I do agree that this thread has drifted so have started a new thread. I would like to mention the article that I have found in the times on-line written by the respected Richard Dawkins about dog evolution. He is of the opinion that the ancestor of the domestic dog was the "Village Dog" and that variety descended from the wolf. The modern dog was therefore descended from a descendant of the wolf so they do both exist in the same evolutionary line although there was a link in the chain that occured between Wolf and Dog.

He is reviewing work by by the American zoologist Raymond Coppinger on the evolution of the domestic dog. It is a fascinating article which seems to back up much the article mentioned by Veranav.

It can be read at entertainment.timesonline...icle6808173.ece

There is unfortunately a mention of the Russian Fox Farm in the article.

Another facinating finding is that the evolution of the dog was by natural selection and that artificial selection really only started 50-200 years ago.

Ah , thanks for the link - I think , I should repost my link from the other thread here , too , as this seems to be the better/more fitting place , do check out this fascinating website , that I discovered just a little bit ago ( trough the help of one of the founders of Tellington Ttouch ) and am still exploring - here we go

www.nonlineardogs.com/

And , why do you think it is unfortunate that the foxfarm is mentioned ? I always found this , sad as it/ farmed foxes is per se , quite phenomenal , how quickly aimals will change , and how many changes come to be , also drastically in appearance .

verenav wrote:


That article was very interesting, especially the myths part.

I just thought that the details of the fox farming may upset some people.

Is this about breeding dogs and wolves again?
Natural selection was of course the drive behind genes of dogs.
Only the fastest,fittest ,most dominant dogs lived long enough to pass on their genes.
In a world of kill or be killed there was no place for second best.
I must disagree with you though when you say that artificial selection (I take it that you mean man's intervention) is only 50 -200 years old .
I contend that this took place as soon as man found a use for the dog.
As I've heard somewhere before "no job no dog"
The ancient egyptians and the babylonians had dogs and I'm sure they would have picked the best.
There is talk that the earliest running dog is from the middle east and was an ancestor of the saluki and greyhound and dates from about 3000BC.
These dogs were used for hunting and would therefore have been bred for working ability (but I wont start that again)

According to Wiki ..." The current consensus among biologists and archaeologists is that no one can be sure when dogs were domesticated. There is conclusive evidence that dogs genetically diverged from their wolf ancestors at least 15,000 years ago but some believe domestication to have occurred earlier."

Perhaps the 200 years was in reference to the classification of "breeds" a la KC.

With reference to the KC I thought that was founded circa 1900-1924?
So youre basically saying that the dog evolved from the wolf without man's help?

I think that the Times Artcicle was saying that it was "Natural Selection" up until that point and not that man wasn't part of the process.

"So youre basically saying that the dog evolved from the wolf without man's help? "


I think the key word there is "Domestication".

A dictionary definition :

to tame (an animal), esp. by generations of breeding, to live in close association with human beings as a pet or work animal and usually creating a dependency so that the animal loses its ability to live in the wild.

Whenever this happened, natural selection lost it's influence.

From the previous thread there was a lot of talk about the working ability of dogs, hence (no job, no dog) ,but I think it's important to remember that not all dogs are working dogs or ever were. Some of the smaller breeds were bred to keep us warm or just be company and play with the children.

It's not hard to imagine how a runt of a working dog litter might end up as a childs pet and still end up breeding by accident. Humans may not of been sophisticated 15,000 years ago, but the inbuilt need to care for other beings is what helped us survive as a species.

Just read the article on non linear dogs. Now I understand where youre coming from.
Just to take issue with myth 10 (would start a new thread but dont think its got any legs)
about dogs not being heirarchiacal in their society: what a load of bunkum!!
Bones are banned in my house because of the terrible fights they have caused, (stitches and all)
you cant tell me thats because dogs have no dominance over each other in their make-up.

Agreed. Dogs do have a pecking order within their packs. Mine don't fight but a grumble or a growl quickly makes the point to one another (never to me).

Sometimes we humans think we can influence the order of dominance by our own actions, such as feeding the dogs in a certain sequence or making sure we enter doorways before them, etc. I don't think our opinions matter much. Dogs sort their heirarchy amongst themselves.

