Raymond and Lorna Coppinger’s new book, What is a Dog? makes a compelling case for the “village dog” or “street dog” as THE dog, not a random collection of mongrels and strays.
“We will argue that they [street dogs] are the real dogs, the ancestral type of our modern breeds. They are unique and beautifully designed by evolution…. part of a continuous worldwide and ancient population of dogs. They are much more ancient than any “ancient breed.”
The authors support this contention, which I would agree has a great deal of merit, with general principles of behavioral ecology and their own experiences with “street, village and dump” dogs around the world. The perspective that they have gained from their travels and research around the world provides them a unique perspective, and this resulting book is well worth our attention and careful consideration.
I was especially interested in their discussion of the behavioral ecology of street dogs and the dogs’ relationship with people. While wolves and other wild canids feed their young long after weaning, “domestic dogs” do not. The Coppingers state that although puppies in areas like the Mexico City dump are fat and well fed, and the adults seem to be in good condition, one sees few juvenile dogs. They argue that the juvenile dogs need more calories than adults, and aren’t able to obtain them unless they attach themselves to people and follow them home at night. Thus, dogs are dependent upon people no matter where they live, and no matter what age. If there’s not enough food in garbage heaps or food scraps to go around, dogs can always attach themselves to people, especially when they are still young, cute and hard to resist.
There is no question that dogs appear to be reliant on humans, whether from our food scraps, latrines, (sorry, just a fact) or commercial dog food. However, most dogs in the world can not be considered “pets.” I’ve had the same experience as the authors when asking someone in Africa (in Maasai villages in my case) “is that is your dog?” The answer is usually yes, but “my dog” means something very different from the way we generally use the phrase. As the Coppinger’s say, the weeping willow in my yard is also “my tree,” but only because it’s in my yard. I’ve no more named it than I have the weeds underneath it. Most of the people I asked had no name for the dog, and the dog looked hesitant to get anywhere near them. When I asked the Maasai why they had dogs, many of whom appeared to be starving, they said “because they bark when the lions come and threaten our cattle”. The dogs that we imagine when we hear the word “dog” are actually in a minority, and, the authors argue, are the result of artificial selection on the world’s “real dogs,” the street and village dogs of the world.
I do have some quibbles about the book. Although a discussion of behavioral ecology is important to the book, the sections could use some judicious editing. In other sections, statements are made that appear to be contradicted later in the book. (Street dogs are all said to look alike, and then, later, they are not.) The authors disagree with most geneticists that dogs and wolves are subspecies and closely related, but provide little information on their beliefs about the origin of the dog. Dogs “kidnapped” (their words) from street life and adopted to a pet’s life in first world countries are sent to an “. . .ostensibly dull life. . .” yet they say elsewhere that they don’t believe that dogs can be bored.
That said, I’d recommend reading this book if you are interested in the evolution and ecology of the dog, as well as what should be done about the vast numbers of dogs who are not pets worldwide. The Coppingers, as they often do, have given us a lot to think about. Good for them.
Dawn of the Dog: The Genesis of a Natural Species by Janice Koler-Matznick, just arrived on my desk recently and is a book I am very much looking forward to reading in full. I can’t yet find it on the usual book sellers, but based on a quick perusal, Ms. Koler-Matznick has made an important contribution to the question, “who and what is a dog?” It’s clear that she makes the same argument as the Coppinger’s, that dogs are not derived from wolves but are a “unique natural species” on their own. (But they still have to come from somewhere, right?) The book is richly illustrated, clearly written and appears to contain a wealth of information about the dog and its relatives. Koler-Matznick’s focus is not on street dogs, but on the dingo, the canid she’s been studying for decades. I’ll find out where you can get a copy of this book, because it looks very much like it deserves attention. Stayed tuned.
[Addendum about Dawn of the Dog, added 8-2-16] I’ve spent some time reading through Dawn of the Dog since writing this blog yesterday, and want to add that this book contains a wealth of scientific information that deserves our attention. Koler-Matznick argues that dogs and wolves share ancestors, but that dogs were generalist “predators and scavengers more omnivorous than the wolf.” In that sense her book follows Coppinger’s, but she does not agree that dogs “began” as creatures adapting to the new niche of human community, but that dogs existed, as sister species of wolves, long before humans began to live in large enough communities to create garbage dumps.
