Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

Scientists Close To Solving the Mystery of Where Dogs Came From 167

sciencehabit writes: For years researchers have argued over where and when dogs arose. Some say Europe, some say Asia. Some say 15,000 years ago, some say more than 30,000 years ago. Now an unprecedented collaboration of archaeologists and geneticists from around the world is attempting to solve the mystery once and for all. They're analyzing thousands of bones, employing new technologies, and trying to put aside years of bad blood and bruised egos. If the effort succeeds, the former competitors will uncover the history of man's oldest friend — and solve one of the greatest mysteries of domestication.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Close To Solving the Mystery of Where Dogs Came From

Comments Filter:
  • by tverbeek ( 457094 ) on Friday April 17, 2015 @09:35AM (#49492755) Homepage

    One thing we've known for a long time is that a good half of them are sons of bitches.

  • All the dog archaeologists and geneticists around the world must be thrilled they have something to do...
  • by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday April 17, 2015 @09:38AM (#49492777)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by FizzyP ( 3891957 ) on Friday April 17, 2015 @09:39AM (#49492791)
    ...the answer isn't bitches?
  • ...and trying to put aside years of bad blood and bruised egos.

    Wow, who would have thought there was so much glory in being the 'origins of dog' guy.

  • Bitches...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17, 2015 @09:46AM (#49492859)

    How exactly did humans get domesticated by cats.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DaveyJJ ( 1198633 )
      Bastet (praise be her name) is very powerful. Domesticating the hairless ape species into becoming nothing more than servants/staff for her creatures was less work than a languid stretch in a sunbeam.
    • Dogs have masters. Cats have staff. (and no one knows who really said that first)
      • Dog think they're family. Cats think they're God. -- Origin unknown

        • Perhaps it was the typo that is causing you to not be able to find the original quote. ;)

          • Perhaps it was the typo that is causing you to not be able to find the original quote. ;)

            Yup. Corrected quote (still without a source):

            Dogs think they're humans. Cats think they're God.

  • Oh dear... (Score:5, Funny)

    by wonkey_monkey ( 2592601 ) on Friday April 17, 2015 @09:56AM (#49492923) Homepage

    Really? Do we have to have this conversation? Okay...

    When a mummy dog and a daddy dog love each other very much, mummy dog gives daddy dog a special piggy back ride...

    • by Anonymous Coward

      You forgot the part where mummy dog rises from the temple at the request of King Tut.

  • So, after they have solved this conundrum can they then focus their attention on breeding out the need for dogs to lick their balls?

    But given the state of the competitive behavior in academic circles we will instead end up knowing WHY dogs lick their balls...

    Over and out!

    • Re:TGIF (Score:5, Funny)

      by Mikkeles ( 698461 ) on Friday April 17, 2015 @10:13AM (#49493095)

      ...we will instead end up knowing WHY dogs lick their balls...

      Because they can.

      • I see some have answered "Because they can" and it seems I was too obtuse...

        When has common knowledge stopped academic research into things.. :)

        Time for another beer!

    • Re:TGIF (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pubwvj ( 1045960 ) on Friday April 17, 2015 @10:14AM (#49493105)

      If you could reach you would too and you wouldn't get anything else done. This flexibility is why dogs never achieved the great advances of mankind like space flight and nuclear bombs. Imagine if men were that flexible...

    • Re:TGIF (Score:5, Funny)

      by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Friday April 17, 2015 @10:16AM (#49493119)

      But given the state of the competitive behavior in academic circles we will instead end up knowing WHY dogs lick their balls...

      Over and out!

      Because they can!

      Two guys were walking down the street, and notice a dog sitting there licking it's balls, giving them a real workover.

      One says to the other "Gee, I really wish I could do that." Other one replies, "Don't you think you should check with the dog first?"

    • It is either: OVER or OUT. Not both. Only in bad movies they say both.

    • by cfalcon ( 779563 )

      You're joking, but it really would be nice if dog breeds were bred for stuff like "lives a long healthy life" instead of "skin folds on face".

      • Some are so long as they are fairly modern and a working breed. From what I understand the brittany is and they seem to be a wonderful animal. One that has the hunt instinct will look forward to it and knows what it looks like when you are getting ready to go and wants in the truck. They also have a great temperament and from what I have seen and read don't seem to have the health problems that other older breeds have.
  • Dogs come from dogs, and cats come from cats. You never see a cat coming from a dog, or a duck from a crocodile. God made each animal as it's own kind. /s
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I think there is enough evidence to suggest that domestication happened independently in at least three different places: Eurasia, Australia and America. Why are they trying to narrow it to a single place?

