Optimism Index in Dogs

Photo Credit: © B.Stefanov / Fotolia

Dogs generally seem to be cheerful, happy-go-lucky characters, so you might expect that most would have an optimistic outlook on life.

In fact some dogs are distinctly more pessimistic than others, research from the University of Sydney shows.

"This research is exciting because it measures positive and negative emotional states in dogs objectively and non-invasively. It offers researchers and dog owners an insight into the outlook of dogs and how that changes," said Dr Melissa Starling, from the Faculty of Veterinary Science. Her PhD research findings are published in PLOS One today.

"Finding out as accurately as possible whether a particular dog is optimistic or pessimistic is particularly helpful in the context of working and service dogs and has important implications for animal welfare."

Dogs were taught to associate two different sounds (two octaves apart) with whether they would get the preferred reward of milk or instead get the same amount of water. Once the dogs have learnt the discrimination task, they are presented with 'ambiguous' tones.

If dogs respond after ambiguous tones, it shows that they expect good things will happen to them, and they are called optimistic. They can show how optimistic they are by which tones they respond to. A very optimistic dog may even respond to tones that sound more like those played before water is offered.

"Of the dogs we tested we found more were optimistic than pessimistic but it is too early to say if that is true of the general dog population," said Dr Starling.

However it does mean that both individuals and institutions (kennels, dog minders) can have a much more accurate insight into the emotional make-up of their dogs.

According to the research a dog with an optimistic personality expects more good things to happen, and less bad things. She will take risks and gain access to rewards. She is a dog that picks herself up when things don't go her way, and tries again. Minor setbacks don't bother her.

If your dog has a pessimistic personality, he expects less good things to happen and more bad things. This may make him cautious and risk averse. He may readily give up when things don't go his way, because minor setbacks distress him. He may not be unhappy per se, but he is likely to be most content with the status quo and need some encouragement to try new things.

"Pessimistic dogs appeared to be much more stressed by failing a task than optimistic dogs. They would whine and pace and avoid repeating the task while the optimistic dogs would appear unfazed and continue," said Dr Starling.

"This research could help working dog trainers select dogs best suited to working roles. If we knew how optimistic or pessimistic the best candidates for a working role are, we could test dogs' optimism early and identify good candidates for training for that role. A pessimistic dog that avoids risks would be better as a guide dog while an optimistic, persistent dog would be more suited to detecting drugs or explosives."

Dr Starling has been working with Assistance Dogs Australia, a charity organisation that provides service and companion dogs to people with disabilities, to investigate whether an optimism measure could aid in selecting suitable candidates for training.

The research not only suggests how personality may affect the way dogs see the world and how they behave but how positive or negative their current mood is.

"This research has the potential to completely remodel how animal welfare is assessed. If we know how optimistic or pessimistic an animal usually is, it's possible to track changes in that optimism that will indicate when it is in a more positive or negative emotional state than usual," said Dr Starling.
"The remarkable power of this is the opportunity to essentially ask a dog 'How are you feeling?' and get an answer. It could be used to monitor their welfare in any environment, to assess how effective enrichment activities might be in

Citation
Starling MJ,  Branson N, Cody D, Starling TR, McGreevy PD. 2014. Canine Sense and Sensibility: Tipping Points and Response Latency Variability as an Optimism Index in a Canine Judgement Bias Assessment. PLoS ONE, 2014; 9 (9): e107794 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107794

Dogs are the dominat prey of Indian Leopards

Photo credit: WCS India

A new study led by the Wildlife Conservation Society reveals that in India's human dominated agricultural landscapes, where leopards prowl at night, it's not livestock that's primarily on the menu -- it is man's best friend.

The study, which looked at scat samples for leopards in India's Ahmednagar's district in Maharashtra, found that 87 percent of their diet was made up of domestic animals. Domestic dog dominated as the most common prey item at 39 percent and domestic cats were second at 15 percent.

Seventeen percent of the leopard's diet consisted of assorted wild animals including rodents, monkeys, and mongoose, and birds.

Livestock, despite being more abundant, made up a relatively small portion of the leopard's diet. Domestic goats, for example, are seven times more common than dogs in this landscape, yet only make up 11 percent of leopard's prey. The author's say this is because goats are less accessible and often brought into pens at night, while dogs are largely allowed to wander freely. Cows, sheep, and pigs were also eaten, but collectively made up less than 20 percent of leopard's food. Most domestic cattle in this region are too large to be preyed on by leopards.

The authors of the study say that the selection of domestic dogs as prey means that the economic impact of predation by leopards on valuable livestock is lower than expected. Thus, human-leopard "conflict" is more likely to be related to people's fears of leopards foraging in the proximity of their houses and the sentimental value of dogs as pets.

