Talk:Origin of the domestic dog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dogs (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and Dogs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Mammals (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Gray wolf[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Wolves going through bottleneck after domestication[edit]

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 [1] 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)

DNA evidence versus the Archeological evidence[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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.[2][3] 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.[4] 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.[5]

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 (TalkContributionsLog) 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [Freedman A. et al., “Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs,” PLOS genetics, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016, 2014. Print.]
  2. ^ Jhala, Y.; Sharma, D. K. (2004). "The Ancient Wolves of India" (PDF). International Wolf 14 (2): 15–16. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-04-21. 
  3. ^ Aggarwal, R. K., Kivisild, T., Ramadevi, J., Singh, L. (2007). "Mitochondrial DNA coding region sequences support the phylogenetic distinction of two Indian wolf species" (PDF). Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 45 (2): 163–172. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0469.2006.00400.x. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-02-05. 
  4. ^ Hampton, Bruce (1997). The Great American Wolf. MacMillan. p. 19. 
  5. ^ Schwartz, Marion (October 1998). A History of Dogs in the Early Americas. Yale University Press. p. 50. ISBN 978-0-300-07519-9. 
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[edit]

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[1] 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 (TalkContributionsLog) 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 [2]?? 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 (TalkContributionsLog) 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 (TalkContributionsLog) 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 [3] and [4])
  • 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 (TalkContributionsLog) 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 [5] and [6])

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. [1] DNA evidence as of November 2013 indicates that all modern dogs are most closely related to the extant and extinct canids of Europe[2][3] compared to earlier writers who proposed in 2008 that dogs were domesticated prior to 15,000 years BP in Eurasia.[4][5]

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.[1][6]

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.[2][7]

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

  1. ^ a b Freedman, Adam H.; Gronau, Ilan; Schweizer, Rena M.; Ortega-Del Vecchyo, Diego; Han, Eunjung; Silva, Pedro M.; Galaverni, Marco; Fan, Zhenxin; Marx, Peter; Lorente-Galdos, Belen; Beale, Holly; Ramirez, Oscar; Hormozdiari, Farhad; Alkan, Can; Vilà, Carles; Squire, Kevin; Geffen, Eli; Kusak, Josip; Boyko, Adam R.; Parker, Heidi G.; Lee, Clarence; Tadigotla, Vasisht; Siepel, Adam; Bustamante, Carlos D.; Harkins, Timothy T.; Nelson, Stanley F.; Ostrander, Elaine A.; Marques-Bonet, Tomas; Wayne, Robert K.; Novembre, John (16 January 2014). "Genome Sequencing Highlights Genes Under Selection and the Dynamic Early History of Dogs". PLOS Genetics (PLOS Org) 10 (1): e1004016. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016. PMC 3894170. PMID 24453982. Retrieved December 8, 2014. 
  2. ^ a b Thalmann, O.; Shapiro, B.; Cui, P.; Schuenemann, V.J.; Sawyer, S.K.; Greenfield, D.L.; Germonpré, M.B.; Sablin, M.V.; López-Giráldez, F.; Domingo-Roura, X.; Napierala, H.; Uerpmann, H-P.; Loponte, D.M.; Acosta, A.A.; Giemsch, L.; Schmitz, R.W.; Worthington, B.; Buikstra, J.E.; Druzhkova, A.S.; Graphodatsky, A.S.; Ovodov, N.D.; Wahlberg, N.; Freedman, A.H.; Schweizer, R.M.; Koepfli, K.-P.; Leonard, J.A.; Meyer, M.; Krause, J.; Pääbo, S.; Green, R.E.; Wayne, Robert K. (15 November 2013). "Complete Mitochondrial Genomes of Ancient Canids Suggest a European Origin of Domestic Dogs". Science (AAAS) 342 (6160): 871–874. doi:10.1126/science.1243650. Retrieved 24 December 2014. 
  3. ^ Wolpert, Stuart (November 14, 2013), "Dogs likely originated in Europe more than 18,000 years ago, UCLA biologists report", UCLA News Room, retrieved December 10, 2014 
  4. ^ Wang, Xiaoming. Dogs: Their Fossil Relatives and Evolutionary History. Columbia University Press. pp. 233–236. 
  5. ^ Miklósi, Ãdám. Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition. Oxford. p. 167. 
  6. ^ Viegas, Jennifer (January 16, 2014), "Dogs Not as Close Kin to Wolves as Thought", Discovery News, retrieved December 10, 2014 
  7. ^ Yong, Ed (November 14, 2013), "Origin of Domestic Dogs", The Scientist, retrieved December 10, 2014 
You can also link to a study from March 2013 for attributing the East Asian[ origin[7]. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 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 (TalkContributionsLog) 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 Harristalk • 09:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs[edit]

