Talk:Domestication of the dog

Natufian

The Natufian culture article makes a dig domestication claim citing this source. I do not see this previous discussed in this talk archive or in the article currently.

• Clutton-Brock, Juliet (1995), "Origins of the dog: domestication and early history", in Serpell, James (ed.), The domestic dog: its evolution, behaviour and interactions with people, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-41529-3

Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your interest. You might like to refer to the updated 2016 2nd edition, of which JCB's chapter is available in Google Books. The findings at Ain Mallaha (Eynan) and Ha Yonim terrace, Israel appear under the article Paleolithic dog, as do many other interesting findings. The domestication debate has moved back much further in time than these specimens. William Harris (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Purported "size of a village dog" for ancestral wolf population

"An extinct Late Pleistocene wolf may have been the ancestor of the dog, with one study proposing that this Pleistocene wolf was closer in size to a village dog." This claim implies that dogs may descend from a particularly small Pleistocene wolf.

The link accompanying this notion leads to a paper about foxes that, in turn, links to the paper A wolf in dog's clothing: Initial dog domestication and Pleistocene wolf variation. The fox article author even directly says that "Modern dogs, however, <...> may be descended from a Pleistocene wolf closer in size to a village dog". The original paper (it's behind a paywall, but you all know how to read it), however, says nothing about dogs descending from a smaller subspecies of wolves, or even about Pleistocene wolves being of specific size. All it says is that Pleistocene wolves were highly variable and some of the proposed "early dog remains" could actually be wolves with uncharacteristic phenotypes, so we should be careful when claiming that "a new find moves dog domestication date to 30000 BC". Руккенхоф (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your reading the article and its supporting references. Rather than "a paper about foxes", it is a paper about domestication syndrome, which is a biological process thought by some researchers to underly domestication; its application/rebuttal to the domesticated silver fox is discussed. I agree with you that Perri 2016 did not explicitly state that the dog descended from small Pleistocene wolves, but did state that there was much variation in size. Lord 2020 did explicitly state that the dog MAY have descended from a Late Pleistocene wolf closer in size to a village dog.

Do I understand correctly that you would like this statement removed from the article? William Harris (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I honestly think it's misleading, especially since Lord 2020 bases his claim on Perri 2016 (I was initially very excited and started digging only to learn that there is nothing like that in Perri 2016). Or at least we should rewrite it so it's closer to the truth, something like "An extinct Late Pleistocene wolf may have been the ancestor of the dog, with one study showing that these Pleistocene wolves varied in size and appearance, with some specimens being hard to distinguish from early domesticated dogs.", and change the link accordingly (no need to link an essentially unrelated article about domestication). Руккенхоф (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it best to remove it altogether. If Lord et al know something - and statements like this from such a respected group of researches usually indicate that something more is coming - then we can wait for that to be revealed. Thanks for raising this matter; I think your recommendation improves the article. William Harris (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit Protected since 2013

Maybe it's time to give it a try. --84.132.144.110 (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. I've unprotected it. – Joe (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! --84.132.144.110 (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 24 March 2022

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear consensus to move these titles and make them consistent. Internal scope concerns can be addressed through regular editing. BD2412 T 03:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Origin of the domestic dog → Domestication of the dog
• Evolution of the domesticated cat → Domestication of the cat
• Evolution of domestic goats → Domestication of the goat
• History of the domestic sheep → Domestication of the sheep

– This set of articles is inconsistently named though they all cover the same theme. That theme is domestication, a well-defined co-evolutionary process which ought to be in the title. Domestication of the... seems the most natural and concise way to describe the topic, and is in line with the common phrasing in literature (e.g. [1]). It also uses the singular form.

Related articles already following this pattern:

• Domestication of animals (parent article)
• Domestication of the Syrian hamster
• Domestication of the horse

The alternatives Evolution of... and History of... are a bit misleading since they imply a focus on the species' pre- and post-domestication history, respectively. Origin of the domestic... is just unnecessarily clunky, using four words where one would do. They're not terrible titles, but consistency across a topic is always desirable would be easy to achieve here. – Joe (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Courtesy pings for participants in a prior discussion at Talk:Evolution of the domesticated cat#Requested move 27 February 2022: @An anonymous username, not my real name and PaleAqua:. – Joe (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. The scope of this article is broader than domestication of the dog. Unlike most (all?) other domestic animals, where the domestic form is nested within the wild form phylogenetically, the dog lineage split from the wolf much earlier and domestication occurred later. The opening sentence of the lede defines the coverage as "The origin of the domestic dog includes the dog's genetic divergence from the wolf, its domestication, and the emergence of the first dogs". The genetic divergence and domestication are separate subtopics. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think that's unique. The recent evolutionary history of the wild progenitor is a necessary part of the story of domestication of any animal and covered in most of the above articles. The title change won't imply a change of scope because the current title of this article is "Origin of the domestic dog". I might agree if it were "Origin of the dog", but I don't think the evolution of Canis familiaris 40–15 ka (origin of the dog) and the evolution of Canis familiaris 15–0 ka (domestication of the dog) are distinct enough topics to deviate from a consistent title convention. If I'm wrong, then I'd suggest Origin and domestication of the dog would be more precise and at least partially consistent with the others. – Joe (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