Study co-author Ullas Karanth, WCS Director for Science-Asia, said: "During the past two-to-three decades, legal regulation of leopard hunting, increased conservation awareness, and the rising numbers of feral dogs as prey have all led to an increase in leopard numbers outside of nature reserves in agricultural landscapes. While this is good news for conservation and a tribute to the social tolerance of Indian people, it also poses major challenges of managing conflict that occasionally breaks out. Only sound science can help us face this challenge."

Citation

Vidya Athreya, Morten Odden, John D. C. Linnell, Jagdish Krishnaswamy, K. Ullas Karanth. A cat among the dogs: leopard Panthera pardus diet in a human-dominated landscape in western Maharashtra, India. Oryx, 2014; 1 DOI: 10.1017/S0030605314000106

Dogs in the prehistory of Western Europe based on archaeozoological evidence

The representations of prehistoric dogs are very rare.

 In this example from the Neolithic site of Catal Hüyük

 in the Near Orient (7000 BC), a dog seems to be 

assisting the hunt (from Benecke N. 1994, Der Mensch 

und seine Haustiere. Die Geschichte einer 

jahrtausendalten Beziehung. Thesis).

In a new paper, Horard-Herbin, Tresset, and Vigne examine the history of the dog in Western Europe through archaeozoology evidence, and make inferences about the relationships between humans and dogs through prehistory. The dog was domesticated by Upper Paleolithic hunter-gatherers, but the domestication process remains unclear, in terms of chronology, geographic origin, and recurrence of the phenomenon. What follows is my summary of the paper, representing the author’s view on the history of dogs in Europe. The entire paper is available on-line.

The first dogs appeared in the Late Glacial between 18,000 and 10,000 BC, from the Magdalenian period to the end of the Epipalaeolithic. Evidence for morphologically transformed animals come from the Iberian Peninsula, Siberia, Aquitaine in France, the French Alps, central and northern Europe, and the Near East. In the authors’ view multiple independent domestication events took place across much of the Old World. Recent morphometric analyses of dogs from the southeast and north of France have revealed marked morphological differences between a group of small-sized dogs originating in the West and other much larger dogs with a different physical structure from northeast Europe in the same period; indeed, some of these “larger dogs” were probably wolves. This study led to formally identifying two very distinct populations of dogs during the Upper Paleolithic, which potentially reflect distinct centers of domestication. These findings support the fragmentation in the landscape in the Late Glacial of Eurasia due to the polar and orogenic ice caps, and also the diversity and relative isolation of hunter-gather cultures from the same period. This is also in line with the common practice in hunter-gatherer societies of pet keeping, where young animals were integrated in the family group and breast fed with the children to compensate for the animals taken from nature through hunting. This practice, demonstrating that hunter-gatherers were as capable of raising animals as the Neolithic age people, could have played an important role in the domestication of dogs in different places.

 Late Glacial dogs displayed a wide variety of statures, from medium-sized Natoufian dogs in the Near East and their Northern Zagos contemporaries (height: 45 to 60 cm), to medium or large sizes (height > 60 cm) for dogs in eastern Europe, to very small dogs (height 30 to 45 cm or < 30 cm) in Germany, Switzerland, the east of France, and the southwest and north of Spain. Other large canid fossils dated about 30,000 BC found in Belgium, Siberia (27,000 BC), and the Czech Republic (24,000 BC) have been interpreted as domestic dogs 15,000 years before the others. However, analyses suggest that the morphological character considered by the authors of these discoveries as identifying domestication are instead morphological variations of the Upper Paleolithic wolves, whose morphological variability remains poorly known.

Dogs were scarce in the early Neolithic of Europe, with the notable exception of the Herxheim pit enclosure (western Germany, Linearbandkeramik culture, end of the sixth millennium cal. BP), where dogs were found in partial association with human remains. The few data collected for this period suggest the animals remained relatively large, though significantly smaller than the wolf. Modifications such as shortening of the face and dental crowding were also already obvious in animals of this period. Tooth anomalies (essentially missing teeth) were frequent. The decrease in size was accentuated until the fourth millennium cal. BP and culminated in the Neolithic/Chalcolithic period with the occurrence of small and very small dogs in southeastern Europe but also in western Europe (at Bercy and many other sites of the Chasséen complex and related cultures). These small dogs are rarely found complete and are often retrieved from rubbish pits and dumping areas, which strongly suggests that they were commonly consumed, even when cut or burn marks are absent. Estimation of age based on tooth eruption and tooth wear shows that young and subadult animals were the most abundant, strengthening the hypothesis that dogs were consumed in this period.

