africa where big cats were common into mid-latitude Eurasia where wolves were common but big cats were scarce. Dogs and wolves are superpredators where the big cats... aren't. All four big-cat species (lion, tiger, leopard, and jaguar) prey upon dogs and wolves. Forget the Cape hunting dog; it's not the source of the wolf, let alone the dog.

Big cats may have preyed upon early humans, but they didn't compete so obviously for food items. Humans and wolves were competitors for food -- and the competitor that doesn't fare so well in the competition for food doesn't survive in the presence of its more efficient competitor unless it finds another niche. Wolves may have slowed the entry of humanity into Eurasia.

Humans and dogs are omnivores. Dogs are faster and more powerful for the same size and have better senses except for color vision. Dogs have larger teeth and better-leveraged jaws. Humans may be smarter, but that's not much of an advantage if the resulting intelligence requires even bigger caloric support. Both organize similarly; if anything, human families and wolf packs have similar structures. Humans make tools, so that is their big advantage.

Humans and dogs are complements as predators, and the dog/human tandem rivals bears and big cats in effectiveness as killers. As it turns out, this pair uses each other to advantage. The dog gets more reliable food and -- perhaps the big advantage -- less need to participate in dangerous fights. Humans, in turn, get better protection from each other. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Some recent DNA studies are lending support to the idea that dog domestication happend in Africa first. [2]. DonPMitchell (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Different theories

I know that the theory, that dogs "evolved" from wolves is most likely the one that fits. But I thought, whether it would be good to write a history section in the article which includes the other theories of which some are still around. I mean the ones which place the coyote, dingo, golden jackal or some other dingo-like canid of europe (there are still people who support this theory, despite the lack of evidence for another canid in europe after the last Ice Age). And also the one which says, that the domestic dog originated from many different canids (that theory even includes south american foxes). So I thought it would be good if people know about these theories, about there pro and contras, so that tehy are better informed if that topic shows up again.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theories should not be introduced into articles on mainstream knowledge. That some people support a fringe theory does not justify its inclusion in an article about a mainstream subject. Discussion of a fringe theory is possible on the discussion page, and of course in an article on a fringe theory.

Note: Alternative hypotheses which can be equally supported by available evidence are not "fringe." All hypothesis which do not contradict known paleontological, archaeological or DNA data, and which fit what is known of human and canid behavior, should be explored. My hypothesis that the dog originated as a natural species which then adpated to the human niche is the best fit to the behavioral data and is not flasified by any other source of data. For example: Coppinger's (actually Michael Fox and others proposed this hypothesis long before Coppinger: he just did not credit those previous references in his book) garbage-dump self-domestication idea is not likely given that hunter-gatherer groups do not produce "garbage" and because wolves habituated to humans, especailly humans as a source of food, are extremely dangerous. Koler-Matznick, J. 2002. The origin of the dog revisited. Anthrozoös 15(2): 98 – 118 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.20.17 (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Dogs evolved in Europe? Probably not. It's hard to believe, but Europe was mostly a hostile world of ice caps, tundra, and cold semi-deserts at the Last Glacial Maximum. Human settlement in much of Europe -- even in some places now densely populated, like the British Isles and Germany -- may have been later than the appearance of humans in the New World. Not until human populations are significant do the wolf-human contacts that led to the partnership of two of the deadliest killers in the animal world.

Heck, I have cause to believe that the wolves that became dogs partially tamed humans, changing human behavior subtly... but that the changes to wolves were sharper than the changes to humans.Paul from Michigan (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There are at least two questions here. (a) is a theory suggesting that locations where canine evolution occurred included european locations a fringe theory? and (b) is it appropriate to mention a fringe theory in a mainstream article? It seems to me that the answers to these questions are (a) no (see this: "In both trees, dog haplotype clakes II and IV are most closely related to wolf sequences from eastern Europe (Greece, Italy, Romania, and western Russia)."), and (b) yes (see WP:FRINGE: "Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects. However, if the idea is notable in some other way such as coverage in the media, the idea may still be included in articles devoted to the idea itself or non-scientific contexts."). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is Ostrander?

The subsection DNA Evidence contains a statement "Ostrander is of the view that ...". This person Ostrander is not introduced, explained or further referred to. The name does not occur in the article by Vila et al. given as reference.  --Lambiam 18:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've found (and added) a reference.  --Lambiam 20:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Neandertal origins?

I've heard and seen sources for a theory that dogs originated from Neandertal communities, the theory may counter the currently accepted out of africa origin for humanity since it also attributes cultural advances of Neandertal's are responsible for the upper Neolithic period in Homo Sapien. Maybe however the theory should be mentioned in this article even if not as a primary theory.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Origin of dogs from East Asia?

• It seems to me the weak genetic evidence that Dogs were first domesticated in East Asia from wolves is likely to be true, since that's where people are willing to think of dogs as meat. What would be more likely than the most immediate use for an animal? The thinking about wolves hanging around human campsites and campfires and looking handouts is consistent with this, since to catch a wolf, you could tempt it with food. Sure the animal might get eaten, but might just be held captive until it was time to be eaten. The more people kept wolves captive, the more likely they would also have captive wolf offspring and get started with raising wolves for food. Although the animals were raised to be eaten, their genes may have found it advantageous. Rich Peterso(forgot to log in)24.7.28.186 (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• I see little point for prehistoric man to turn more food into less food by rearing wolves for food. Likelier the camp wolves served as guards, and helping the tribe to hunt. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If you captured a wolf by teasing it with scraps, you would be turning food into more food. Best regards, Rich Peterson24.7.28.186 (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A problem

The only theories of origin this article discusses are 'domesticated from wolves alone' (the consensus -- though not nearly as strongly so as this article suggests) and 'domesticated from wolves, but with genetic contribution from coyotes etc.' (not currently supported).

The problem is that the main rival to the 'domesticated from wolves' theory is 'dogs were a separate wild species with no living non-feral wild descendants' (presumably originated from wolves, as the DNA evidence suggests): see http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006/10/controversial-origins-of-domestic-dog.html

The main evidence suggesting this is -- normally feral domestics, if allowed to interbreed freely, produce something like the wild ancestor (feral hogs come to resemble the wild boar) -- but freely interbreeding dogs produce a pariah dog phenotype, not a wolflike one -- feral dogs living alongside wolves do not interbreed with the wolves significantly -- wolf-dog hybrids do occur, but 'pariah dog' populations are stable alongside wolf populations, they do not merge (effectively they are different functional, and thus probably phylogenetic, 'species'). Even endangered wolf populations tend not to be genetically swamped by dogs. -- wolves are not socially or morphologically (large carnivore possibly posing serious threat to humans) suited for domestication -- the ancientness of the divergence (>100,000 years), preceding domestication

The question is not 'are wolves closer to dogs than other living canids'; the answer to that is yes. The question is 'were the immediate wild ancestors of the first domestic dogs wolves, or 'wild dogs' (i.e. a pariah dog or dingo - like type)?' 66.156.212.195 (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

NEW DNA evidence for dogs' domestication south of Yangtze

This new study from Peter Savolainen et al. http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/11/2011/wolves-were-domesticated-in-southeast-asia offers another proof for Southeast Asia domestication — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarioTW (talk • contribs) 20:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please study the following articles.

http://www.livescience.com/41221-dog-domestication-origins-in-europe.html
http://news.discovery.com/animals/pets/old-dog-new-origin-first-pooches-were-european-131114.htm
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38279/title/Origin-of-Domestic-Dogs/
http://www.nature.com/news/prehistoric-genomes-reveal-european-origins-of-dogs-1.14178
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24946944
http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2013/13/131114-europe-dog-domestication-wolves-hunter-gatherers/
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/11/15/dna-study-suggests-dogs-originated-in-europe/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131114142134.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.112.99 (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC) 

NYT report on a journal paper about the role of dogmeat in the evolution of the dog

I thought you all might be able to use this to improve this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/science/08dogs.html?scp=1&sq=nicholas%20wade%20dog*%20china&st=cse Chrisrus (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Razboinichya find

In "A 33,000-Year-Old Incipient Dog from the Altai Mountains of Siberia: Evidence of the Earliest Domestication Disrupted by the Last Glacial Maximum" it appears that there was an earlier domestication of dogs prior to the last Ice Age. It seems that whenever humans entered the range of the grey wolf they dometicated them. I have adjusted the article to emphasize the point that what we have managed to uncover with DNA tests on living dogs only informs us about the present lineage of domestic dogs. Here are some notions to help guide further changes to the article;

• The idea of a domesticated dog is older than the dog itself.
• The Belgium and now Altai finds of the ealier lineage c. 35,000 ybp of domesticated wolves shows that wolves are predisposed to domestication.
• The earlier domestication happened during the last warm period, in Eurasia. It seems that people find dogs most useful in non-Ice Age climes and climates, (in other words, not Africa and not for large game animals).
• It may be that the last Ice Age wiped out the older lineage of dogs.
• As far as I know, the oldest cave painting of a dog is only 14,000 years old.