One of my criticisms of the Coppinger book is that it is light on science, and heavy on anecdotes and speculation. Dawn of the Dog, on the other hand, is well-researched and full of the kind of citations that make its arguments compelling. Having looked at both books now, I’d argue that both the Coppingers and Koler-Matznick make convincing arguments that dogs are, and have been, their own species for a very long time, but Dawn of the Dog contains the science that suggests how that might have happened. I just found out that the ISBN # of the book is: ISBN-978-0-9974902-0-6. It’s official pub date is August 15th, but you can order it from any bookseller.
MEANWHILE, back on the farm: The midsummer flowers are beginning to fade, and the birds and insects are getting all the nutrition that they can from them. One of my perennial gardens has a lot of Bee Balm in it, and the hummingbirds couldn’t get enough of it’s nectar. Two female Ruby Throats spent no small amount of energy chasing each other off in between bouts of feeding.
That wasn’t all who visited the flowers. Five or six hummingbird moths, Hemaris Thysbe, visited too, along with numerous species of bees, wasps and flies. I watched for interactions between the hummers (bird versus insect), but they each appeared to ignore each other. That’s to be expected, resource guarding is generally between members of the same species. I wonder if each species is able to utilize a different area of the flower for nectar? Whether they do or not, watching the hummers and hummingbird moths was one of the best parts of my weekend. Lucky me.
Vicki in Michigan says
I took a very interesting online class called Dog Emotion and Cognition. There wasn’t much about emotion, but there was a lot about evolution and cognition.
The “origin” contention was that some wolves domesticated themselves, taking advantage of the resources made available by humans. We settled down to farm about 10,000 years ago, after wandering around hunting and gathering for millennia. When we stay put, we generate a lot of garbage…………
The wolves who were less afraid of us (especially the ones that made us less afraid of them) were most able to capitalize on the newly available (human-generated) resources, and over time became First Friend (as Kipling would have it; not what we were told in class 🙂 ).
The instructor, Brian Hare, also told us that there seems to be a big wave of similar self-domestication happening, in a lot of different species. White-tail deer were mentioned in class as a species that is getting more and more comfortable, living in close proximity to people. I grew up about a mile from where I live now, in a neighborhood of similar age to my current neighborhood. When I was a kid, we did not have red squirrels or chipmunks or crows or hawks in the neighborhood. We have them now….. We certainly never saw deer when I was a kid, but in the last couple of years, I have seen deer twice, while I was walking in my immediate neighborhood.
(Hare began to study dogs when he heard that “only humans can follow a human gesture.” He thought “No, my dog can do that!” Mine, too. 🙂 )
Sara says
One of my favorite books on the Orijen of the dog is “How the Dog Became the Dog” by Mark Derr. He doesn’t believe the garbage dump theory, either. He also believes that dog’s are much older than we give them credit for. He goes through several of the popular theories, then tells you his own.
Christina Hargrove says
I found the Coppinger’s book to be well-written and fascinating. I think it should be mandatory reading for anyone involved in rescue, because I don’t think that one can make ethical decisions about the allocation of resources without understanding the full scope and nature of the issues (which I certainly didn’t, before reading this).
On the other hand, I am reading Franz de Waal’s new book, “Are We Smart Enough To Know How Smart Animals Are?” and I have a few “quibbles” 🙂 I would love to hear your analysis!
Trisha says
Christina: I agree absolutely about the importance of understanding dog populations around the world in relation to “rescuing” street and village dogs. It’s a big, muddy topic isn’t it? I get Coppingers’ perspective that street dogs should be allowed to live in “their natural habitat,” and also feel sympathy for all the starving, tick-infested dogs living in squalor in many areas. Do look for a copy of Janice’s book, I think you’ll find it fascinating.
Thanks Sara for the reminder about Derr’s book. I have it on my bookshself, time to take it down again!
To Vickie: Check out these books; they are contesting Hare’s hypothesis. All of this is great fun to me, and a perfect example of how science works. Very messy at times, but always working toward more knowledge…
Andy says
I’m glad we’re thinking about what might constitute a good life for a dog, and accepting that their may be high-quality alternatives to pet- and working-dog status. Even here in the U.S., in my county, the question’s come up because we still have a population of rural, owned (or semi-owned) dogs that roam freely. The rescue community typically wants them rounded up, sheltered, and placed in pet dog homes, but when our local officials went to visit they realized these dogs were relatively healthy and seemed to enjoy their life playing with each other all day. Because we still have population management problems where I live, I understand why people want these dogs altered, but I don’t think people really understand how boring and even oppressive living in a home or yard can be, and how much may be lost in the transition.