CiCoch wrote:


No Steve I didn't say that at all as you will see if you re-read my post. What I said was that Dogs had evolved by natural selection and that man was part of that process. Village dogs evolved via flight response time and not by being tamed. The dogs with a high flight response time tended to go hungry and those with a lower one tended to get the best nourishment. They didn't settle with man until we started farming. Even after that they evolved slowly into the breeds that we have today and since then have been subject to artificial selection and further evolution almost "frozen" to conform to the breed standards.
I suggest that you read the article in Times Online by Richard Dawkins.

Robb wrote:


Sorry Robb, I'm not sure what I accused you of saying ... buy it doesn't really matter.
Unfortunatley I don't have enough time to persue all this suggested reading ...
Man starting farming in the paleolithic era around 12,000 years ago, what time period does your reading suggest ?

CiCoch wrote:


I agree with the period 12000 years ago. But even since then natural selection has still played a large roll. Natural selection can still include man in the equation. The article suggests that artificial selection was a fairly recent trend when we started breeding to a more exact standard. I think that the author was saying that the definition of natural and artificial selection does not necessary the same as the wild/domestic definition.

hairybeasty wrote:

It was me that said the above text in response to CiCoch's quote about the "dog genetically diverging from the wolf about 15000 years ago". From the way he wrote the words "genetically diverging" rather than "domesticated and bred from the wolf " it appeared to me that he was trying to say that the process had happened without man's help.
If you read his later post where he says "domestication is the key" it becomes clear...

I think that the latest school of thought says that the dog started to diverge from the Wolf over 30,000 odd years ago. Wolves slowly diverged into "village Dogs" that followed man around having found that scraps from the hunter/gatherer gave a far safer and easier living than hunting for themselves. This was natural selection as the dogs slowly became easier and easier about man's presence and their "Flight Response time" (The time that an animal will stay in its position until fleeing) increased in an evolutionary manner as the shorter that time was the less of man's scraps they could eat. The dogs with the longer flight response times thrived. When man started farming and settled in one place the process of domestication began although they still evolved in a natural manner until relatively recent times that vary from breed to breed depending upon man's influence in the manner that they were bred.

The evolution of the dog therefore happened in 3 distinct stages according to this latest theory. Firstly from Wolves to "Village dogs", secondly from Village Dogs to Domesticated animals and finally (fairly recently) by artificial selection to the breeds we know today.

According to some research released today the small breeds originated in the middle east and must at some stage in history have been imported into the UK where they were bred by man into the small breeds we know today.

Ironstone wrote:


Ironstone, you are right in saying that we can do little to influence the heirachy between the dogs themselves, but we can become the alpha and exert influence over the pack.

It never ceases to amuse and surprise me when two of our dogs growl at each other and threaten to come to blows, and I just have to give a quick low rumbling growl , and they both stop, bow their heads, licking there lips.

I have seen the pack structure work so many times with our dogs and others, I don't think anyone could convince me otherwise.

Robb wrote:



OK I get the bit about how humans had little or no intervention at the time from Wolves to Village dogs, but surely soon as these village dogs became domesticated , then thats where natural selection stopped?

I can't agree that artificial selection started only 200 years ago. It is a documented fact that the ancient britons, romans, greeks and egyptions bred and used "war dogs" in battles. In fact the Romans shipped the Brittania Mastiff type back to Rome because it was superior than their own local "breed" for warfare. I don't think these were naturally occuring.

True CiCoch.Not just "war dogs" either,the first running dogs also originated from the middle east,not sure of the timescale but 3000-4000 BC is documented.

Sorry to be picky Robb but doesnt the Times article state that dogs and wolves did not share the same lineage but were more of distant cousins?
Not that I mean to be a pain but rather if we are to debate I would rather get things sorted before we start .....

Thats the article on nonlineardogs.com that states that, read the times online article which states that wolves --> village dogs --> domestic dogs. On this basis dogs are descended from wolves albeit with an intermediate stage in the middle.

Robb wrote:


OK so even the scientists can't agree on this matter. Should be an interesting debate then.