To my knowledge the dog is unique because the domestication occurred on a lineage that is distinct from the wild modern wolf. It would be considered a separate species or subspecies even if domestication hadn't occurred. All other domestications occurred from a subset of the wild species and treatment as a separate species is largely an artificial convenience (e.g. for conservation purposes). So I don't think the argument for consistency applies when the cases are so different.

On a pedantic note, it could be argued that "domestication of the dog" would be the only accurate title in a standardised group of titles as it was a "dog" (the wild dog lineage) that was domesticated. On the other hand, it was not a cat that was domesticated, it was a wild cat that was domesticated and became the domestic cat. Similarly wild boars were domesticated and became what we call pigs.

I wouldn't object to Origin and domestication of the dog, although a standardisation on Evolution of the domestic dog/cat/goat might be better. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support as a way to more clearly and consistently define the topic scope of these articles. To Jts1882's point, I think pre-domestication evolutionary divergence would be better suited for the main article about the biological species (dog/Canis familiaris, for example) so that readers looking for information on the domestication sub-topic can find a more focused article. Of course, there will be inevitable overlap and cross-linking between the articles as there is now. I also would more strongly support titles that use the plural forms as a slightly better and more concise alternative (Domestication of dogs, Domestication of sheep, etc.) to be similar to Domestication of animals itself. -- Netoholic @ 22:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC) (updated)

Dog is Over-WP:SIZE now, so I don't know how this proposal is supposed to work. 14.2.206.229 (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Jts1882 is correct, the article covers both the evolution of the dog (prior to domestication) and the domestication of the dog from a long extinct relative of the modern wolf, together they form its "origin". The article was proposed to be split twice in 2015 and one of split elements proposed was the "domestication of the dog", but it remains unified so it should not be moved to the proposed target. I remain open to Origin and domestication of the dog or similar. Cavalryman (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC).
• Support the standardization; the proposed titles are nicely concise and accurate. As a note, evolution and domestication are rather different things and I question that they should be covered in the same article. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support I also think it needs to be simple and consistent as suggested by nom. >>> Extorc.talk 18:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The said standard should be maintained. desmay (talk)
• Assuming a rescoping of the article to only the domestication, then yes, support. Red Slash 21:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Keeps the titles consistent and the scopes narrow. Steel1943 (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Conflicting Dates for Earliest Evidence

Statements in the Article

• In 2021, a literature review of the current evidence infers that domestication of the dog began in Siberia 26,000-19,700 years ago...

• The dog diverged from a now-extinct population of wolves 27,000-40,000 years ago immediately before the Last Glacial Maximum, when much of the mammoth steppe was cold and dry.

• The oldest known dog skeletons are found in the Altai Mountains of Siberia and a cave in Belgium, dated ~33,000 years ago. According to studies, this may indicate that the domestication of dogs occurred simultaneously in different geographic locations.

Comment

If this info can be harmonized to a comprehensive explanation that includes all the dates, it would be much clearer. FWIW, as it is, I find it confusing. PixelDroid (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no "harmonized", no matter how frustrating we all find it. These are individual genetic studies looking at specific specimens. Each is looking at different aspects in a specific way, and their studies are using different genetic mutation rates which imply different time periods. These researchers need to come to an agreement on using just one mutation rate to time all specimens. (They should be using the mutation rate of Skoglund's Taimyr wolf - researchers have the undeniable mutation rate of a Pleistocene-era wolf date 35,000 years old). Until then, there is no harmonious story despite how much it is needed in the scientific world, not to mention Wikipedia. As WP editors, we are required to take a Neutral Point of View WP:POV and express all points of view.

"Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it."

So what have we actually got? The earliest specimen of an accepted dog is the Bonn-Oberkastel dog dated 14,200 years old (refer article). Both genetic and morphological analysis state it is a dog. We also have a specimen from the Altai mountains dated 33,000 years old of which some morphologists say is a dog, some a wolf, and the same genetic study show it to be a dog on 2 tests and a wolf on another two tests. Therefore, if we were looking for the ancestor of the dog we would be looking for a specimen just like this, only not everyone agrees. All of the other genetic research given in the article involves chasing phylogenetic ghosts through mathematical models based on probability! These only INDICATE, they do not PROVE, and all of them are not quite as solid as the two specimens that we can hold in our hands. Regards, 14.2.205.177 (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)