At the same time – and please pardon my mild snark here – if the majority of dogs in a specific region are dying slow, miserable deaths due to starvation and disease, perhaps the anti-rescue case is a bit oversold. It makes me wonder if the scientists are overly habituated to a certain kind of canine suffering.
(full disclosure: I’ve only read the NYT article, not the full Coppinger book)
Jann Becker says
Yesterday my deck and bird feeder had a wild interaction among 4 juvenile cardinals, at least 3 squirrels and the usual supporting cast of sparrows, chickadees, etc. This only became possible this year when the dog who kept order on the deck stopped doing so at 9 1/2; nobody’s had time to evolve but they’ve sure adapted their behavior. It’s fascinating to watch individual critters adapt to changing circumstances which will give them a reproductive advantage by their being better fed because of something as simple as a “predator” no longer guarding the bird feeder. Evolution at work on my deck!
LisaW says
I have read articles and reviews, but I haven’t read the Coppinger’s new book, and yet, I still have an opinion 🙂
I think it’s a question of what makes a fulfilled life and who gets to define and decide. Why are the village dogs any different than the village monkeys or lizards? We don’t rescue/kidnap those animals (for the most part). I’d love a good discussion someday on the whole notion of rescue.
Why do dogs compel us to want to “fix” it or do something? I don’t just think it’s because it’s a group of dog people looking at this, it’s something else. What?
The origins of dogs is fascinating to ponder and listen as the experts disagree. I wouldn’t think there would be so much to argue about given our use of DNA testing.
Chris from Boise says
Trisha: between your beautiful gardens and your great photography, in your ‘spare’ (ha!) time, you might want to check out a citizen science project called Bumblebee Watch (bumblebeewatch.org). It’s a database of location-tagged photographs submitted by ordinary folks like us, to help track bumblebee populations. It’s sponsored by a number of educational groups, and is both educational and great fun to use. I’m suddenly spending much more time looking at bumblebees. Will start watching for interactions between them and hummers.
Apropos of nothing, both dogs have recently become fixated on a small paper wasp nest on the patio. The caterpillar-eating wasps are a boon to the garden and have been very mild-mannered, so we’ve coexisted nicely to this point. But now Habi sits on the patio on one side of the nest, Obi sits on the grass on the other side, and both watch it. When a wasp heads out, the closest one tries to snap it out of the air – and often catches it. A risky game! Our dear departed Pica, a red heeler who was impervious to pain, once stood over a ground nest of bees and, over the course of several days, killed the entire colony, one bee at a time (she did get stung several times, but it didn’t deter her). And alas, I love and appreciate bees and wasps!
I look forward to getting my hands on both books – they sound fascinating. The reading list keeps growing…
Ron Bevacqua says
I just finished the book What Is A Dog? I had found the book somewhat interesting but lacks any great insight . Why? Because it reflects a writer trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole.
Mark Derr, nationally recognized author on dogs, did write a review for Bark and Psychological Today. He , perfectly states in reviewing the book when he shares………is a reductionist work of illogic that replies on simplistic scientific arguments…..and further stating in his review…….. Coppingers also misrepresent or ignore evidence that dogs evolved from a gray wolf……..
I think his review is truly SPOT ON! In fact, I had emailed Marc Beroff, former Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, to ask him what he thought of the Coppingers new book. Marc had shared with me that he will not be making any comments about it .
If you want to read a good book about dogs , please spend your hard earned money on any books by Dr. Patricia McConnell.
Rebecca Rice says
Hello!
On a tangent, I ran across this article on the Christian Scientist Monitor, about wolves in America, which is making the claim that two of our wolf species are actually coyote/wolf crosses, based on DNA analysis. If that’s so, then it’s possible that some of our ancestral dogs could have been hybrids as well. I thought it an interesting article, although the main focus is on how that would affect conservation efforts. (Although that is a thorny question in it’s own right. When we try and preserve a “natural habitat”, and remove introduced species, how do we define the habitat? Why is “America 1900” a less natural habitat than “America 1400” or “America 1 BC”?)