Few dogs found at the end of the Neolithic in Western Europe were larger than those evidenced for the fourth millennium. The incomplete dogs found in a mass grave at Bury in northern France were large individuals with slightly shortened faces. Analyses of their DNA showed that one of them at least was black, whereas another still retained the wild coat color. Overall, data from the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods in Europe provide evidence about the evolution of dog phenotypes and the status of dogs.

Bronze Age dogs are rare, but those studied from central and Eastern Europe, the British Isles, and the Italian and Iberian peninsulas are generally of a homogeneous size. 40 to 50 cm with occasionally a few larger individuals, but never smaller specimens. The only region for which this is not true is Switzerland where the size of dogs also increased significantly from the late Neolithic, but where in the late Bronze Age, a population of larger, sturdier dogs remained (50 to 60 cm).

During the Iron Age, the majority of the canine population remained morphologically homogeneous, with dogs averaging 40 to 55 cm in the British Isles, Gaul, central Europe, and Italy. They were slender animals whose leg bones presented no particular modifications, such as twisting or marked sturdiness, which characterized certain morphotypes from the Roman period. Nevertheless, at the end of the Gallic period, an increase in size at the withers could be observed with the appearance of small and large dogs. Taking the example of Gaul, the first phenomenon during the second century BP was the appearance of small dogs in certain habitats only, namely those of aristocrats, and in certain sanctuaries. These small individuals were isolated and always associated with a medium-sized population from which they seemed not to have originated. According to the current state of knowledge, only three sites of Celtic Europe show a bipartite distribution of wither heights, a large number of individuals, and all the intermediate sizes: Levroux (Indre, France) and Manching and Berching-Pollanten, both in the same region of Bavaria. On the site of Levroux, some skulls show a marked shortening of the face associated with dental pathologies. Indeed, some teeth are missing or overlapping, which is firm evidence of face shortening, but there is no sign of limb bone modification. The highlighting of these specific breeding places is an interesting observation in regards to the ancient authors who indicated that specialized dog breeding existed in Gaul and Great Britain, mainly for hunting or war dogs.

At the end of La Tène period on a few European Celtic sites, very small dogs appeared that qualify as dwarfs. They were extremely rare, isolated among populations from which they could not have stemmed, and their sizes being outside all the size ranges known in the Iron Age. This is the case for the only complete skeleton of a dog measuring 27 cm at the withers from the Oppidum of Rheinau, Switzerland, and whose presence has been interpreted as an import of a pet from the Mediterranean region. This hypothesis is in line with those developed by several authors suggesting that these dwarf lapdogs, much appreciated by Roman ladies, originated in the Roman Empire. They would have been offered to the upper classes of the Celtic society by the Romans, in the same way as observed for horses, and attested to by certain ancient authors. Included with luxurious gifts, they would have had an exceptional value and status.

The limitation of this import hypothesis is that on examining the range of wither heights of dogs in Italy from the Neolithic to the end of the Roman period or dogs from Pompeii, no dwarf dogs less than 29 cm can be observed during what is known as the Early Roman period (third century BC to second AD corresponding to our chronology of the Iron Age and the Early Roman period), and those smaller than 25 cm only appeared at the end of the Roman Empire (third to sixth century AD;). On the other hand, dwarf dogs (20, 22, and 23 cm) have been found in Germany, Hungary, France, and Great Britain from early Roman times. For the latter, observed that these dogs were smaller than their contemporaries in Italy. This is clear evidence that the hypothesis of dwarf Roman dogs being imported is not pertinent for the Iron Age, and the function, origin, and means of circulation of dwarf dogs at the Celtic European scale remain unknown.

During the second Iron Age, large dogs reaching a maximum wither height of 65 cm were found in Europe, corresponding approximately to the size of a Gordon Setter, but which had still not reached the 75 cm height of a very large dog (taller than a wolf), which did not appear until the Roman period. These large dogs were found in Belgium and Germany and very rarely in Gallic settlements with less than 10 individuals measuring more than 60 cm. It is difficult to determine whether these dogs represent the upper limit of the size range of middle-sized populations, stemmed from slightly larger populations persisting in certain regions (in Austria, on the Durezza cave site, the size range of dogs from the first Iron Age was from 49 to 64 cm; n = 126), or were the result of specific breeding that has not been identified through archaeology yet, such as war dogs mentioned by ancient authors. In general, studies investigate samples that are too small to enable definition of a population, and only with the development of genetic studies will light be shed on this question.

In any case, the very small and very large individuals are extremely rare, and it is complex to determine whether their morphotypes, identified as specific through our archeozoological analyses, are in fact linked to a specific status. It has been established that some individuals were incinerated with their “master” in a funeral context, while others were simply eaten, and the fate of some of them did not differ fundamentally from that of medium-sized dogs, as explained below.