In any case, the lay media's characterization of the finds to mean that present dogs had many domestication events spread out over thousands of years is not supported. Please don't edit that into the article! Speciate (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this today. It's very interesting. Thank you.

In his book about Dingoes, Laurie Corbett says that the conditions that led to the domestication of the dog were widespread and common. So if it happened once, it could happen twice or more. That makes sense, but that was back in the 90's. Since then, the DNA evidence, we were told, has pointed us to just one origin, at some point in East Asia. Or so I gather. I guess now it looks like, even though all existing dogs go back to just one domestication event, there were others that don't seem to have surviving ancestors. This is probably the most important issue for the Dog Project today. We have to keep this article up to date and make sure it reflects the latest best theory and gives the proper weight to any other theories. Chrisrus (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've added a few refs and tweaked here and there. It's clear domestication is as early as 30-33k years ago. Also those earlier events are morphologically dogs and not wolves or a transition species so I deleted the inferences they are dogwolves etc. This satellite article on the dog is in much better shape than the main article particularly the domestication part. We need to add some more recent studies supporting domestication out of Africa or the Middle East. I just can't do it right now. I'll try and research the genetics a little better and see if I can do something there later.Jobberone (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Your work is being noticed and appreciated. Chrisrus (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Fossils

Means from the ground but anything that infers something about a previous biological. You can set an arbitrary cutoff age. A fossil doesn't have to be mineralized to be a fossil. a late signature sry Jobberone (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Fossil#Types of preservation. A fossil must be transformed into a new material. It's the difference between archeology and paleontology. Speciate (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

reverted lead

At present 15kya is generally accepted as the earliest date for the domestication of the present lineage of the dog. 100kya is a number based on mtDNA and there are problems that could be associated with that date as well as there is no fossil record for the current lineage that predates the 15K. That too has its problems as there are fossils to 33kya but that lineage probably didn't survive the last glacial maximum (that's the current thinking).

Those dates are almost certainly going to change but we must wait on the data to come to us.Jobberone (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Basenji

I don't see where the study referred to in the picture caption says they tested any basenjis. It looks like they were talking about common African village dogs. Chrisrus (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

archeological evidence of man-dog relationship

The earliest site known for a working relationship with dogs is a burial site in Germany called Bonn-Oberkassel which has joint human and dog interments dated to 14,000 years ago. The earliest "nobody-argues-about-it" domesticated dog was found in China at the early Neolithic (7000-5800 BC) Jiahu site in Henan Province. European Mesolithic sites like Skateholm (5250-3700 BC) in Sweden have dog burials. Danger Cave in Utah is currently the earliest case of dog burial in the Americas, at about 11,000 years ago. http://archaeology.about.com/od/domestications/qt/dogs.htm

The split between dogs and wolves has been dated to about 100k years ago via mtDNA evidence. However, do not mistake the accuracy of mtDNA phylogenetics being more accurate than the fossil record. Species diversification estimated via mtDNA does not reflect the fossil record taken over many species and phylogenies. There are many papers that a simple search will confirm.

Also there is newer work using SNPs of nuclear material which is proving very useful in researching the origin of the dog as well as the relationships of current dog breeds to each other and their lineage.

While the range of 15,000 to 100,000 almost certainly dates the domestication of the dog it is not accurate enough nor does it reflect the current consensus of the scientific community.

More importantly the reference I added to the lead is consistent with Wikipedia standards.Jobberone (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Laurie Corbet the dingo expert pointed out in his book that the conditions that led to the domestication of the dog were both common and widespread. If it happened in one place, why wouldn't it also happen elsewhere? Now, I gather that DNA evidence points to a common ancestor at a particular point in time for all extant dogs, no matter how genetically distant they can be. Reason dictates, please tell me if you disagree, that that common ancestor could have been a dog or it could have been something like C.l.arabs or another of the southern wolves, perhaps an extinct or unknown subspecies of wolf. This is going to be tricky because we're looking for precision in a gray area. Nevertheless, it's not clear that the common ancestor of all dogs was actually a dog. They could have branched twice or more from the southern wolf clade. Then both these dates could both be correct if the dog evolved from the southern wolf more than once because the common ancestor of all extant dogs would have been a wolf, not a dog. Chrisrus (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Newer nuclear genome studies suggest a Middle Eastern origin for the current lineage of dogs. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/dogs-likely-originated-in-the-155101.aspx However, morphologically the domestic dog is represented in the fossil record as early as 33kya. These fossils are clearly dog with crowded teeth, a short snout, and brachycephaly among some other changes. We are not going to see a reconciliation of the genetic data with the anatomical data soon IMO although I wouldn't rule that out at some point. I'm not certain how far we can go with nuclear studies much further beyond that without some technological improvements. Someone very recently stated here that mtDNA studies were more trustworthy than the fossil record. That is entirely backwards. The fossil record is much more reliable than mtDNA. That's not saying mitochondrial DNA doesn't have usefulness. However, using nuclear DNA is going to change the game somewhat.Jobberone (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Fossils present an upper bound (they prove that morphologically modern dog-like features arose at least a few tens of thousands of years ago). mtDNA presents a lower bound (apparently proving that dogs and modern wolves had common ancestors until about a hundred thousand years ago). These two facts are not inconsistent, they are complementary, and indicate that dogs arose sometime (anytime) in the range of about 30-100kya. So isn't that what we should say in the article, rather than basing our editing on conjecture about which part of this interval we predict the future science (nuclear DNA in jobberone's case) to converge upon? Wouldn't that be original research or undue weight/pov? Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the use of nuclear DNA is much more revealing than mitochondrial DNA and no its not original research. That's not saying there isn't a place for mtDNA. Also, there are problems with interpreting mtDNA genetics here. I was on my phone earlier and did not put all the refs in I could. In fact some sections need to be updated since the use of SNPs and nuclear DNA are putting a fresh look at not just phylogenetics but also how our current breeds have come into being and how they relate to each other. There is plenty of literature out there in reference to fossils and molecular phylogenetics to justify my position as well. Again there is also consensus about the present lineage dates although of course that's bound to change. We just need to be sure we follow the data properly. While I've already agreed your large range likely anchors a 'date' of domestication if does not reflect the current hard data and accepted date of the German burial site. Most agree the earlier domestication events did not survive the LGM and the roughly 15k date is our best date for the present lineage of domestic dogs.Jobberone (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Portal:Dogs says "Dogs were first domesticated from wolves at about 14,000 years B.C (genetic evidence suggests dogs split from wolves around 100,000 years ago, although it is unclear if this was related to domestication)." What's wrong with that wording? Genetic evidence can prove the common ancestor of all extant dogs lived @100K years ago, but we have no animal that wasn't arguably a wolf older than @14K years ago. If it's WP:OR to state that this could be explained by multiple domestication events, then let's not say that, but I can cite the statement that Laurie Corbet stated that reason dictates there is no reason dogs couldn't have been domesticated more than once. Surely genetic evidence doesn't prove the 100KYA common ancestor had to have been domesticated. Chrisrus (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There are real potential problems with that mitochondrial date but I don't have a problem using it with that caveat later in the article but not the lead. The problems with it needs to be expounded if we're going to give it that kind of attention. And I think there is evidence to support multiregional domestication events although we can't prove or disprove whether those lineages brought DNA into the present. I suspect they did but the consensus is they didn't. At present I don't see how we can use a 100kya date for the present lineage of familiaris esp in the lead.Jobberone (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Right, the 100k divergence figure is subject to so much "ifs", "ands" or "buts" that we can't really use it. In fact, there was an article recently that said scientists have no idea what's going on: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/05/15/1203005109 with other sites seeming to borrow from our talk page discussions to interpret that article: http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/where-did-dogs-come-from-it-turns-out-we-dont-really-know/ http://thechronicleherald.ca/science/100574-canine-roots-remain-elusive and http://www.livescience.com/20480-dog-domestication-mystery.html And the NYT came out with this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/science/dogs-and-humans-speculation-and-science.html Speciate (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wolf to Dog transition defined

Maybe I missed it in the article but the picture of "33,000-year-old skull of a domesticated canid from Siberia" got me thinking about HOW scientists decided when tamed wolves became domestic dogs. Do they take bone measurements of a specimen? Extract and analyze a DNA sample for trends or mutations or certain genes? Do they say, "This ancient skeleton is definitely Canis lupus but definitely isn't a wolf, therefore it must be Canis lupus familarias"?

