Ancient sighthounds

[Tsayad 88]

The Russian experiments in fox-breeding are interesting, but not particularly appliccable.

 

To claim that the association required an acquired genetic predisposition to less fear of man requires either a a positive selection pressure amongst animals that did not hunt with man preior to losing their fear, or a belief that learned behaviour can be passed on genetically. Neither seems very probable. Bear in mind that the Russian experiment involved direct human intervention in breeding. Moreover, the "tamer" foxes are expressing genetic traits that are only advantageous to individuals that are already fully protected and provided for by humans.

 

On the contrary, we know of numbers of examples of first-generation "tamed" animals that have lived succesfully with humans without requiring the process that you suggest. They do not necessarily exhibit the temperamental traits that make fully domesticated animals easier and safer for humans to handle, but when animals that are instinctively social are raised in the belief that certain people are their "pack", then they behave naturally in that context.

- Following the leader of their pack.

- Locating game (often small game that needs to be dug or chopped out, not just large game.)

- Indicating the presence of other predators that do not belong to their pack or in their pack's territory. (Guarding)

[Casso 1,261]

not sure what you mean by collective memory, man has a huge effect on animals genetically without intention

 

man has had dramatic effect on all animals just through association, the russian fox experiment showed that once fear became somewhat diluted it had a dramatic effect on genetics causing mutations in a large number of animals ,

 

maybe we're at odds with this because i believe the group hunt in whatever form that may take makes the canine social, not the pack, the pack is for storing tension , the group hunt is for releasing tension,

the reason i know this works is because its how i raise my dogs with no discipline ,what i mean by that is no confrontation between him and i during early learning stages and beyond,,meanwhile building trust all the while, i only start training through drive at maybe 10 months when it develops, and all positive interactions , im not saying its easy and sometimes you feel like kicking the arse of him but i just try to manage the pup until he can take responsibility for his own actions , a puppy is like a loose cannon and just needs to be managed not dominated, but i know in the end he sees me as his access to the hunt and when you control the hunt in the dog you control the dog in the hunt,,

 

the dingo sounds similar to the fox experiment where as some became social, inversely some of the other animals became completely anti social,,

these threads are so labor intensive just to get down a couple of lines and still wondering if we're both talking bout the same thing, best of luck

[Tsayad 88]

Casso...

 

Collective memory is knowledge gathered from the experience of many people over multiple generations. Humans don't need to burn their hand on the hot stove to know that it hurts. We can know this because our parents tell us. Dogs cannot learn this way. They must learn by experience.

 

With respect, mate, genetics doesn't work the way that you seem to think.

 

The fox experiment simply showed that certain genetic traits are linked.

The linked traits are expressed through forced genetic selection. They are not expressed through learned tolerance for human presence. The retention of the natal-coat and soft ears did not occur because humans treated foxes nicely, but because humans selectively bred foxes genetically disposed to those characteristics.

 

But at the end of the day, we've seen it happen the way that I say. We haven't seen it happen your way.

[skycat 6,173]

Interesting comments: but surely the fear of being burnt is instinctive, or inherited somehow? Pups are naturally cautious of a fire: I've never yet seen one stick its nose in my fireplace. Ditto water: most pups won't just rush into water like idiots: they have an inbuilt wariness towards things that might harm them. I'm talking about natural phenomena, not things such as cars. It is this inbuilt, or instinctive, caution towards certain things they find in nature. Another example: most pups automatically rush to grab small furry or feathered things, but put a snake in front of them and their reaction is quite different, even pups which have never seen one before. These have been my experiences at any rate. Even my terriers, who would try and kill anything they find, react with growls and great wariness if we find a harmless grass snake, something that doesn't happen very often. Does this behaviour not suggest some sort of 'collective memory' or genetically inherited attitude? Beware of certain things or you could die?