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0728/America-s-lone-wolf-Scientists-say-US-has-just-one-true-wolf-species
Andy says
LisaW – I appreciate your question about why so many of us feel compelled to rescue dogs. I hope you don’t mind my attempt at answering, because I’d love to have such a discussion too. It’s something I think about a lot, especially since I spend so much time with dogs that have been, essentially, institutionalized.
I think the best starting point is Trisha’s statement that “There is no question that dogs appear to be reliant on humans, whether from our food scraps, latrines, (sorry, just a fact) or commercial dog food.”. Monkeys and lizards don’t really have that kind of relationship with humans. But because dogs do, there’s always going to be a need for some kind of managed response, either through cultural traditions or formal policy.
Where I live, that policy response ranges from culling (which is probably going to happen in one of our sisters cities), to mass sheltering, to rescue, to (occasionally) leaving loose dogs alone.
My own feeling is that it’s perfectly fine to be concerned about a dog’s abject suffering in human society, and it’s also fine to try to end that suffering by means other than euthanasia. However, very few people are willing to ask difficult, population-level questions about why we have these problems in the first place, or how best to deal with them at a high level.
I’m encouraged, however, by trends in sheltering and rescue that focus on human conditions – especially poverty – and how addressing those conditions can alleviate the need for rescue in the first place. But that often requires a pretty big shift in perspective for people who are used to seeing a dog in a state of relative squalor and assuming that rescue is the best and only acceptable outcome. Oftentimes, it is not.
Sorry, perhaps more words than you asked for!
Christina Hargrove says
@LisaW, you should definitely read it, because it will give you a foundation of information from which conclusions can be drawn about what “should” be done, what can be done, and why. I’m not in rescue, but this is what blew my mind (from memory; any errors in repeating this information are mine): there are something like 250 million pet dogs in the world and 750 million “street dogs” (dogs who are not owned and their reproduction is not controlled by humans). In any population of street dogs, many of the offspring die; as in other animal populations, more offspring are produced so that sufficient numbers survive into adulthood to reproduce. As long as the environment can support it, the population will increase. When the population gets too big, starvation or disease sets in. So, can we ever “save them all”? Do we really want to? What does that mean, that all 750 million non-owned dogs in the world would be gone? through adoption? Population control? If not, if you only try to save some, are you really saving any lives? Or are you opening up spots in the environment for the local population to fill, grow, reproduce more, creating more individuals who will eventually die?
Here in Massachusetts there are so few strays that our local shelters “import” dogs and puppies from the South and Puerto Rico for people to adopt. That is a great thing. But, I always wonder if we are helping to reduce the population of dogs in shelters in those places? Or creating a market for them?
I don’t know the answers, it just raised a lot of questions for me.
@Tricia – I looked for it, and found references for it, but no source. I will set my husband, the book-hunter, to it 🙂
Andy says
I’m commenting a bunch today, so this will be my last one so I don’t dominate the conversation too much – sorry I can’t help myself when it comes to rescue stuff in the U.S.!
@Christina Hargrove – I can’t speak to international rescue, which is clearly a lot more complicated. Regarding the situation in the U.S. South, it depends on the shelter, but overall things are slowly improving and solutions are getting implemented at a regional level. That includes more acceptance of spay-neuter, more willingness to adopt, more interest in community outreach, and more coordination between humane organizations. Intake is indeed dropping in a number of areas, which is just fantastic.
One caveat, though – our climate makes it so a population could bounce back really quickly if we don’t keep working at it. There’s no point that I can foresee where our population problem will be truly solved.
The ASPCA has some good transport guidelines for both sending and receiving shelters if you’re at all interested. Thanks for asking these questions – there are definitely some bad rescue situations out there so the more awareness the better.
Bruce says
The main problem with the Coppinger’s theory is that dog domestication may have occurred before human agriculture began. Current estimates are that dogs were domesticated 14,000 years ago, whereas agriculture is thought to have begun around 12,000 years ago. Both of those dates are subject to debate and new information, of course.
In a related note, the June 2, 2016 edition of Science posits that “dogs may have been domesticated twice, once in Asia and once in Europe or the Near East, although European ancestry has mostly vanished from today’s dogs.”