How did scientists decide when tamed wolves became domestic dogs? I'm sure it's a complicated answer but does anyone know?

Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I can tell you some of the differences between wolves and dogs from their behavioral and anatomical differences. Dogs have arrested development in a juvenile state compared to wolves. Dogs continue much of the same juvenile behavior of wolves. There are many other differences including responding favorably to hand and eye gestures in dogs and not wolves. That's just a couple of examples. Anatomically dogs are generally smaller with the exception of large breeds, have smaller and more crowded teeth, a wider and shorter snout as well as a vertical drop in the forehead.

So yes you can tell a dog from a wolf anatomically even as early as 33kya. We can only theorize about behaviors of 'tame' wolves. It is certain from the fossil record that man associated with anatomic wolves many thousands of years before dogs evolved.Jobberone (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks! Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Fossils

refers to the physical evidence indicating former biologicals and includes the remains of living organisms as well as impressions of their physical form and that created by their behavior and activities. There is no agreed upon age for a fossil. A fossil does not have to be mineralized to be one. So basically anything 'old' which represents the presence of a previously living organism is a fossil whether mineralized or not, dug from the ground, or picked up. I won't quibble with the last change but there was nothing wrong with the use of fossil previously.Jobberone (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Grey vs Gray Wolf

Could you two stop warring over whether to call Canis lupus Grey or Gray Wolf. Both are used. IUCN uses Grey but recognizes Gray. I vote to leave it at Grey but you guys need to reach consensus on the talk page then go with that. Jobberone (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Changing the lead

This needs to be done after discussion. While there is certainly data to suggest the dog originated from the Asian wolf it is probably safer to just say the grey wolf at present since the data is so convoluted. Anatomically the first domestication is via fossils in Europe and Siberia from 33,000 years ago. The genetic case is much more confusing and is not clear at present. Narrowing down the origin of the dog better than from the Grey Wolf is problematic and premature right now IMO. I think we should leave the lead as Canis lupus for the time being. Jobberone (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Two recent papers:[3] and [4]. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The first paper doesn't add anything new as this paper has been around for over a year. It certainly isn't definitive. The other paper casts doubt on a simplistic view of one Asian emergence of domestic dog. There just isn't any good genetic data that points in one direction for the origin and timing of the emergence of the dog. And you cannot dismiss the anatomic data which certainly isn't pointing at an Asian origin. We just don't have enough data at this point in time. There are newer techniques for sequencing DNA with faster machines so we may see some new data where we get a better look at larger pieces of genomes to compare and possibly a lot more. Jobberone (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Still might be useful. I thought the anatomic data was too discontinuous to point to an origin of today's dog, but I might not have read enough. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The paper should be included as a reference (I think it may already be I didn't check). The anatomic data points to a Siberian/European ancestry but it does not preclude earlier sites yet discovered nor does it rule out more than one event. It doesn't include an Asian origin but it does not preclude it either. Jobberone (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Stealing wolves kill

Little mention is made about how humans had the ability to drive a pack of wolves away from their kill. Some natives still do it to lions today. The more dominant members of the pack had a better chance of getting part of the kill before being driven off, or even allowed to have part of the kill so humans didn't starve to death their meal ticket. The submissive members might not of had a chance to get their share and facing starvation is a strong incentive to stick around and possibly get an overlooked scrap or even a handout. Being a submissive animal to begin with is a fast track to humans seeing how close they could get and even tossing them a low value scrap or bone. A bond like this could have developed thousands of times, especially with the curiosity of humans. 66.202.88.5 (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a great point. Is there any refs out there that include this? Of course it is all speculation but we need a good source to include this in wikipedia. Jobberone (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Changing the lead and adding genetic data to the article

The recent genetic studies relating the Atlai dog into the present lineage of dogs is fine and we need to update and streamline the entire article. However, it is premature to really add this to the lead as being unequivocal. This is mtDNA and not nuclear material. I left it in the lead using the previous consensus as unequivocally in the present lineage of modern dog. I left the new data there as well reluctantly as possibly being related. Personally as I've said before it probably is related in some manner possibly directly but it is not unequivocal. This article is being changed quite often and now even the lead. IMO, this new material needs to be included in the genetic area and not the lead until all this shakes out. More needs to be done esp nuclear DNA as well as the discovery of more specimens and the inclusion of the Belgium dog to the genetic data. We need to discuss all these new data and how to include it as well as condense and streamline the entire article. I don't wish to dictate how this article evolves but I urge caution in interpreting and adding information. Jobberone (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Eight footnotes after one sentence is highly unusual. If the purpose is to settle a dispute over a single point with another editor, then it's appropriate to list a large number of citations on the article's talk page, but not the article itself. Once the dispute is settled and consensus is reached on the point in question, you only need a few citations, at most. Often, one high quality source is all you need. In rare cases where a large number of citations are absolutely needed, WP:CITEBUNDLE explains how to group them to avoid clutter. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right and what I did is not optimal. It was difficult to get back to the previous references from the lead. Some of those references need to be there and the rest in the genetics section. I was hoping after discussion to get all that straightened out. Perhaps half can be moved out. That section is a mess but I didn't want to unilaterally change it. What do you suggest? Jobberone (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I would follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The lead is only a generalized summary of the body of the article, and footnotes are only mandatory in the lead for controversial material about living persons, per WP:CITELEAD. So there can be a nuanced, well-footnoted explanation of the various conflicting theories and with proper caveats and qualifications in the body of the article. Then, in the lead, keep it simple and general. Just a brief summary. Just the most-accepted theories. Lesser theories don't have to go in the lead. You don't need any citations at all in the lead, so long as you are repeating or summarizing facts that are cited below in the body.

Also, secondary sources are more helpful than primary sources. Secondary sources will make stateemnts like "most experts think..." or "the leading theory is..." which means you only need one footnote. It saves you the trouble of listing 9 primary sources that say X and 1 primary source that says Y, just to prove that 9 out of 10 experts think it's X and 1 out of 10 thinks it's Y. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead image

What exactly does it have to do with the origin of the domestic dog? I suggest adding one of the earliest images that show a domestic dog instead, if such can be found. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Not much, I am afraid... Hafspajen (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

geographical origin of dog domestication

A new study was just published examining the mitochondrial genomes of 18 ancient dogs, wolves, and 77 modern dogs: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6160/871.short

The analysis suggests that domestication of the dog originated in EUROPE and not in Asia or the Middle East as other studies have suggested. This should be added to the "DNA Evidence" subsection of this wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjennychen (talk • contribs) 18:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Media coverage: [5] -- Beland (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Addition to Specialization

This section discusses what certain breeds of dogs are chosen for, but does not discuss the very origin of the dog's variability. In "The Farm Fox Experiment" (Lyudmila N. Trut 1999) foxes are domesticated in hopes of finding similar characteristics to those of the domesticated dog. They found many similar features that were caused simply by artificially selecting these foxes for tameness alone. These changes not only included behavioral characteristics, but also changes in size, coat color, reproductive cycles, etc. The experiment illustrated that the variability in dogs stemmed from humans selecting for tameness. This artificial selection caused changes in the dogs' entire genome, affecting hormones and other physiological systems. The process of selecting for behavior is what gave us the vast range of dog breeds we have today. Snodgrass.370 (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Addition of deleterious mutations that came with domestication

This article lacks mention of the deleterious mutations that stemmed from the domestication of the common dog. Severe bottlenecks during the domestication from the ancestral wolf and during breed creation in the past few hundred years caused an increase in deleterious mutations in the species. (Fernando Cruz 2008) Snodgrass.370 (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Addition to DNA

This article discusses the DNA evidence of dog descending from wolf, but fails to include any other DNA facts about the two species' differentiation. For example, the evolution of genes from the wolf DNA through the domestication of the dog; these genes evolved rapidly, giving the dog the brain-behavior characteristics that the wolf does not have. Some of these brain-behavior characteristics include tracking human glances and social-cognitive skills before any interaction with humans. (Artificial Selection on Brain-Expressed Genes During the Domestication of Dog 2013) Snodgrass.370 (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Improvements to 'DNA'

1. Many other studies since Vilà's in 1997 have disproven any theories besides that dogs evolved from the grey wolf.

2. It should be noted that arguably the biggest reason for the difference between the date that archaeology and mtDNA each estimate for the origin of dogs is that fossils of the earliest domesticated canines so closely resembled grey wolves.