 

On another note: if talent, or the predisposition to be talented at something, can be inherited, then why not other behaviours? I only have my own dogs to give me examples, but I noticed that when I bred from my Deerhound/Greyhound many years ago, her pup, the one I kept, seemed to have many behaviours and aptitudes in place from the start. In other words, the things that her dam had spent a long time learning, she knew instinctively: like feather for example. I trained the old bitch to retrieve feather from water, something she wasn't naturally good at. At the age of 3 months, (I had 3 of her pups here at the time, two of which were waiting to go to their new homes) all three went straight into the lake and retrieved an old seagull's wing without ever having seen their dam do it.

 

OK, the sire was a good all round dog, but when you see pups doing something naturally, which you know that neither parent has done instinctively, it makes you wonder just how much can be passed on through the genes. A psychologist friend of mine often says, there's so much we still don't know about how genes affect brain activity, and vice versa. It's a big dark area of ignorance in even the most advanced scientific minds.

Edited March 16, 2012 by skycat

[sandymere 8,263]

There are instinctive “fears” for want of a different word, fire, snakes or shadows above you if you’re a field vole, these don’t have to be learned, but you need a large volume of time and selection to get the effect ie a vole that is a little nervy runs at every shadow; another doesn’t, when the kestrel comes the nervy one survives to breed. Over time the behaviour becomes more stylised as one that runs from everything misses opportunity to feed so does less well than one that only runs from shadows above it, basically selective breeding and the basis of the theory of evolution. Man speeds up this process through selection within a small gene pool.

 

Man may well have indirectly brought genetic pressers to bear on certain wolf populations by his expansion into their territories leading to the development of dogs or perhaps the environmental changes that led man to suddenly move out of Africa may also have changed wolves. Either could result in dogs evolving without direct domestication although most likely is the basic farmers who did the deed once they settled.

 

[Casso 1,261]

Casso...

 

Collective memory is knowledge gathered from the experience of many people over multiple generations. Humans don't need to burn their hand on the hot stove to know that it hurts. We can know this because our parents tell us. Dogs cannot learn this way. They must learn by experience.

 

With respect, mate, genetics doesn't work the way that you seem to think.

 

The fox experiment simply showed that certain genetic traits are linked.

The linked traits are expressed through forced genetic selection. They are not expressed through learned tolerance for human presence. The retention of the natal-coat and soft ears did not occur because humans treated foxes nicely, but because humans selectively bred foxes genetically disposed to those characteristics.

 

But at the end of the day, we've seen it happen the way that I say. We haven't seen it happen your way.

there is knowledge in the genes

its not thinking as we know it , it a feeling, a gut feeling we call it, and as skycat mentioned the example of the snake, why should pups be drawn instinctively to manlike and when exposed to such reptiles will act in a certain way akin to learned behavior,

where else can the find it only in the genes,,is instinct knowledge ,if it is where is it from,,

[riohog 5,696]

just on another tack;; generally speacking.. why is it wolves are wary of man .. lernt behavour ? genetic ?

[chartpolski 22,825]

just on another tack;; generally speacking.. why is it wolves are wary of man .. lernt behavour ? genetic ?

 

Why is any wild animal wary of man, Rio ??? Probably because we kill them !! I would assume it's learnt behaviour, because animals that have never been in contact with humans, (the Dodo ?), had no fear, and were soon wiped out.

 

Cheers.

 

Cheers.

[Tsayad 88]

Interesting comments: but surely the fear of being burnt is instinctive, or inherited somehow? Pups are naturally cautious of a fire: I've never yet seen one stick its nose in my fireplace.

 

Skycat...

 

Yes, some things are instinctive. Caution when faced with the unusual is a normal survival instinct.... Which is why arguing that canines gradually became genetically less cautious around humans has problems. Lack of caution in animals that are still wild and not yet under the protection of humans is not a positive survival trait.

 

Let me try a more obvious example of caution that must be learnt instead of being instinctive. Dogs are not normally frightened of a fence. However a dog that has experienced the shock from an electric fence, especially more than once, will be very cautious indeed. (I've seen this repeatedly). However if that dog has pups, the pups will share the original lack of caution, untill they, too, have learnt the hard way.