The study estimates that dogs were domesticated in East Asia around 14,000 years ago, and in Europe or the Near East around 16,000 years ago. Conclusions are based on DNA analysis from a very limited number of ancient dog remains, so I expect a few more twists and turns to this story before it concludes.
Sounds like Koeler-Matznik’s conclusions in Dawn of the Dog hew more closely to current research. DNA analysis shows that dogs and wolves derived from a common ancestor. Dogs, wolves, and coyotes can all interbreed and produce viable offspring.
Beth says
I read a book recently called “The Journey of Man” which used small variations on the Y chromosome to trace human populations journeys out of Africa. I believe mDNA has been used for that purpose as well. A quick search online seems to indicate that it is trickier with dogs because of occasional crosses back into the wolf genes, but I would think with a large enough sample size we could get clearer answers. Of course, that costs money. The latest I had heard indicated that gray wolves and dogs share a common wolf ancestor but for the most part, dogs don’t descend directly from gray wolves but from a different wolf.
Beth says
Apparently my comment is too long to post! Here’s the first half:
I’ll start what I think with a story about rabbits. When I was a child, I was lucky enough to watch several years worth of baby bunnies successfully nested from under a large double-bench swing in our backyard. I had always known wild rabbits to be nervous, twitchy things that normally looked scared half to death. When your main role in the ecosystem is a snack food, I suppose that’s what evolution does.
So imagine my surprise as I watched those baby bunnies leave the nest and start hopping around the yard. SOME of them were twitchy. But some were almost tame; I could get within an arm’s length of them. And some were in between. And this was true of every litter.
But here’s what would happen: A litter of 8 would leave the nest. And within a few days there were 6, then 4, then 3. If Mom Rabbit was very lucky, 1 or 2 would survive to even start growing up. And guess which ones survived, every time? The twitchy ones. The scared ones. Those tame ones that I could get close too rarely made it more than a day or two once they left their hiding place.
Anecdotes aren’t data but what I saw made sense. Evolution is not bringing us ever more jumpy rabbits. After a point they would exhaust themselves from nervous energy. Evolution offers variation in each generation. My guess is in an environment with few predators, the tamer rabbits do quite well. They probably expend less energy jumping and starting. In a predator-poor environment, these rabbits probably thrive.
But in a typical city/suburban neighborhood with cats and dogs and maybe foxes and some hawks, only the spooky ones in every generation survive and so the ONLY adults we see are the jumpy ones.
Beth says
Hmmm. My carefully written comment won’t post so I’ll sum it up as this: My guess is that like rabbits, the wolf ancestor had a wide range of hunting and scrounging behaviors and a range of tolerance towards people. The shyest became the modern gray wolf. The tamest became the dog. But the ones who tolerated people but weren’t totally tame were persecuted into behavioral extinction when our technology improves enough to make it possible. More tolerant wolves are still in the gene pool but those individuals are weeded out in each generation since they threaten livestock.
LisaW says
@Andy, I appreciate your thoughts and good points when considering the question of why are we compelled to intervene when it comes to dogs. If you think of the village we’re talking about as an ecosystem, then yes, we are dependent on each species to do their part in this complex network. That includes the monkeys and lizards and dogs and people and flora, etc. I understand the closer relationship people and dogs have in terms of food, and I would say, that is as true with all the components in the ecosystem, but not in such a way that we recognize it as the same. I’m pondering if/why our connection with dogs compels us to name our co-dependency in such a way that is not always beneficial to the dog.
I can’t help thinking that humans have a deeply-rooted compulsion to take something we value (like our relationship with dogs) and create a context where it has to exist on our terms. Can we not see the system for what it is (good, bad, and indifferent) and value it for that? I am pushing the context of this blog, I know, but this whole subject is related to the struggles of injustice going on all around us.
And, I agree that the shift happening in terms of helping animals stay in their homes is very heartening. It’s a great example of recognizing the human-animal paradigm is not one-size-fits-all. Again, it relates to a much broader social justice issue for me.
Christina, thanks, I’ll stop pontificating now and go read the book 🙂
Beth says
I keep coming back to this sentence: “While wolves and other wild canids feed their young long after weaning, “domestic dogs” do not.”
ALL larger wild carnivores feed their young long after weaning, as far as I am aware. The fact that dogs don’t seem to actively spend time teaching their half-grown puppies how to be a dog would seem to argue (behaviorally) strongly AGAINST the notion that “dogs” arose independently of humans.