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 Harristalk • 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.[1] 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,[2][3] compared to earlier hypotheses which proposed origins in Eurasia as well as Eastern Asia.[4][5][6] 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.[1][7]

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.[8] 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.[9]

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 (TalkContributionsLog) 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 Harristalk • 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 Harristalk • 03:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Good finding. Our current version also mentions Yakutia. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 14:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Are grey wolves the ancestor of dogs?[edit]

How can the article state grey wolves are not the ancestors of dogs? Recent studies confirmed that they are. Of course they are not descended from modern wolves, they were domesticated more than 18,000 years ago. Pleistocene wolves are still Canis lupus. European dholes are the only other medium to large canid that time, and they are certainly not "wolf or dog-like". Editor abcdef (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello abcdef. Firstly, please identify to me where in this newspaper article the term grey wolf was used - the paragraph and the sentence - instead of "ancient wolf-like animals" as the eminent Professor of Evolutionary Biology at UCLA has stated. Secondly, Freedman 2014 found that the only relationship to the grey wolf is through admixture. This means that we are now not even sure if the ancestor was any type of wolf, and therefore the experts are using the term wolf-like. If you go the Gray wolf page, you will find that there is no claim that it is the ancestor of the dog. Thirdly, see Dog#Taxonomy regarding the derivation of Canis lupus familiaris - just because some publication in North America decided to say that the dog is part of the grey wolf clan without consultation across the scientific community, that does not mean it is so. The term Canis familiaris can still be used, and there are internationally renowned researchers publishing works under that name because they will not accept the wolf designation. Fourth, given that Freedman 2014 had indicated that the only link to the grey wolf is through admixture, the classification in that publication is now a joke and needs to be changed back to Canis familiaris - given time, it will be. Fifth, did you think that the people that helped to compile this page did not understand all of this, that despite all of the scientific publications cited here you know better with a much dumbed-down newspaper article on the Thalmann 2013 study (which appears on the Origin page but you did not bother to read), and that you can just tinker with the first sentence without reading anything on the page because you think that was correct? Sixth, I have had to clean up your similar actions across the Origin page, the Dog page and the Gray wolf page - that is time I could have spent publishing something creative on Wikipedia. Did you think that nobody was watching? Wikipedia is about cooperation, not adversarialism - please change your approach. Regards, William Harristalk • 20:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Please explain what other medium to large canid species existed in Europe 18,000 years ago other than megafaunal wolves, which are Canis lupus, and European dhole. Editor abcdef (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Certainly. The research conducted by Freedman 2014 - which consisted of 30 top evolutionary biologists across 19 universities in 4 continents - found that there was "greater wolf diversity" than exists today. There was a "population bottleneck" at the end of the last ice age that reduced "wolf diversity" by a third. What this means is that there were 3 times as many wolf-like creatures running around then as there is today, in all sorts of shapes and sizes. They are describes as wolf-like canids - but this does not mean that they were wolves, that is just a description so that people today can understand the scientists work. There was the pleistocene wolf who is the direct ancestor of most grey wolves today, referred to as haplotype 2 among the experts. (Haplogroup basically means that some of their genetic material was inherited from a common ancestor). You are correct in that one type was what has recently been referred to as the megafaunal wolf - who is referred to as haplotype 1 - and was morphologically different and as far as we know and has no descendants today. To make things complicated, there are also some haplogroup 1 grey wolves living today, largely in Italy and eastern Europe. This means that they are genetically slightly different to the other grey wolves and probably shared a common ancestor with the megafaunal wolves. Based on the DNA analysis of extinct canids, scientists can infer that there were other canids at this time who have added to the mix (other haplotypes), and one of these would have been the ancestor of the dog, who we have yet to find a fossil of. DNA points to it existing, but we have not found it. Some of this is touched upon in this reference:[10] Of interest, at the same time in North America, the pleistocene coyote was the size of a wolf. Regards, William Harristalk • 21:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, to answer you questions raised with me on other pages recently. The dog was classified from Canis familiaris as Canis lupus familiaris because some time ago, two very bright geneticists discovered that it was genetically close to the grey wolf. One of them said that the grey wolf was its ancestor, and the other said that some wolf-like canid was its ancestor. The dog was then published in a zoological publication as Canis lupus familiaris - a sub-species of the grey wolf, without consultation across the scientific community. However, your friend the Dingo was classified as Canis dingo, a separate species. When Freedman 2014 looked for the ancestor of the dog, that group based it on the genetic analysis of a Basenji and a Dingo. Why would they do that? Because the evolutionary biologists no longer have an interest in a classification system that was designed 2 centuries ago and uses 3 levels of latin classification. They have the multi-billion letter DNA code to work with - they have the dog's name, address and postal code. They regard the Dingo as a dog, and found that the dog is not a grey wolf, its DNA was similar due to cross-breeding. Two of the participants on Freedman were the same two scientists who did the DNA analysis many years ago. One of them proved correct in the long run - the dog is a descendant of a wolf-like canid. So what must the zoologists do to catch up to what we know in the 21st Century? The dog must be reclassified as Canis familiaris, and the dingo a subspecies as Canis familiaris dingo. That would solve your issue with what is going on in some other pages. But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen any time soon - some zoologists made one mistake classifying on the basis of the geneticists work and they are very wary about making another.
Feel free to chat to me about these matters on my talk page, or call me on your talk page by pasting my User name as below, as it is probably not wise to make changes to multiple Wikipedia pages posing the same type of question, only to have you changes reverted when the question could have been simply addressed on a Talk page. This approach helps avoid edit wars, which is against Wikipedia's rules. Regards, William Harristalk • 21:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