 

The retrieving behaviour that you noted is easily explained.

Retrieving is an instinctive behaviour. It is genetic. However it is not expressed to the same degree in all individuals. That is why one dog may not retrieve well, while its pup may inherit a greater degree of the instinct from the other parent, or from an ancestor in a previous generation. This is why it is always sensible to buy a pup from working parents,,, because it gives you a far greater chance that the pup has inherited the instincts that you want if both parents have them to a larger degree.

 

That's the way that it works.

The idea that environmental influences - like training, nutrition or surgery - are passed on genetically has been discredited scientifically.

[Casso 1,261]

Interesting comments: but surely the fear of being burnt is instinctive, or inherited somehow? Pups are naturally cautious of a fire: I've never yet seen one stick its nose in my fireplace.

 

Skycat...

 

Yes, some things are instinctive. Caution when faced with the unusual is a normal survival instinct.... Which is why arguing that canines gradually became genetically less cautious around humans has problems. Lack of caution in animals that are still wild and not yet under the protection of humans is not a positive survival trait.

 

Let me try a more obvious example of caution that must be learnt instead of being instinctive. Dogs are not normally frightened of a fence. However a dog that has experienced the shock from an electric fence, especially more than once, will be very cautious indeed. (I've seen this repeatedly). However if that dog has pups, the pups will share the original lack of caution, untill they, too, have learnt the hard way.

 

The retrieving behaviour that you noted is easily explained.

Retrieving is an instinctive behaviour. It is genetic. However it is not expressed to the same degree in all individuals. That is why one dog may not retrieve well, while its pup may inherit a greater degree of the instinct from the other parent, or from an ancestor in a previous generation. This is why it is always sensible to buy a pup from working parents,,, because it gives you a far greater chance that the pup has inherited the instincts that you want if both parents have them to a larger degree.

 

That's the way that it works.

The idea that environmental influences - like training, nutrition or surgery - are passed on genetically has been discredited scientifically.

Go and have a look at Epigenetics, there is no doubt there are environmental effects on genes ,as penny said there is so much we dont know yet and we are still only scratching at the surface,,

Edited March 18, 2012 by Casso

[Tsayad 88]

Go and have a look at Epigenetics, there is no doubt there are environmental effects on genes ,as penny said there is so much we dont know yet and we are still only scratching at the surface,,

 

You are still confusing inherited behaviour with learned behaviour.

 

Epigenetics relates to how the information relating to inherited behaviour is stored, expressed and passed on. When discussing the phenomenon of canine domestication, learned behaviour is still a more reasonable explantion than changes in inherited behaviour.

[Casso 1,261]

Go and have a look at Epigenetics, there is no doubt there are environmental effects on genes ,as penny said there is so much we dont know yet and we are still only scratching at the surface,,

 

You are still confusing inherited behaviour with learned behaviour.

 

Epigenetics relates to how the information relating to inherited behaviour is stored, expressed and passed on. When discussing the phenomenon of canine domestication, learned behaviour is still a more reasonable explantion than changes in inherited behaviour.

im not confusing anything

because i have not stated that environmental influences do not effect the dna of an animal, which we know now to be the case, and not discredited scientifically as you state

until over the next few decades that man can really get a handle on how genetics can be influenced, reasonable explanations are only reasonable to the individual involved,

 

we know wolves are genetically programmed to be social , but instead of looking at what we have in common with this fine animal, you have stated we probably kept wolves as food which in my view is clutching at straws, which do you feel is most reasonable , the wolf became more social through association with man in the hunt, both large predators, both hunt in daylight, both hunt in packs because a pack in needed to take down large game and both social by nature, or he became so tasty on the menu everyone just had to have some, yummy,,

Edited March 19, 2012 by Casso

[Tsayad 88]

Sorry, but you don't understand genetic selection and you seem to have stopped listening.