Other canids, like coyotes and foxes, that live in urban environments teach their young adult offspring how to find their own food (or at least find extra food for them while they have time to develop their own skills) just as surely as a lion does.
em says
I’m so interested in the conversation about why humans from outside the village feel compelled to rescue dogs. If I had to venture a guess, I’d say that the response of those who feel so moved is influenced by their own personal past and present relationships with dogs, which are often as not muddled up with emotions and social responses more primarily associated with parenting and (human) child care.
Dogs are different from rats and monkeys and lizards in our minds because our relationship with dogs is just plain different- more dependent not just for food and physical resources but for emotional support as well. Pets come in many species, but dogs are somewhat unique in their readiness to form non-food-based social attachments (when was the last time a lizard followed anyone home from the park?) with people. The socially dependent relationship between humans and pet dogs fires up all our parental, protective impulses, and influenced by that learned relationship, for many humans, it is as difficult to see a dog suffering hunger or discomfort as it would be to see a human child in the same predicament (perhaps more so- it might be interesting to unpack the sometimes surprising apparent public sympathy for animals over people in similar situations. I have a feeling THAT topic could keep an ethicist or sociologist busy for years.)
Trisha says
To Bruce: I think you’ll enjoy The Dawn of the Dog. I haven’t read it all yet, but as I said, it has much more solid science in it than Coppinger’s book. I give the Coppingers lots of credit for their argument that street dogs aren’t strays and mongrels, but their newest book has almost nothing to say about where dogs did come from (except for some hand waving that, frankly, makes no sense to me). Dawn of the Dog’s official release date, it turns out, is the 15th. It’s ISBN IS ISBN-978-0-9974902-0-6 for the paperback, and you’ll have to search (the author tells me) on book seller sites to see who carries it. I hope it gets more attention, it deserves it.
Trisha says
Re why do people feel compelled to rescue street dogs: I see the answer as the result of our primal hard-wiring to nurture speechless, vulnerable creatures. The standard ethological argument about our tendency to nurture is that because our young takes sooooo long to raise, we have a strong, hard-wired predisposition to respond to youth and vulnerability. As small, speechless and needy individuals, especially ones with particularly emotive faces, dogs trigger just about every nurturing button we have. Of course, that’s only true if one grows up in a culture that sees dogs as ‘good animals’ rather than ‘pests’. So there is indeed a certain amount of cultural conditioning necessary, but once dogs are seen as beneficial and not dangerous, they fit the category of “need nurturance.” Make sense? Or I just arm waving over here?
Nicole Rivette says
Ron Benvacqua: Dr. Bekoff did comment on the Coppinger’s book. I don’t know if I can post links here but I think (hope) it’s okay to reference the blog post: Psychology Today, “On Comparisons Between Dogs and Wolves: What We Really Know, April 27, 2016.
Nicole Rivette says
Oops, I posted before proofing! Ron I apologize for misspelling your name!
Beth says
Where I see a disconnect is this:
People see village/ street dogs and the urge to rescue is there. Which I get.
But then many of those same people see a fox, say, in a wonderfully enriched zoo exhibit and feel it’s cruel to keep them “captive.” Yet a wild fox on average lives about two years and a zoo fox maybe 15.
Perhaps the disconnect is because we see street dogs, probably incorrectly, as “stray pets” and feel a moral compulsion to care for them. If we saw them as a natural part of the environment we might think differently.
On the other hand, there are areas where most of the street dogs ARE stray pets, so I don’t think there is a one-size-fits-all solution.
Bruce says
Thank you very much, Trisha. I will be fascinated to read Koler-Matznick’s book, and see how she defends her thesis. I found one other review of Dawn of the Dog: The Genesis of a Natural Species:
http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/book-review-dawn-of-the-dog/
The review states Koler-Matznick’s position as “dogs are an entirely separate species from wolves and always have been.” Not sure about “always”, and I suppose whether dogs and wolves are separate species depends on the ever-shifting definition of “species.” I am old enough to have been taught that the ability to produce viable offspring defines a species, so by this definition dogs, wolves, jackals, and coyotes are all members of the same species.