3. Another point worth noting is the possibility that after dogs were domesticated, they mated with wild wolves, potentially leading to another origination event.

Gibson.701 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding to Specialization

A type of breed of dog called "lupine", describing dogs that still have the same size and morphology as a wolf, could be added to the list of dog breed types (On the effects of domestication on canine social development and behavior 1982) Iannelli.4 (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding Comparison of Social and Behavioral Development in Dogs and Wolves

This article does not extensively discuss how the behaviors of domestic dogs and wild wolves different. The morphological aspects are mentioned, but there is so much more that could be added. From an early age, wolves and dogs differ very differently, in ways such as submission, activeness, and aggression (On the effects of domestication on canine social development and behavior 1982) Iannelli.4 (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding to DNA Evidence

A possible way to determine the geographic arrangement of the origin for dog populations in latitudinal and longitudinal directions could be determined using the frequencies at various loci (Biochemical-genetic relationships among Asian and European dogs and the ancestry of the Japanese native dog 1991) Iannelli.4 (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wolves going through bottleneck after domestication

Different tests have been done to show the connection between wolves and domestic dogs. In an article published in PLOS Genetics, scientists did a study that compared the boxer, Croatian wolf, Israeli wolf, golden jackal, Chinese wolf, basenji, and dingo. They first looked at individual genomic sequences and compared them to population sizes of the species finding that wolves went through a bottleneck when they were domesticated. When phylogenetic relationships were studied, the scientists created a tree of the subjects they were testing. They used seven genomes to create the phylogenetic tree. They found 32% of variant sites were shared with dogs and wolves, 47.3% of variant sites were for wolves only, 20.2% of variant sites were for dogs only and 0.5% was fixed between dogs and wolves. The tree created had a 100% bootstrap support with jackals as an out group and boxers and basenjis more closely related to the dingo rather than the wolves. The next examined trait was tracing the domestication of dogs from wolves. They created a generalized phylogenetic coalescent-based model comparing population divergence times, ancestral population sizes, and rates of post-divergence gene flow with the seven genomes examined earlier. The result from this research was a realization of an even greater bottleneck after domestication than found earlier. The results of all of the examinations was the conclusion that wolves went through a population bottleneck, the first around 20,000 years ago and the second around 15,000 years ago. They also concluded that dogs diverged from wolves around 15,000 years ago due to gene flow from domestication Anderson.2207 (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC) Anderson.2207

I concur, and have used the sentence under Freedman "The data indicates that dogs and wolves diverged through a dynamic process involving population bottlenecks in both lineages and post-divergence gene flow, which confounds previous inferences of dog origins." Thalmann's work indicates that New World dogs split from a common ancestor 18,800 years ago, which gives them just 800 years to make their way from Western Europe to the Beringian "ice bridge" at the tip of Eurasia in order to enter into North American before the bridge melted. Please also be aware that what the science is showing regarding both the genetic and archeological record at present, and what the research teams actually believe, may be two different things! Many thanks - William of Aragon (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I have further developed Freedman to elaborate on the bottleneck. Additionally, there is evidence that humans went through a bottleneck around the same time. This indicates either a catastrophe or a mass-migration - a long trek into Eurasia taking the dog for a walk as well! William Harris (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

We'd need reliable sources coming to that conclusion. It might suggest a connection like that, but there are multiple reasons a genetic bottleneck can occur, and it may be coincidence that both organisms experienced one around the same time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello SMcCandlish ☺, at the time I wrote this i had 4 citations in the article. I have since removed this addition as later studies now indicate that instead of a European to East Asia migration, it was a case of a North Asia migration to both Europe and East Asia due to the LGM, and this is why the same set of genes can be found in some people in each location. The Origin is always a work in progress! Regards, William Harris • talk • 02:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Gray wolf

This edit, summarized saying, "Correcting statement. None of these citations stated that the Gray Wolf was the ancestor of the dog. ..." caught my eye. It is one of a series. of edits I just want to mention that the Gray wolf article says, "It is the sole ancestor of the dog, ...", citing O. Thalmann et al., "Complete Mitochondrial Genomes of Ancient Canids Suggest a European Origin of Domestic Dogs", Science, November 14, 2013, 342(6160):871-4, DOI: 10.1126/science.1243650. I have not read the source cited there, but the assertion which it is cited to support does seem to directly contradict the thinking behind the edit summary here. It looks to me as if the articles need to be harmonized with one another. This is not a topic of hot-button interest to me, and this is just a drive-by comment. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wtmitchell, I have removed the reference to the gray wolf (Canis Lupus) because none of the 3 citations listed (by somebody in the past) actually said that.

They talk in terms of wolves, or wolf-like canids, but none confirms Canus Lupis. If someone wants to argue that the Gray Wolf is the ancestor of the dog, they will need to supply the citations. There are plenty of those about that indicate this, but they are getting a little dated. (I have supplied a couple myself, under the sub-heading DNA, however these are indications.)

I have queried an "editor" about what he did with my Thalmann reference. Thalmann stated that the research indicates that the ancestor of the dog was a now-extinct European wolf-like canid (and not Canis Lupus as the editor changed it to). At least that is Thalmann's university's understanding of his contribution: "It also became apparent that no extant wolf population is more closely related to modern dogs than the extinct specimens suggesting that the population of European wolves that ultimately gave rise to today’s dogs has gone extinct." http://www.utu.fi/en/news/articles/Pages/mans-best-friend-originated-in-europe.aspx Also his editor for that article: "The data suggest that an ancient, now extinct, central European population of wolves was directly ancestral to domestic dogs." http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6160/871

I can only cite what the research shows; it would appear that there are some who want to interpret that research to suit their own ends. Warm regards, William William of Aragon (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Also see Talk:Gray wolf#Assertion that the Gray wolf is the sole ancestor of the dog and "Old Dogs Teach a New Lesson About Canine Origins". Science. 342 (6160): 785–786. 15 November 2013. doi:10.1126/science.342.6160.785. (mentioned there). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, see my same comment there William of Aragon (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Just regarding the recent new DNA sections: there are a lot of comments along the lines of "DNA evidence" or "DNA analysis" shows this or that, but not much detail about what kind of DNA evidence (which impacts what precisely it tells us about the history). For example, are these only mitochondrial DNA, or Y-chromosomes, or profiling/fingerprinting, or a handful of SNPs, or sequencing a certain selected genes, or full genome sequencing, and which particular populations of animals have been sampled for each study? Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cesiumfrog, I am fairly inexperience with Wikipedia and was wondering if this is the appropriate forum for thanking you for your edit advice. Thanks, now all acted upon! Regarding the level of detail in this section, it was my intention to leave the overview at a simple, easy-to-read level and let the aficionados discover more from the cited references. Else, others could further develop this initial contribution - I don't have the "band-width" just at present. My concern was that nobody had updated this section for a while - possibly our resources are scatted because Wikipedia has an Origin of the Domestic Dog page, a section on the Gray Wolf page titled Domestication, and a chapter on the Dog page titled History and Evolution from which most of that content should be transferred to reside under the Origin of the Domestic Dog page - else why have the page? Another issue is what to do with all of this background information, which I now feel obligated to cull/recombine/weave into a historical story. And who addresses amendments to the other related pages? Regards, William of Aragon (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess, based on your report of the literature, that the Gray Wolf#Domestication section should be abolished, although there seems to be plenty of interesting facts there (and also maybe in the following "hybridization with dogs" section) worth rescuing and merging into here first. FWIW I think the Dog#History and evolution section should be merged with this page, either getting rid of this page in the process, or else reducing that section of the Dog main article to a very short summary which directs readers here for details. Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I did want to get to work on my pet interest, which was to create a human canine coevolution page, however its launch might now be delayed for a while as I sort through this gold-mine of information and not upset key-editors on those other pages. Others will also now lend a hand on this current page as I see that Wtmitchell - the not so retired beach-bum - is helping out with citation already. Regards, William of Aragon (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the first line of this article, "The origin of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris or Canis familiaris), based on genetic evidence, began from a single domestication of a now-extinct wolf-like canid in Western Europe 11 to 16 thousand years ago." I understand that the cited article (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6160/871) does not state the dogs evolved from Canis lupus, however if you look at the first figure in this article (Fig. 1. Phylogenetic arrangement of modern and ancient dog (blue) and wolf sequences (orange) as obtained from coalescence-based, maximum likelihood, and Bayesian methods.) it clearly demonstrates that the common ancestor of all the specimens analysed in this study, both extant and ancient specimens, from Japan down must be Canis lupus. This conclusion is inescapable given the phylogenetic tree presented. The common ancestor that gave rise to the least related extant specimen (Japan - Canis lupus hodophilax, a sub-species of Canis lupis) must itself have been Canis lupis. A sub-species can only evolve from an ancestor of the same species, and thus the common ancestor from ~43,000 years onwards must be a Canis lupus, giving rise to all the subsequent sub-species of Canis lupus within this tree. All the extant specimens within this tree are classified as sub-species of Canis lupus, and given that the common ancestor of Japan and all the rest is Canis lupus, this means all the ancient samples below Japan are also Canis lupus. This also means that the dogs specimens below Japan (beyond the common ancestor of ~43,000 years ago) are either Canis lupus, or evolved directly from a Canis lupus ancestor.