    • Why are they trying to narrow it to a single place?

      Surely one place is best. And each scientist who studies dogs wants the pick of the litter.

      • Given modern experimental evidence that wild foxes can be domesticated in a few generations (that includes physical changes, most notably non-erect ears), multiple site domestication is quite plausible.

        There are also several modern examples of wild fox newborns raised as pets without significant problems.

        • There are also several modern examples of wild fox newborns raised as pets without significant problems.

          Evidently they've never been put in charge of the hen house. Or elected to Congress.

          (since you missed my last joke [which, admittedly, wasn't that good], I thought I'd try another one :-)

        • But Foxes are neither Dogs nor Wolves, they are related to Cats.

          • by Smauler ( 915644 )

            Whilst technically true, your statement is also misleading (if you meant to imply foxes are more closely related to cats than they are to dogs). Wolves, jackals, dogs and foxes are all Canids [wikipedia.org]. Foxes are also more closely related to seals, otters, skunks, weasels, red pandas, bears and walruses than they are to cats (the Caniformia [wikipedia.org] suborder contains all these, felines are in a different suborder).

            You may be thinking of Hyenas, which are more closely related to cats than dogs.

            • The modern taxinomy might call them canids, but they are not related in any way to them, besides being mamals.
              By coevolution they look like dogs, but they aren't. Ofc they are not felidae either.

          • by cfalcon ( 779563 )

            What?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]

            Foxes are very close to dogs and wolves.

        • That was a pretty interesting study, and does show that the underlying behaviors of canids and humans have some degree of compatibility and overlap, and it does not require a large amount of breeding to produce domesticated canids. The fox experiments (I think they were done in Russia) demonstrate that the domestication of wolf progenitor populations into dogs was probably fairly rapid, which also raises the likelihood (strongly hinted it in the molecular data) that there were multiple wolf domestication ev

      • by pubwvj ( 1045960 )

        The evidence for multiple domestications is overwhelmingly strong. Denial of it is like climate change denial. There may always be someone with their pet unified domestication theory but it's simply wrong.

        • It was just a joke, I say a joke son.

          (As senior rooster ’round here, it’s my duty, and my pleasure, to instruct junior roosters in the ancient art of roostery.)

    • I think there is enough evidence to suggest that domestication happened independently in at least three different places: Eurasia, Australia and America. Why are they trying to narrow it to a single place?

      Since the dog is supposed to be the first animal domesticated, maybe we're overlooking something unique. Maybe it's not just the dogs that could get along well with humans had a greater chance of surviving, but also that humans who could get along well with dogs also had a greater chance of surviving. There's no reason why natural selection wouldn't prefer such an evolutionary preference in both humans and dogs. It's not like humans are immune to the effects of natural selection.

      • I'd say that's a good point, and probably not necessarily overlooked. In Guns, Germs, and Steel the author makes a point about animal domestication as a precursor for dominant cultures. He had an amusing example of how different history would have gone for Africans if rhinos could've been domesticated into cavalry. In tribal conflict a pack of loyal dogs would be a huge boon to those that had them. Dogs also tend to be very protective of human children in my anecdotal experience.
        • Dogs are instinctively protective of babies and children. Every family with kids should have a big mutt to prevent child abuse.

          Dogs and humans are also the only animals known that prefer the other species company to their own species.

  • by pubwvj ( 1045960 ) on Friday April 17, 2015 @10:19AM (#49493147)

    There is a huge amount of evidence that domestication did not happen once or in one place but many times in many places around the world. This evidence points back as far as about 135,000 years and as close as about 15,000 years for each of these events in time where wolves domesticated humans. It is speculated that wolves did this for two reasons: fire and thumbs for scratching.

    It is not surprising that there would be multiple domestications. A human plus a wolf are far more powerful at defense and offense, at hunting and guarding than either species alone. Our social structures are very parallel and our physical abilities complement each other.