 

When I can point to a number of cultures that put canine on the menu by choice , not merely necessity (which all hunter-gatheres face from time to time) is is far from grasping at straws to note that this is one very plausible scenarion in which a primitive man might raise an immature canine. Denying this is denying the obvious.

 

What is also obvious, is that man is far more intelligent and adaptable than canines, good as they are, so it is far more plausible that the initiative for domestication came from mankind. Not some kind of vague mutual understanding arising over multiple generations.

 

Thirdly, domestication is far more likely to have been initiated via the adoption of an immature canine - for whatever reason, even if it isn't as romatic as the idea of a growing friendship. It. Has. Been. Done. Many, many times... Why deny the probability that what has proven succesful so often was the succesful route the first time around?

 

Pardon me if I grow a little terse, but I live and work with animals. They are not people, they are not our equals, and - for all the enjoyment we get from them - an anthropomorphic view of them hinders accuracy, rather than helping it.

[hutch6 550]

Formidable Skycat! Have you ever asked yourself why anyone would want to live in a cave? Cold, damp, dark holes that they are! Light a fire and smoke yourself out! Yet everyone accepts we had 'Caveman' ancestors. Also, cave art is hardly George Stubbs or Charles Tunnicliffe is it? I wouldn't like to try and draw too many conclusions from it. However, I like your logic. I don't think my bitches would stand still to have their vulva stapled, by the way! But I digress! Have you ever considered that the Classification of Canines might be incomplete! At the moment it stops at 'Species'. If you look a little closer to home eg Man, you can see that we are a species sub-divided into obvious RACES ie Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongaloid. Other animals have similar relationships eg you can cross a domestic cat with a Bengal cat , or a Scottish Wildcat and still get fertile off-spring. Is it possible that the Dolichocephalic type of dog was a seperate Race of canine, possibly originating in the Middle East? As I mentioned, the Egyptians hunted with both Greyhounds and Cheetahs. Do you suggest that the Cheetah evolved from another type of cat by selective breeding? Or might it be an 'Original' type?

 

The beauty and primitive qualities that caves appealed to man are they are sheltered from the elements and there is only one front to defend - the entrance - making them ideal readymade shelters. If you are sleeping out in the bush exposed on all sides are safe? No. You will always have a blind side and that blind side will see it deep inside that you get no sleep.

 

We originated from the plains of Africa (or China depending on which carbon tests you believe) where there are wild hunting dogs, jackals, hyenas, foxes, wolves and all manner of other species we could have selected. The only issue is that the land is arid, not very fertile and early species of man were forced to be nomadic in order to feed - things definitely grow in a season down there and once it's gone it's gone until the beginning of the next dry season.

As man dispersed more fertile lands were discovered and it was then that the very first human settlements of any kind were formed. So a population has gone from the relatively confined space of the African plains into the Middle East and possibly straight across what is now the Med Sea into southern Europe.

 

Wolves are pack animals but they are not pack animals that form social groups for the greater good. The pack is made up of the breeding adults and the rest are their offspring. The whole dominant Alpha male/female is rubbish that was created when captive wolves were observed but the wolves that were captured were from different packs so had never met before so had to fight it out to form some kind of order. A wolf family pack which is the natural pack hardly has any outbreaks of aggression at all as they are all related and working towards the common good of bringing on more offspring. Every so often a young female or male will drop off to form a new breeding pair with a partner from a local pack to their territory a transient wolf that risks great danger by passing through these territories. Once the pair is established they have to locate to a new territory or fight for the territory they wish to use. This stops inbreeding within the established pack (they are all family) and if they survive to form a pack of their own then they are of good breeding stock themselves with knowledge, cunning, health and strength so ideal for maintaining the future of the wolf.