Additionally, the estimated time of domestication is between 11 to 16 thousand years ago, this is well after what has been established as the minimum time that Canis lupus has existed (~43 thousand). So based on their data, I do not see how it can be interpreted that dogs arose from anything other than a Canis lupus ancestor.

SlashRageQuit (talk) 16:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry let me try to be more clear. If all the specimens within a clade are the same species, the common ancestor of that clade must also be of that species. All the dog specimens are nestled within a Canis lupus node, therefore dogs evolved from Canis lupus.

SlashRageQuit (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello SlashRageQuit. Thanks for your insightful comments. Two points:

1. You state "A sub-species can only evolve from an ancestor of the same species" - please follow the link in the article under Lineage; the ancestor of Canis Lupus was not Canis Lupus in the same way that the ancestor of Homo Sapiens was Homo Erectus, a different species (we could not interbreed with them, although they are our ancestor). However, I believe your point can be argued (and my friends on the Wolf page have already argued it passionately) but it was not argued in this article by the evolutionary biologists. They may have seen something else but were not prepared to argue one way or the other until further research has been done, and that will come only after funding. I only report here what the science tells us; interpretations of what that might mean are then free to be made by individuals such as yourself.
2. The findings in both Thalmann and Freedman (plus another article by their associate Leonard that you might find intriguing on the Beringian wolf), is that there was greater wolf diversity prior to domestication. Although you are correct that Canis Lupus was around at that time, there were also many other "wolf-like canids" as well. There are a couple of sites that appear under "Archeological Evidence" where the teams looking for early dog remains also found wolf remains plus specimens of large wolf-like canids that they were not prepared to categorize as Canis Lupus for their findings, and these are still unidentified until we humans analyse them. Regards, William Harris (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi William, thanks for your reply. I've actually emailed the corresponding author for clarification, hopefully I get a reply.

I wasn't saying that species don't evolve from other species, just that if you have a clade of only Homo sapiens, then the most recent common ancestor of that clade is Homo sapiens. Particularly if the out-group of that clade is also a Homo sapiens. The extant out-group of all gray wolves in the clade I'm talking about is Canis lupus hodophilax, a sub-species of gray wolf. Dogs are far more closely related to a variety of gray wolf sub-species than those sub-species are related to hodophilax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlashRageQuit (talk • contribs) 10:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi SlashRageQuit, fair points, and I think a direct approach to the contact or authors is the best one. Please let us all know here if you get further elaboration. I have emailed direct their "Jedi Master" recently and got a quick response but not at the level of clarification I was looking for, therefore I believe he has other paper(s) to be conducted when funding becomes available. There needs to be analysis undertaken of more of the ancient canid specimens that are available in museums, universities and private collections, but that costs money and time in coordinating. (I am still surprised that many of the eastern Beringian wolf samples have been genetically analysed and deposited in Genbank, yet the western Beringian wolf samples found by our Russian friends have not been analysed for a cross-match, which is most likely!) Nice chatting with you. Regards, William Harris (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Now extinct European grey wolves are suddenly not grey wolves? You mentioned Beringian wolves, the link you mentioned on the top states they are grey wolves, therefore the citations does state dogs were domesticated from grey wolves. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

DNA evidence versus the Archeological evidence

I have reviewed the Archeological evidence and brought it up to date in tabular form with improved citations, as I believe this will be of more use to readers. Readers might note that there is now a conflict between what the DNA evidence is telling us - "a single domestication of a now-extinct wolf-like canid in Western Europe 11 to 16 thousand years ago" - and what the Archeological evidence is telling us: Goyet (36,000 BP), Altai (33,500 BP) and Predmostí (sometime between 32,000 and 22,000 BP). The explanation for this - as I understand it - is as follows:

The genetic work of Robert K Wayne et al is based on MODERN dogs - the domestication of what was to become modern dogs can be traced back to 16 thousand years ago. The archeological work of Mietje Germonpréa et al, whose hypothesis is that domestication events began at a number of sites long before the Late Glacial, is based on the specimens from Goyet (36,000 BP) and Altai (33,500 BP), however genetic testing of modern dogs indicates that these two specimens have no descendants. The remains from the Predmostí site have not yet to been analyzed by Wayne and may form part of a future research paper. William of Aragon (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, further studies might show that Manwell and Baker had it right back in 1983 - the ancestor of the domesticated Canis familiaris was a wild Canis familiaris, and that the many currently classified "small wolf" fossils that have been found in many parts of Eurasia require re-examination. William of Aragon (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Neoteny and specialisation

This page is about the origin of the domestic dog. It is not about dog breeds nor dog types - those recent cosmetic changes can be found in other dog-related pages in Wikipedia. This page is about what is under fur and where it came from - genetics, archeology, morphology, domestication.

Therefore, I have deleted:

1. 4 pix of dogs that already appear under their respective breed pages in Wikipedia - someone has pasted them here as well
2. 7 types of dogs - there is no citation to these, the commentary is contestable, and a link has been added to the [Dog breed] page, note the genetics section with the scientific citation there
3. Specialisation section relabled Neoteny, as that is what this section is about
4. The first two paragraphs have been removed because there is no citation and it is contestable. People were asked to provide citations a long time ago, and did not.

I am preparing this page for re-assessment on its Quality and Importance scale. Wikipedia has rules for achieving various levels of these, and maintaining non-cited and irrelevant verbiage will not help in that process.

Regards, William Harris (talk) 08:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Rename the title of this page

Hello all. I believe that this page should be renamed to simply Origin of the dog. Whether we are talking about the domestic dog or the feral dog, the DNA and origin is the same. I notice that the Dog page is called just that, not Domestic dog. Please refer to Wikipedia:Article titles, which states that "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." Additionally, it covers the Goyet Dog (36,000 years BP) and the Altai Dog (33,000 years BP), which indices a domestication event, however these important dogs have no descendants today and therefore cannot be regarded as domestic dogs. May I have your comments, please? Regards, William Harris (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Or even Evolution of the dog, which has been suggested in the past. William Harris (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

In line with human evolution, "dog evolution" would be more succinct (and "canid evolution" might be a better topic). However, I think readers are primarily interested in the original domestication (not evolution for its own sake). Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cesiumfrog, thanks for your comment. There has been a major redevelopment of the page since you encouraged me to have a go at it 2 months ago, and I have nominated it for a quality reclassification (it is currently rated at B-grade by WikiProject:Dogs). I think your counsel is wise - Google finds this page easily if you key in the words dog and domestication together - and perhaps it should best be left as is.William Harris (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Archive time?

Hello All, I think that this Talk Page is getting full with 44 comments against it that date back to 2006 when the topic was a different type of article. I propose to conduct an archive, and suggest everything before 2012 - how do people feel about that? Regards, William Harris (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Western Europe and Eurasia

Let me add some more data here. It goes that prior to the modern dog, the dire wolf, known as Canis dirus, occupied North America alongside its evolutionary predecessor, Canis lupus. Both grey wolves, Canis lupus the smaller of the two, are believed to have coexisted for 400,000 years, including the time period at which humans first entered the continent. The earliest example of Canis lupus is the Himalayan wolf, native to Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh (Indian states), Nepal and Tibet. This particular Himalayan wolf is considered to have originated 800,000 years ago. These early traces, along with others in Eurasia, show a wide habitat for Canis lupus. However, the dire wolf's habitat was more limited by 10,000 B.C.E., ranging from southern Alberta to Peru before a host of factors accelerated its decline. One of the better recorded events is an estimate of at least 1,646 dire wolves having died at the Rancho La Brea tar pits in southern California. These pits, centers of asphalt accumulation for 25,000 years, are known to have decoyed thousands of animals, quite commonly dire wolves. Information suggests that dire wolf populations were significant around 10,000 B.C.E, but had nearly disappeared by 8,500 years ago. The most recent incidences of the departed canidae are from the western United States in 7500 B.C.E., long after humans crossed the Bering Strait.