    • by Puff_Of_Hot_Air ( 995689 ) on Friday April 17, 2015 @10:52AM (#49493489)
      If you read the article (I know, I know), you would have seen that the evidence for multiple domestication events can be misleading (as was first believed in pigs, and then disproved). This research will hopefully get to the bottom of it.
      • by pubwvj ( 1045960 )

        Yes, I did read the article and still see strong evidence and logic for the multiple domestication. For example, some strong domestication results are within the 15K BP timeframe but people also took domestic dogs with them to Australia which is much greater than that frame. It's complex. I doubt this will solve it.

        • The dingo only originated about 5000 years ago (a dog that hopped on a boat from Asia). It's a dog gone wild, nothing to do with the original domestication/s.
          • by pubwvj ( 1045960 )

            Yes, that's the point but your date is off. The immigration to Australia included dingos but was further back.

    • Now, this is a theory, a thesis. It seems plausible, but you haven't advanced any data to see if it is indeed true.

      This is precisely what these folks are trying to do.

  • This is all well and good, but are we any closer to knowing who let them out?!?!?!?!?
  • I guess this question logically follows after knowing that all dogs go to heaven. At least in the movies...

  • which one? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sshir ( 623215 ) on Friday April 17, 2015 @11:21AM (#49493717)
    It took only 50 years to domesticate fox in that russian experiment [wikipedia.org]

    Thus it would be a surprise if dog domestication happened only once.

    • Everybody should know that dogs are domesticated WOLVES not FOXs.

      • by cfalcon ( 779563 )

        He does, and so do the Russians that domesticated foxes. His point is that if foxes domesticate so rapidly, wolves likely do as well.

        • Ofc they do, you need perhaps ten to twelve generations.

          However foxes become more dog like and lose their 'foxyness', at least that happened in Russia (I assume you refer to those 'blue foxes').

          • Exactly, and wolves lost their 'wolveness' and become what we call today dogs.

            • Erm, I don't see much difference between a wolf and a dog.
              The foxes in russia, became like dogs, too. That us what I mean they lost their foxyness ... a dog and a wolf are extremely similar, a domesticated fox and a ferral fox are not, domesticated foxes even bark like dogs.

    • The Russian experiment was extremely interesting for a number of reasons (the way floppy ears and lower brain capacity came with selecting against aggression for example. There is evidence to suggest that humans have self-domesticated over the years leaving us friendlier, cuter, and a bit dimmer than our distant ancestors; but I digress), but it's hard to see how it has much to do with the original domestication of the dog (you need cages and scientists and 50 years of a completely useless animal before you
      • Well, the standing hypothesis for domestication is that it wasn't really conscious, it just happened to be beneficial for both species - but for wolves first. Presumably they started by scavenging on edible remains left in the vicinity of human camps. The wolves that were less shy (so they approached the camps more) and exhibited less aggressiveness (so they would be chased away less) had an evolutionary advantage in that population, and so they bred for those traits. At some point that could have produced

      • by sshir ( 623215 )
        Simple - wolves are useful even in untamed form for defense: put one on a chain (well, rope) to growl at everybody approaching. Then allow captive ones to breed because capture is labor intensive. Then ask your kids who are playing with pups which one to keep (cute, friendly and cuddly of course) . ...and BAM! You've got a dog!
        • by dwye ( 1127395 )

          For a rather leisurely definition of BAM. It took around ten generations for the silver foxes, so I expect that it took a lot more generations for any wolf devoing to produce an acceptable "hound" that could be brought into the camp (after all, the hunters didn't KNOW how to do it before they tried).

  • I mean they have been repeatedly asking who let the dogs out. But I thought no one cared. Looks like there is a scientist who cared. Good for him or her.
  • Oblig. Joke (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Friday April 17, 2015 @11:58AM (#49493999) Journal

    Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac?

    He stayed up all night wondering if there is a Dog.

  • Alex, The question is "Who let the dogs out?"

  • The Far Side answered this years ago:

    https://overthehedgeblog.files... [wordpress.com]

  • Dogs Flew Spaceships!

    The Aztecs Invented the Vacation!

    Men and Women are the Same Sex!

    Our Forefathers Took Drugs!

    Your Brain Is Not the Boss!

    Yes, that's Right: Everything You Know Is Wrong!!! [youtube.com]

    Hello seekers! Here we go again! And hello to the skeptic inside you who might still believe that pigs live in trees, and that faithful Rovers is nothing more than a pet sleeping by the doggie door. Well, doggone it, he's smarter than you'll ever be! Yes, I've got proof here that his ancestors came from the D

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Working...