If you have ever tried to locate wild wolves you will soon realise that most animals on this planet they have an inbuilt fear of man and any slight inclination you are about they will be 5miles from you before you've had a chance to get your camera out. Having this inbuilt response to man makes them very different to dogs which have an opposite inbuilt inclination which makes them seek out human company (regardless of how much your dog doesn't want to come back). This inbuilt fear of man is what scientists and biologist called the "Wild gene". If you breed wolves their offspring will always be wild, no amount of domestication can be done to tame or turn them domestic. If you breed a wolf and a dog, not only will they produce fertile offspring but some will carry the wild gene, some won't and some will be what appears to be in between. No amount of breeding of wolves will ever produce domestic offspring because they will always be born with the wild gene with it being passed from generation to generation.

The founders of the Wolf Center (should be centre of course) in California have run trial after trial of trying to domesticate the wolves they breed on their programmes by taking pups from 1hr old to 14weeks old and placing them in constant human custody with hand feeding etc. and yet when the cubs reach between 9-14months they become too unruly and flighty to domesticate. They have managed to get wolves to be reasonably hand tame but they will always have a weariness around humans.

They did a test where they kept a litter of wolf cubs and a litter of collie pups in pens which were enclosed within a compound. After a few days the keepers noticed paw prints outside the enclosures. They set up surveillance and watched what happened. The wolf cubs had worked out how to unlock their compound and then unlock the gate leading out of the whole enclosure. The collies sat there happy and merry whilst the wolf cubs wanted out and worked out how to do it. That was full chain link and latch fastened gates which i don’t think early man had at his disposal so taking wild wolves, penning them and breeding them just doesn't wash with me.

 

So the theory goes that if you match the two together then you get the following.

 

Man started farming circa 50,000 years ago meaning there were settlements which resulted in accumulated waste. The amount of waste attracted all manner of creatures to feed of the scraps and human waste as well as the produce and crops. In turn this abundance of prey attracted in the wolf. With a ready source of food the wolf over time would have become accustomed to the sound of man, the scent of man and seen us as the not so scary species we were. These settlements would have become of great value to the wolf and this territory would have been fought over and defended by the family pack with great vigour because of the opportunities it presented for being able to raise a full litter without much worry of lack of prey or food to scavenge (wolves are big scavengers). The acclimatisation to humans would have been passed down generation after generation as a culture almost until the proximity of man and wolf became so close they were within constant site of one another. It is from this step that man saw what the wolf was doing and the benefit it provided with hunting pests that were eating produce and crops and defending the settlement from other wolf packs. It is only logical that the next step would be man and wolf hunting side by side. Once this happens then man gets to choose who breeds with who and due to the availability of food and resource all year round that is probably how the dual breed cycle came into being rather than the wolf's single one.

[Tsayad 88]

Hutch...

 

As I said before, in this continent, the sole occupants prior to European settlement were nomadic hunter-gatherers. Yet they had domesticated canines that were indistinguishable from wild canines in the same area. This is observed and recorded history, not inferred history from 50,000 years ago.

 

Secondly, I am a farmer. It doesn't matter whether you are talking modern farming, or primitive farming and herding as practiced in Africa to this day, farmers and large predators do not live together comfortably. To the predator, the farmer is not a source of scraps and pests, he is a source of livestock. Livestock that are very valuable and which must be protected.

 

In farming country, wild game is not more common, but less. Farmers kill off or exclude wild game, because wild game destroy the crops and pastures that we need for our stock. Stock are generally easier prey for predators, not harder, so we must kill off or exclude predators. The only predators that flourish under agriculture are those that are too small to threaten our livestock. Foxes and feral cats do OK, but not large canines that hunt bigger things than mice.

 

You might also pause to consider that everyagricultural society of which we have decent records has a history of hunting large predators in order to protect their livestock (and family members). Whether it is modern Masai or ancient Egyptions. Why do you think that wolves are extinct in England and so rare in western Europe and much of the US, if there is a benefit to farmers of living with wolves.

 

As a further aside, the more "primitive" an agricultural society is, the fewer scraps it produces. Hunter-gatherers produce excess because they sometimes kill more than they can carry, store or eat-on-the-spot. But farmers don't.