As much as they credit much of Asia and hardly some parts of Europe, it is definite that Eurasia is the more neutral term, properly backed with the reliable sources. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Do you assume that the Canis dirus is the ancestor of Canis lupus, and that Canis lupus is the ancestor of the dog? William Harris (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

European Origin of the dog - dispute

Hello All,

Changes have been made to the Origin of the domestic dog page by OccultZone.

Europe was were dogs emerged, based on the genetic findings by both Thalmann (November 2014) and Freedman (January 2015) that have been cited in scientific publications and the scientific press on this page. The reasons for the change to a Eurasian origin was not given, however superceded citations by Miklosi and Wang were offered.

I believe that OccultZone changed the first sentence because that person simply disagreed and did not bother to read the article. I have discussed this matter with them on their Talk page but to no avail.

I ask other editors to provide their input. If the matter cannot be resolved then I am happy to escalate it for adjudication. This is the first step in that process.

Regards, William Harris (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Look above, I have described the reason behind these edits. Those studies that you have expanded also confirms the Eurasian origin. Also this link[6] explains well. Since there is no confirmed dating of the origin, we cannot cite it on lead unless the statistic would cover the multiple statistics provided by the reliable sources concerning different researches. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You have no right to remove my subheading that is part of a dispute. Despite what you offer above, that has nothing to do with what I am requesting from other editors. Leave my edits alone, please. William Harris (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, the link that you claim "explains well" opens with the sentence "Domestic dogs evolved from a group of wolves that came into contact with European hunter-gatherers between 18,800 and 32,100 years ago and may have since died out." You did not read it, did you? You have read none of these citations that you have provided, and you did not read the Origin of the domestic dog article. Your actions border on being malicious, and the way that you have tried to remove my comments both here and on your Talk Page show underhandedness. This is not what we expect from Wikipedians. William Harris (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Merging 2 same discussion is not actually wrong, I had explained my edits in above section so there was no need to open a new one. Check WP:OWNTALK, I am allowed to remove unnecessary discussion from my talk page. You must be cherry picking the information per your want and that is the only sentence you could find in the whole article? Have you seen the mention of Asia(particularly east Asia) as well as a link to this article that speaks about the Asian origin of domestic dogs? Have you read [7]?? It says "General consensus exists that dogs were domesticated prior to 15,000 B.P. and that domestic dogs originated in Eurasia", it is apparent that you are just a single purpose account who is not following WP:NPOV, it is understandable. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Wang reference was published in 2008 based on the genetic analysis tools available at that time, and rested on a number of assumptions that have now proven invalid. As I have pointed out above and which you ignore completely, Thalmann in 2013 and Freedman in 2014 - using better tools and techniques - are later researchers that have found a different result and the previous research assumptions were explained and rebutted in Freedman (2014) - you clearly have not read it or you did not understand it. There is no point in discussing this further because what you wrote in your section above is a cut-and-paste of irrelevant information on articles about Canis dirus and Canis lupus that has nothing to do with the origin of the dog, you have demonstrated no subject knowledge on this topic, and you are not responding rationally to my reasonable request. We move closer to adjudication, where I expect there will be some wider outcomes than just a resolution of a dispute on the first line of this article. William Harris (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

(inserted) It was a description that how domestication of dogs and its ancestors was prevalent throughout the Asia and Europe. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User:William Harris asked me to take a look at this and perhaps comment.

• I don't have a POV axe to grind about this -- at least not one of which I'm aware.
• There appears to be a bit of an edit war going on between William Harris and OccultZone here. Please stop. I would suggest freezing the article at its current version (I'm looking at this version) while discussion about the points at issue goes on here on the talk page. See WP:BRD.
• Based on a quick look, I'd say the following re the lead sentence:

• it could do with an {{as of}} about current scientific thinking re this (see WP:DATED).
• the sources cited could use dates (see [8] and [9])
• any significant viewpoints asserted by WP:RSs which differ from the viewponts mentioned (supported by the sources currently cited) should be represented in proportion to their prominence in published, reliable sources, per WP:DUE.
• if significantly differering viewpoints do currently exist between RSs regarding this, the differences probably should not be surfaced in any detail in the lead section, and the lead section should probably not present any one particular POV from among the differing POVs. If current POVs presented by some RSs amount to a challenge to previously accepted POVs, perhaps the lead might say that. In any case, if there are differences, the lead should probably mention that differences exist and detailed information about the different POVs and supporting cites should probably be presented in a body section.

That's my take on it. I hope this helps. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that your assessment is a fair one that is in accord with wording or spirit of Wikipedia policies, and I will be happy to comply and implement those changes. Regards, William Harris (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Dispute is mostly about that one line of the lead. I want to be "Eurasia", would you want to change it to "Asia and Europe"? A while ago, it was proposed to me by other editor. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Please excuse my delay in replying, I have been travelling in a remote area of the country.

Firstly, thank-you for doing the archiving on this page as I had raised in an earlier sub-heading above - I wondered who had done that.

I have now read the Wikipedia polices cited above. Based on the third-party proposition of Wtmitchell (above), I propose the following based on his points:

• it could do with an {{as of}} about current scientific thinking re this (see WP:DATED).
• the sources cited could use dates (see [10] and [11])

I propose that this would be achieved by a complete rewrite of the first paragraph because my main interest is on the time and not the place, so that would read:

The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris or Canis familiaris), based on genetic evidence as of January 2014, began from a single domestication 11 to 16 thousand years ago that predates the rise of agriculture and implies that the earliest dogs arose along with hunter-gatherers and not agriculturists. DNA evidence as of November 2013 indicates that all modern dogs are most closely related to the extant and extinct canids of Europe compared to earlier writers who proposed in 2008 that dogs were domesticated prior to 15,000 years BP in Eurasia.

The second paragraph would read:

The analysis indicates that the dog is not a descendant of extant (living) wolves but forms a sister clade, and that dogs were originally domesticated from a now-extinct wolf population that was more genetically diverse than today’s wolf population. The dog's genetic closeness to modern wolves is due to admixture.

The third paragraph would read, using the wording that is already there in the current first paragraph:

Conceivably, proto-dogs might have taken advantage of carcasses left on site by early hunters, assisted in the capture of prey, or provided defense from large competing predators at kills. Furthermore, several ancient dogs may represent failed domestication events, such as the 36,000 year old Goyet specimen of Belgium and the 33,000 year old Altai Mountains specimen from Russia, as they have no descendents today.

This third paragraph is important because it indicates that domestication may have been attempted separately in both Europe and Asia at a much earlier time, however no dogs today are their descendents and so these do not relate to the domestic dog.

• any significant viewpoints asserted by WP:RSs which differ from the viewponts mentioned (supported by the sources currently cited) should be represented in proportion to their prominence in published, reliable sources, per WP:DUE.

I do not believe we have significant viewpoints that differ. If we do, then the reference to both Europe or Eurasia would need to be moved into the body of the article and not appear in the first paragraph. I think that step would not improve the encyclopaedia.

I note that your mirror entry on the Dog page, Evolution, has already been amended by some other editor and your citations have been removed on that page. It is only a matter of time before the reference to Eurasia is replaced with Europe because that is the current scientific thinking. However, I will not remove those citations from this page if you are happy with the first paragraph because that is in the spirit of what is proposed by Wtmitchell.

If you concur, then I will replace the paragraph on the Dog page with our mutually agreed paragraphs from this page. I am not happy that the other editor on the Dog page has also bundled Taxonomy and Evolution together (without Talk discussion). Taxonomy (biology) is about how the classification and Latin Name came about and is separate from the dog’s origin, so I would change that back to two sub-headings – one for Taxonomy, and one for the Origin. I would take our agreement here as the consensus to do that. This is because it has already been earlier agreed on the Talk:Dog Page that the Dog page must be in accord with the Origin of the domestic dog page, so there would be no need to go to the Talk:Dog Page about these proposed changes.

I seek your agreement, please. Regards,William Harris (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

References

You can also link to a study from March 2013 for attributing the East Asian[ origin[12]. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I will assume then that we have an agreement. Your additional citation is well-received because the researcher, Bob Wayne, was the senior co-author for both the slightly later Thalmann and Freedman studies I have already mentioned - he was their teacher and he is the one coordinating all of this on research on dogs. I will now remove my comment from your Talk page User talk:OccultZone and you to remove yours from mine User talk:William Harris - we will regard it as an exchange of gifts showing our good will. Regards, William Harris (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear editors, this matter is now resolved and your input is no longer sought. Regards, William Harris (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

"compared to earlier writers who proposed in 2008 that dogs were domesticated prior to 15,000 years BP in Eurasia", might be undue, it can be "compared to earlier writers who proposed the origins from Eurasia as well as Eastern Asia". Stats may differ, location is what we have to point. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with that, and the amendment will be made. (By our working hours here, we appear to be in a similar time zone.) Regards, William Harris (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In his book, The Dingo in Australia and Asia (1995), Laurie Corbett pointed out that the conditions that led to the domestication of the dog were "widespread and common", so it easily could have happened multiple times and places. I hasten to add that he noted that the consensus at that time was that all modern dogs shared a single common origin.