North Asia - new section[edit]


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 Harristalk • 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.[1] 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[2] or North Asia[11] 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,[11] and the dog's genetic closeness to modern wolves is due to admixture.[1][7] 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.[11]
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.[12] 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.[9]
Therefore, I seek your view. Regards, William Harristalk • 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 (TalkContributionsLog) 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.[1] Mitochondrial DNA evidence points to a domestication 27,000-40,000 years ago[11] and that most modern dog breeds are closely related to ancient wolf fossils that have been found in Europe[2] and some others with North Asia.[11] 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.[11] The dog's genetic closeness to gray wolves is due to admixture,[1][7] 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.[11]
Regards, William Harristalk • 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 Harristalk • 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[11] or 18,800–32,100 years ago,[2] compared to Nuclear DNA evidence that points to divergence 11,000–16,000 years ago.[1] (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.[1] (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.[11] (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,[2] (Is anybody uncomfortable with the wording of this phrase?)

with nearly all dog breed's genetic closeness to the Gray wolf due to admixture [1] (Is anybody uncomfortable with the wording of this phrase?)

and several arctic dog breeds with the Taymyr wolf of North Asia.[11] (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.[11] (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 Harristalk • 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 Harristalk • 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 Harristalk • 12:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference freedman2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference thalmann2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Wolpert2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Wang, Xiaoming. Dogs: Their Fossil Relatives and Evolutionary History. Columbia University Press. pp. 233–236. 
  5. ^ Miklósi, Ãdám. Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition. Oxford. p. 167. 
  6. ^ Cossins, Dan (May 16, 2013), "Dogs and Human Evolving Together", The Scientist, retrieved January 12, 2014 
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Viegas2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Ovodov, Nikolai D.; Crockford, Susan J.; Kuzmin, Yaroslav V.; Higham, Thomas F. G.; Hodgins, Gregory W. L.; van der Plicht, Johannes (July 28, 2011). "A 33,000-Year-Old Incipient Dog from the Altai Mountains of Siberia: Evidence of the Earliest Domestication Disrupted by the Last Glacial Maximum". PLoS ONE (pages =). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022821. 
  9. ^ a b Germonpré, Mietje; Sablin, Mikhail V.; Stevens, Rhiannon E.; Hedges, Robert E.M.; Hofreiter, Michael; Stiller, Mathias; Despre´s, Viviane R. (2009). "Fossil dogs and wolves from Palaeolithic sites in Belgium, the Ukraine and Russia: osteometry, ancient DNA and stable isotopes". Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2): 473–490. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2008.09.033. 
  10. ^ Pilot, M., Branicki, W., Jędrzejewski, W., Goszczynski, J., Jędrzejewska, B., et al. (2010), Phylogeographic history of grey wolves in Europe, BMC Evol Biol 10: 104
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference skoglund2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference ovodov2011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).