The pool of genetic diversity needed to domesticate the wolf was not available to the small bands of men.
I think that's wrong. It doesn't really require much of a "pool of genetic diversity." Wolves already naturally contain the genetic diversity required and express it naturally, often enough, as a percentage of deviant individuals are created, all without any need for intervention.
The argument seems it boils down to the same in logic as seen in geology between gradualism and catastrophism... and is seen often enough in consideration of Darwinian views of natural selection... that many expect must depend on a gradual incrementalism enabling every minute change through change enabled over eons of evolution...
Individual variations and single gene mutations tend to be a lot wider in their influences than that expectation of only incremental change over long periods of time would allow...
I don't know where the "immature adult" genetic profile in wolves came from... but its impacts are dramatic and immediate... and do foster survival risks within the pack as the other wolves are far more likely to kill that one... as "not quite with the program"... But, that's also assuming that gene's presence in wolves is an artifact of the common origins of dogs and wolves... and not an issue of back breeding... introducing dog genes into wild wolf populations.
There is such a thing, now, as archaeogenetics... so went looking...
Mitochondrial DNA studies show something of the nature of variation and its localization in both dog and wolf populations... which is interesting. Perhaps suggests, as seems reasonable, that the human association with dogs wasn't an odd one off event... but occurred serially and in many different places... as is true of human associations with other species. Mictochondrial clades can't answer questions about behavioral origins, but the article does mention larger variability existing in earlier populations ?
So, broadening out.. Wikipedia's article does span the known history... all pretty interesting, but anything specific boils down to "Many authors have concluded... Other authors have disagreed." Most relevant stuff included is in Comparison with modern wolves which concludes, on the basis of studying the shapes of a large number of skulls, with "Dogs are not paedomorphic wolves." [85]... which, true or not in terms of skull shape, seems hardly useful to consider as a genetic determinant of behavior.
That continues into: The reduced body size of the early dog compared to a wolf is thought due to niche selection (Olsen 1985; Morey 1992; Coppinger & Coppinger 2001). Morey (1992:199) states that "Results...are consistent with a hypothesis that early domestic dogs are evolutionary paedomorphs, products of strong selection for ontogenetically channeled size reduction and alterations of reproductive timing associated with the new domestic way of life." [60] However, in an domestication experiment the domesticated foxes remained the same size as unselected foxes (Trutt 1999:167). [80]
Wayne (1986) concluded that the dog is closer in skull morphology to C. latrans, C. aureus, C. adustus, C. mesomelas, Cuon alpinus and Lycaon pictus than to the wolf. Dahr (1942) concluded that the shape of the dog brain case is closer to that of the coyote than to that of the wolf. Manwell and Baker (1983) reviewed Dahr's work with the addition of dental data for canids and concluded that the dog ancestor was probably within the range of 13.6–20.5 kg, which is smaller than the range 27–54 kg for extant wolves (Mech 1970) and is comparable with the Dingo. [60]
The links to the origin of the ideas re paedomorphy are there... but, might be more useful to consider other factors than morphology, as the key point that emerges in all of the studies seems to be that morphology can vary so widely within the species as among them, that it likely isn't a determinant of much else that we can tell.
Maybe more interesting... this bit from the Wikipedia on Coyotes, about Tameability:
Coyotes were likely semi-domesticated by various pre-Columbian cultures. Some 19th-century writers wrote of coyotes being kept in native villages in the Great Plains. The coyote is easily tamed as a pup, but can become destructive as an adult. [207] Both full-blooded and hybrid coyotes can be playful and confiding with their owners, but are suspicious and shy of strangers, [72] though coyotes being tractable enough to be used for practical purposes like retrieving [208] and pointing have been recorded. [209] A tame coyote named "Butch", caught in the summer of 1945, had a short-lived career in cinema, appearing in Smoky and Ramrod before being shot while raiding a henhouse. [207]
Wikipedia, again, links to references in Origin of the domestic dog:
The origin of the domestic dog includes the dog's genetic divergence from the wolf, its domestication, and the emergence of the first dogs. Genetic studies show that all ancient and modern dogs share a common ancestry and descended from an ancient, now-extinct wolf population - or closely related wolf populations - which was distinct from the modern wolf lineage. [3] [4] The dog's similarity to the extant grey wolf is the result of substantial dog-into-wolf gene flow, [3] with the modern grey wolf being the dog's nearest living relative. [5] An extinct Late Pleistocene wolf may have been the ancestor of the dog. [5] [1] [6]
Starts to get us back on track to looking at the archaeogenetics in claiming The dog was the first species and the only large carnivore to have been domesticated. [11] [5]
The reference is to How Much Is That in Dog Years? The Advent of Canine Population Genomics which is spot on in subject... but, it is from 2014... which was 49 years ago... concluding with "we don't know yet" as : The sequencing of multiple complete, high-quality genomes of dogs and wolves is a significant step forward in the genetic hunt for the origins of our earliest domestic animal. The trick now is to extend the application of these methods to ancient remains: in effect, merging the materials and methods of both archaeology and genetics. By combining the expertise of both disciplines, not only might the extinct population of ancestral wolves be identified, but we will gain an enormous insight into the timing, location, and admixture patterns of dogs and wolves, thus revealing the complex origins of our first and best friend.
Thirty five years later, in 2019... Unlocking the origins and biology of domestic animals using ancient DNA and paleogenomics Broad in context, sweeping in scope, places domestication of animals in a sequenced timeline in relation to changes in human technology and culture, as human activities changed with the environment as the climate changed with the end of the most recent ice age.
That's getting us closer... and is likely to take some time to digest... so, enough for now...
It does include this important bit of awareness: The first chicken aDNA study ignited a firestorm among archaeologists and paleogeneticists... Yeah... now that's some real science... not like that today... where the intensity of the debate is inversely related to its importance ? |