Just thought that might be worth saying. Chrisrus (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chrisrus, there have been a number of authors over the years that have thought the same. The first researcher to demonstrate possible multiple domestications - Ovodov - can be found on the Origin of the domestic dog page under "Druzhkova et al", second paragraph, with a citation to his work. He - and later he and Druzhkova - gave reasons why the 33,000 BP "Altai Dog" specimen from Siberia should be classified as a dog, that it was comparable to the 36,000 BP "Goyet Dog" specimen from Belgium, and therefore domestication was not an isolated incident. However, neither dog has descendants that have been found today. (Druzhkova was one of the authors later contributing to Thalmann et al.) I do not believe that any of the "Freedman et al" researchers really believe that the dog emerged only 11-17,000 years ago - that is just what the science indicates to them using the current tools of analysis and the currently available specimens, and they report what the science tells them.

Another author - Mark Derr - proposed that what is referred to as "domestication" is simply the result of non-severe inbreeding - a human restriction on the flow of genetic diversity (see the bottom article). Any group of humans could do that with canids, it is just that we have not found evidence of it yet because they would have been hunter-gatherer societies that probably left remains exposed for nature to consume. Based on the latest scientific evidence, a European origin of all modern dogs is proposed simply because that is where fossils of the dog's ancestor's cousins have been found safely preserved in caves - we have not found the remains of the ancestor yet! I do not believe that he was restricted to Europe, he may even have been Holarctic and there are a number of specimens that have been found preserved in the permafrost of Eurasia and North America that have simply been put in a box and labelled Canis lupis because that is what we thought back then - they may not be. If someone finds the fossil remains of the ancestor - or his cousins - elsewhere then the whole theory of European origin will have to be changed. The search continues! Regards, William Harris talk 20:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me Chrisrus - at the back of the book Corbett provides a formula for applying to the skull measurements of a specimen canid. Simply take the skull measurements, input them into the formula, and it will tell you if the specimen is a dingo. Now, I intend to use a slight variation on that formula for a similar purpose. William Harris • talk • 09:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs

Hello OccultZone. Now that I have added the Morphological evidence to the article, it is now time to review the lead paragraphs to integrate genetics, morphology and archaeology as best we can with the minimum info. Not to go outside of our earlier agreement on this, I propose the following as the lead paragraphs, which will need to be reflected on the Dog page as well under the Origins section there. May I have your - and any interested other editor's - comments, please? Regards, William Harris • talk • 05:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The origin of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris or Canis familiaris) is not clear. Nuclear DNA evidence points to a single domestication 11,000-16,000 years ago that predates the rise of agriculture and implies that the earliest dogs arose along with hunter-gatherers and not agriculturists. Mitochondrial DNA evidence points to a domestication 18,800-32,100 years ago and that all modern dogs are most closely related to ancient wolf fossils that have been found in Europe, compared to earlier hypotheses which proposed origins in Eurasia as well as Eastern Asia. The 2 recent genetic analyses indicate that the dog is not a descendant of the extant (i.e. living) gray wolf but forms a sister clade, that the ancestor is extinct and the dog's genetic closeness to modern wolves is due to admixture.

The archaeological and morphological evidence from several ancient dog-like fossils, such as the 36,000 year old Goyet specimen from Belgium and the 33,000 year old Altai Mountains specimen from Siberia, indicates that domestication may have begun earlier than the genetic evidence points to, and arose in multiple locations. It has been proposed that based on the morphological similarity between these and other early specimens compared to later prehistoric dogs dated to 15,000 years BP, that these specimens might have provided the stock from which dogs later evolved.

I cannot be perfectly sure if same research was carried in other Eurasian regions. Most of your sources are very new, it affirms that these researches are going to show more surprising results in the future. For now we should just regard the previous researches as the part of ongoing researches, and the matter of origins continues to be researched. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I have always stated here (now archived) that I believe the ancestor was Holarctic, and that the fossils have only been found in Europe at present because it has more caves than other locations. Additionally, based on Freedman 2014, if the grey wolf was not the ancestor of the dog and the only relationship is admixture, have we been looking only at the grey-wolf admixture DNA in Europe - what about the actual ancestor of the dog itself? Based on DNA, we may be no closer. I have noticed that Robert K Wayne ("the Jedi Master" of dog DNA) has commenced some work with a team from Beijing University, and I shall keep watch about what they do. Regards, William Harris • talk • 20:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: OccultZone: Germonpre, of the Paleolithic dog fame, is in Yakutia - something to do with the Black Dog of Tumat (12,000 years BP) and both ancient and modern wolves in the region are being worked on by an international team. http://arhiv.yatoday.ru/nature/5027 Regards,William Harris • talk • 03:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Good finding. Our current version also mentions Yakutia. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

North Asia - new section

---

The paragraph below is not correct. The analysis in the Skoglund et al (2015) paper, on the Taimyr wolf, is based on a draft of the entire nuclear genome. So it is comparable with the Freedman paper, but with the difference that there is now an ancient genome sequenced (not only modern) and that the radiocarbon date for the Taimyr wolf enabled a direct estimate of the genome-wide mutation rate in dogs/wolves, which turned out to be about half the rate assumed in the Freedman paper... Hence the difference in estimated divergence time between the two papers (with regards, Love Dalén, co-author on the Skoglund paper).

---

Regarding the new information. It is about time someone looked at the Taimyr Wolf - thankyou Editor abcdef. The issue that I have is that this analysis was based on mitochondrial DNA and not the more accurate nuclear DNA that is taken from the cell nucleus and therefore allows the identification of the effects of admixture. This study ranks beside Thalmann 2013 which used mitochondrial DNA, but these studies are superceded by Freedman 2014 who used nuclear DNA - the only link between the dog and the gray wolf is through admixture. The Lake Taimyr Wolf finding is not accurately stated by the researchers if they included Freedman, because what it shows is that the wolf from Lake Taimyr had wolf descendents that later mixed with dogs to give us some of their genetic material found in the Siberian and Greenland dogs. The item is of interest but probably does not warrant its own heading, and adds to the "Descendent of a wolf that exists today" heading i.e. Canis lupus.

Of interest, the well-liked and smooth-talking Professor at Oxford University, the American Greger Larson, has managed to talk his way into $3m of funding and calmed the previous warring researchers for undertaking together a huge analysis of all of the ancient wolf-like and dog-like fossils and bones that are sitting around in museums, universities and private drawers. Larson has a track-record of using nuclear DNA and skull morphology to trace the ancestry of the domestic chicken and pig. Paper(s) due 2015-16. http://domestication.org.uk/projects/deciphering-dog-domestication-through-combined-ancient-dna-and-geometric-morphometric Regards, William Harris • talk • 22:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

On further reading, the article and its supplementary material is about admixture with an extinct wolf clade, and therefore warrants further development. See new section North Asia.

Hello OccultZone, I have always stated here that I believe the ancestor of the dog was Holarctic, and that the fossils have only been found in Europe at present because it has more caves than other locations. People could rest assured that if this were to change then I would be one of the first to make the edits. Earlier User:Editor abcdef presented new research that now forms a new section in the article called North Asia. I believe that this new research warrants a change to the lead paragraphs of the article and I know that you have an interest in this, thus our earlier agreement on this matter. I propose that the lead paragraphs could be changed to read:

The origin of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris or Canis familiaris) is not clear. Nuclear DNA evidence points to a single domestication 11,000–16,000 years ago that predates the rise of agriculture and implies that the earliest dogs arose along with hunter-gatherers and not agriculturists. Mitochondrial DNA evidence points to a domestication 27,000-40,000 years ago and that modern dogs are most closely related to ancient wolf fossils that have been found in Europe or North Asia The 3 most recent genetic analyses indicate that the dog is not a descendant of the extant (i.e. living) gray wolf but forms a sister clade. An extinct wolf-like canid was the ancestor of the dog, gray wolves and another extinct sister wolf clade that all separated around the same time, and the dog's genetic closeness to modern wolves is due to admixture. Some arctic dog breeds exhibit a genetic closeness to the other extinct sister wolf clade through admixture, which indicates the ancestry of present-day dog breeds descends from more than one single domestication event.

