Re: Generic Dog ancestor

From: Eric Stevens (eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz)
Date: 02/19/05 

Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:07:02 +1300

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 06:24:26 -0500, mikelist <mikelist@tds.net> wrote:

>I'd like to suggest that middens are the original factor in the dog
>story. Frequently available resources of this nature could have made the
>difference in allowing non-dominant individuals to live rather than
>starve, which could plausibly develop midden-wolf lines. They would have
>decreased the amount of predator-attractive leavings, decreasing the
>likelihood of attacks. They were probably not welcome at first, and
>untractable individuals would be killed, eventually less threatening
>ones were allowed proximity (priorities, a shy scavenger might well be
>less compelling than the daily hunt for food, which the protodogs may or
>may not have joined opportunistically). I suspect that the first time a
>pack of midden-wolves ran off or killed an invading predator (this would
>have nothing to do with the humans)they would have gotten a reputation
>that would counteract some of the unease that these not-quite-wolves
>fostered.
>
>The Siberian fox experiment pretty well shows that the transition of
>dogs from wolves is less evolution than selective breeding. Obviously
>early selection was not deliberate, but in killing those midden-wolves
>who were too aggressive, only calmer breeding stock remained.

It's not only selective breeding but the manner of their upbringing.

Dogs, cats and most other animals which are raised as pets from a very
early age, develop different behaviour patterns from those raised in
the wild. The same thing happens with humans. Children raised in a
violent and threatening society behave quite differently from those
raised in a caring, non-violent environment. Not only are there marked
differences in their adult behaviout but marked differences in brain
structure can be observed by various types of tomography. I see no
reason why the same should not apply to dogs.

Eric Stevens