I will also be very interested in how Koler-Matznick addresses recent DNA analyses of dogs, wolves, and coyotes (whole genomes, not just mitochondrial DNA), which suggest that the wolf-coyote split was much more recent than previously estimated.
It seems more likely that ancestral wolves, not having been nearly exterminated by humans, were much less suspicious creatures. In other words, dogs probably descended from wolves, but the wolves they descended from are not the wolves remaining today. A few thousand generations and near-extermination can certainly change a species’ genome and behavior.
The review also includes the following quote (arguing against casual proximity between ancient humans and wolves leading to domestication of wolves):
“Even armed adult humans would not have been able to defend themselves from a wolf pack any better than, say, a deer could with its horns and hoofs. A single person with a club or spear could not successfully defend herself against more than one wolf.”
Methinks Koler-Matznick underestimates the hunting and self-protection capabilities of ancient humans, who surely shared wolves’ recognition of the value of teamwork. But I hate to judge without reading the book.
Trisha says
Thanks so much Bruce, all good points. I haven’t read all of D of the D yet myself, and will keep your comments in mind when I do. The “what is a species” question is an especially interesting one to me. I too was taught that a species is defined by reproductive viability in F1, but it does seem as though the plot is thickening, now that we have DNA analysis to add to, and muddy, the waters. (In the best of all possible ways.) I’m also interested in the current perspective, seen in both books, that DOGS ARE NOT WOLVES. (Yes, people do appear to be shouting a bit.) My own guesses, not being a geneticist, is that indeed dogs most probably did not derive in a direct line from the wolves we have now, and that the story is a bit more complicated than previously presented. But such a perspective can be taken too far, and I wonder, just pondering, if the pendulum might swing a bit too far in reaction? Just wondering…
Sarah Johnson says
Trisha, I was so happy to find this post as I have an interesting behavior that one of our dogs has begun to do. He has been caching my 14 year old daughter when she is in bed, using his nose to cover her with a sheet. I had not witnessed this, but tonight he kept insistently caching me with a blanket when I was on the bed lying down. I tried talking him out of it, to break him into play and nothing worked to stop him until I gave him a big “blow” with my mouth. At that point he turned around and fell asleep. My daughter and I are fascinated by this but it doesn’t seem exactly normal and we are looking for insight. He first did it this week at 8 1/2 months. And, as it turns out he is an Indian street dog who was taken in at 4 weeks in New Delhi from a litter that was being drowned. He seems otherwise normal & healthy. We’ve had him 4 months now. Dog and human relationship theories anyone 🙂 Even from the authors of any of these books, has ANYONE seen a dog cache a healthy human family member ?????
Beth says
Bruce, I think your comments mirror my own thought process: The ancestral wolf had a much broader set of behaviors, but the advance of human civilization left room for only two main groups to thrive: The tames and the ones who avoided humans completely.
As wolves expand in the West we are seeing that quite a few of them are perfectly happy living near human dwellings— ranches and the like— but those are removed, relocated, or culled. If we did NOT cull them we would probably see, over a long period of time, groups of wolves that were more and more comfortable living near humans. And some of those would give up pack hunting of big game and start taking down smaller animals, alone or in pairs.
In coyotes, we see sort of the opposite: most live alone or as a mated pair raising young and they are small-game specialists and scavengers. But in areas where larger game is more plentiful than small game, they will occasionally form temporary packs that will take advantage of that.
Canids are very adaptable and we think of wolves as large-game specialists because those are the only wolves we allow to exist. But if a large city with a handful of parks can easily support dozens of 50 pound eastern coyotes, then surely suburban areas could support 90-pound wolves. And as smart adaptable creatures wolves would likely fill that niche if we let them.
The fact that the last common ancestor between wolves and dogs was tens of thousands of years ago does not make dogs an entirely different species. It just means they were isolated populations in terms of breeding. You can find the “last common ancestor” of, say, ethnic Chinese and ethnic Europeans thousands of years ago as well but that does not mean they are different species of hominids.
Beth says
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/150322-romeo-wolf-dog-animals-wildlife-alaska-ngbooktalk/#close
Beth says
Apparently Romeo the wolf did indeed eat voles and beavers and other small game.
http://www.newsminer.com/news/alaska_news/juneau-s-famous-black-wolf-s-disappearance-a-mystery/article_e8a1b6b0-3c2d-57bc-8d5f-44ae04a2e098.html