The archaeological and morphological evidence from several ancient dog-like fossils, such as the 36,000 year old Goyet specimen from Belgium and the 33,000 year old Altai Mountains specimen from Central Asia, also indicates that domestication arose in multiple locations. It has been proposed that based on the morphological similarity between these and other early specimens compared to later prehistoric dogs dated to 15,000 years BP, that these specimens might have provided the stock from which dogs later evolved.

Therefore, I seek your view. Regards, William Harris • talk • 12:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a great amount of research. As long as you are mentioning both Europe and Asia, neutrality is maintained. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. I look forward to the day when North America (Alaska and the Canadian Yukon) is involved as well - 35,000 years ago the sea levels were lower and a land bridge existed between Eurasia and North America (I am an Australian and I have no "continental interest" in this matter as we never had wolves this far south!) I shall wait a few days and try to simplify my overly complex sentences, waiting to see if anybody else has an interest - I know that Mitch is usually happy to monitor law and order around here however Chrisrus may also have an opinion that we would value. The first paragraph could be simplified as below.

The origin of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris or Canis familiaris) is not clear. Nuclear DNA evidence points to a single domestication 11,000–16,000 years ago that predates the rise of agriculture and implies that the earliest dogs arose along with hunter-gatherers and not agriculturists. Mitochondrial DNA evidence points to a domestication 27,000-40,000 years ago and that most modern dog breeds are closely related to ancient wolf fossils that have been found in Europe and some others with North Asia. An extinct wolf-like canid was the ancestor of 3 sister clades that parted at around the same time 40,000 years ago to become the dog, gray wolf and the extinct Taymyr wolf. The dog's genetic closeness to gray wolves is due to admixture, and some arctic dog breeds exhibit a genetic closeness to the Taymyr wolf through admixture, which indicates the ancestry of present-day dog breeds descends from more than one single domestication event.

Regards, William Harris • talk • 20:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It's my impression based on what I've read on this page and elsewhere that we should definitely say in as upfront and blunt a way as appropriate that experts don't know or don't agree where and when wolves became wolves, how many times it happened, whether all dogs share the same non-domesticated ancestor, whether the first dogs left any ancestors alive today, and other such mysteries, but that there are these predominant theories which we will describe. Also, at the moment, coming just off reading some Coppinger and Coppinger, I am really uncomfortable with the implication of such constructions as "were domesticated", when it's pretty clear to me at least at the moment that artificial selection couldn't have started until they had already been dogs for quite some time. As a result, I support the above wordings that most reflect this my impression of the sources I've seen and had summarized for me.

However, I'd like to hear what Mariomassone thinks because it's my impression that he's more familiar with these sources. Chrisrus (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Chrisrus, I only read your comment after making an edit on a key point that I had been mulling over for the last day or so - "The divergence of the dog would not necessarily have had to coincide with domestication in the sense of selective breeding by humans." Given that if a human does not handle a puppy within the first 8 weeks of its life then a human never will, I am yet to ascertain exactly what "domestication" humans thought that they were providing. Feral dogs do not behave like domestic dogs - some of their behavior is like the Gray wolf and some of it is something else entirely. Yet they are the same genetic stock as the domestic dog, in that the domestic dog lives inside with us but the feral does not. I have never believed that we should be referring to the common ancestor as a wolf - Wayne always refers to it a "wolf-like canid". Given that its 3 descendants we are now considering could be represented by a yellow Labrador up to its neck in a creek, the Gray wolf staring down at us from a boulder, and something that possibly looked like a giant Rottweiler with a husky-like coat and teeth bigger than any modern wolf today chomping lazily on mammoth bones, to refer to the ancestor as "a wolf" doesn't quite describe it. Some issues:

1. "experts don't know or don't agree where and when wolves became wolves, how many times it happened" - we first need a definition of a wolf. Even if we have one, we still will never know how many times it happened because we are only aware of it if we find a fossil and a DNA analysis tells us that it is a wolf. With DNA, we can only compare one specimen to another. The Goyet cave gave us 6 "wolves" with 6 completely different haplotypes never recorded before; I don't even know where to begin with that one!
2. "whether all dogs share the same non-domesticated ancestor" - we won't know that until we find the fossil of the common ancestor. All would then be revealed if nuclear DNA could be extracted from ancient canid samples. Thalmann 2013 describes it as "administratively difficult", which to my mind means not impossible but will cost time, money and effort. This is the direction Larson is trying to go with new DNA technology.
3. "whether the first dogs left any ancestors (descendants?) alive today" - at some stage there will be first dogs that left descendants; that is where they came from.
4. Freeman 2014 - he of the 11,000–16,000 years divergence - admitted in his paper that he had assumed a conservative mutation rate because he had nothing to validate it on. Skoglund 2015 based 27,000-40,000 years on the radiocarbon dating of the Taymyr wolf, which appears very reasonable. This also ties in with Germonpre's morphological work on the "Goyet dog" 36,000 BP and the "Altai dog" 33,000 BP, and the 27,000 BP ties in with her Predmostí "paleolithic dogs". We are starting to see some integration of the various works, rather than dispute.

Let's see what the "Gray Wolf" himself thinks when he gets here. Regards, William Harris • talk • 02:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I say have at it, William, edit the article all you want; it's all yours, buddy because you seem to be more familiar than anyone else among us with the WP:RSes on this topic. I'll spectate this page and promise to try to find ways to help. But if I may, just say, please just we have to be careful that anything we have the article say be a fair summary of the citations and not to go over the line into publishing our own theories by connecting different ideas from sources aka "original research by synthesis". Chrisrus (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Chrisrus for your support, and your forthright reminder which is one of the reasons that I gave you a call to this page in the first place. You may rest assured that on the article page I only report what the science tells us - it is on this talk page that I inflict my musings upon others. We may not attract comment from the "Gray Wolf" (Mario) but he may be watching. (It has been observed that the "Gray Wolf" and the "Megafaunal Wolf" do not venture into each other's territories, although they are known to form a pack for hunting together on other Wikipedia pages of our shared interest.) I am cognizant that the opening paragraphs of this article should be reflected on the Dog Page under Origin – which attracts a large number of critical readers – therefore we need to be very accurate and in agreement with what we know and what we want to say. I suggest that all those watching this Talk page go through the suggestion below, line-by-line with clinical precision, for amendment, deletion, further inclusion or agreement:

The origin of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris or Canis familiaris) is not clear. (Is anybody uncomfortable with the wording of this sentence?)

Mitochondrial DNA evidence indicates that the dog diverged from a wolf-like canid either 27,000-40,000 years ago or 18,800–32,100 years ago, compared to Nuclear DNA evidence that points to divergence 11,000–16,000 years ago. (Thanks to Chrisrus for helping us to lose the word “domestication” – these 3 latest publications use the word "domestication" but they are actually about divergence. Is anybody uncomfortable with the wording of this sentence?)

These dates imply that the earliest dogs arose in the time of human hunter-gatherers and not agriculturists. (Is anybody uncomfortable with the wording of this sentence? I have no qualms about removing it, however it does rebut earlier arguments that dogs arose from the gray wolf scavenging human agriculturalist rubbish dumps.)

Mitochondrial DNA evidence indicates that the dog, the gray wolf and the extinct Taymyr wolf diverged at around the same time. (Is anybody uncomfortable with the wording of this sentence?)

Modern dogs are most closely related to ancient wolf fossils that have been found in Europe than they are to modern gray wolves, (Is anybody uncomfortable with the wording of this phrase?)

with nearly all dog breed's genetic closeness to the Gray wolf due to admixture (Is anybody uncomfortable with the wording of this phrase?)

and several arctic dog breeds with the Taymyr wolf of North Asia. (Is anybody uncomfortable with the wording of this sentence?)

This implies that the ancestry of present-day dog breeds descends from more than one single domestication event. (Thanks to Chrisrus for helping us to clarify and I am going to remove this sentence. The authors have assumed that admixture was due to human intervention but there is no evidence provided in any of these 3 studies that this was so. Is anybody unhappy with the removal of this sentence?)

Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum, so we're to stay focused on article improvement, not discussion of the referent of the article. Chrisrus (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That is the policy, but sometimes editors benefit from the fuller context to help guide them in whether they should be making a particular edit or not, which helps to avoid edit wars. Regards, William Harris • talk • 21:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello all, I can confirm that the newly added first paragraph at the top of this section has been added by Associate Professor Dalen, who was one of the authors of the paper. Confirmation was by personal email. This misunderstanding of the work was mine, I apologize to all, and I am going to amend the lead paragraph and associated entry on the Dog page. If you have issues with this then please get back to me. Regards, William Harris • talk • 12:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)