The Celts lived with a pack of dogs of similar morphology. However, from the skeletal evidence available, it is clear this was the beginning of selection of certain morphotypes, as illustrated by the shortening of the face of certain skulls and the associated pathologies, and the diversification of wither height. This is reflected in the 30 or so “races” of dogs cited by ancient authors and for which iconographic representations have remained. In the texts, they are characterized by their geographic origins and by the services they provided: pet, hunting dog, war or guard dog, some coming from Gaul such as the Vertagus or the Ségusien hound.

The authors conclude that a general and partial approach to the evolution of dogs in Europe from the Paleolithic to the Iron Age shows to what extent certain questions regarding this species reoccur across time. In particular, at the beginning of the Neolithic and at the end of the Iron Age, indigenous lines and exogenous inputs can be observed. It would be interesting to characterize these new dogs from the point of view of their bone morphology (e.g., size, robustness, and proportions) and their genetic characteristics (e.g., origins and coat color) to measure their impact on the population in place over the long term (e.g., cohabitation, replacement). These elements are also necessary to draw a link between specific morphotypes and functions as certain modern-day societies (e.g., South Korea) have races of dogs for meat production, even though the term race is completely inappropriate for the periods of interest. (The term race refers to a population of the same species having distinct hereditary, morphological, and physiological characteristics according to the standards defined in the herd and flock books drawn up since the 19th century. For all earlier periods, the more appropriate term morphotype should be used.)

Citation

Horard-Herbin M-P. Tresset A, Vigne D-D. 2014. Domestication and uses of the dog in western Europe from the Paleolithic to the Iron Age. Animal Frontiers 4 (3): 23-31.

Hokkaido Island dogs and human diets 1500 YBP

Hokkaido Island dog today

One of the disadvantages of keeping dogs is their requirement for a high protein diet, placing them in competition with humans. On the other hand if dogs and humans are eating the same things it would suggest a reason for them to come together when food was plentiful. Feeding dogs would give the dogs a reason to follow hunters, and cooperate with humans.

In a forthcoming paper Tsutaya et al. (in press 2014) analyze carbon and nitrogen isotopes from human and dog remains from the Moyore site on eastern Hokkaido Island, Japan. The Moyoro archeological site is located on an estuarine sand area of the Abashiri River and is representative of the shell mounds of the Okhotsk culture. The site has been excavated several times during the 20th century and contains human burials and the remains of pit dwellings. Radiocarbon and palaeomagnetic dating suggest the site was used 1500 YBP.

The isotopic data shows the dogs were predominantly feeding on brackish-water fish, marine fish, and marine mammals (5-45%). The presence of marine mammals in the dog’s diet suggests that humans were feeding the dogs.

The δ13C and δ15N values of adult human bone collagen found terrestrial food sources provided less than 16% of the diet and that the Moyoro human population depended heavily on marine mammals for dietary protein. Marine mammals made up 80-90% of the Moyoro human diet. Thus, there was no significant overlap in the diet of the dog and the human population.

Ethnographic studies of the late 19th and early 20th century reported on dog use and dog diet of the indigenous Ainu people in Hokkaido and Sakhalin, and fishers in Kamchatka. Ethnographic accounts of the Ainu population in Hokkaido and Sakhalin reported dogs were used for hunting terrestrial mammals and sledging. Dog skins were used to make clothes and shoes. The Ainu people fed their dogs with low-sodium trout and the isotope ratio of trout in Hokkaido is similar to that of brackish-water fish. Fishers in Kamchatka in the late nineteenth century fed their domesticated dogs with dried or fermented fish and used them to pull sledges. Although the cultural traits reported in modern ethnographic studies are not directly comparable with those in the ancient Okhotsk population, such ethnographic observations agree well with the isotopic results in the Tsutaya et al. (2014) study.

Citation

Tsutaya T, Naito YI, Ishida H, and Yoneda M. (in press 2014). Carbon and nitrogen isotope analyses of human and dog diet in the Okhotsk culture: perspectives from the Moyoro site, Japan. Anthropological Science. 

Dogs and herders in southern Africa

Photo Credit: Johan Gallant

The geographical origin for the domestic dog is probably Eurasia. While modern dogs may have had a single origin about 15,000 YBP, earlier paleodogs may have been present 33,000 YBP. Dogs in sub-Sahara Africa therefore are most likely to be recent invaders from Eurasia. Currently, the oldest archaeological evidence for the presence of domestic dogs in Africa comes from about 7000-6000 YBP (the Neolithic of Egypt’s Western Desert and along the Nile in Egypt and Sudan). However, dogs do not appear to be widespread or common in African archeological sites until about 1000 YBP. This may be the result of confusion distinguishing between dog remains and jackal remains, or a more recent introduction of dogs.

In a new paper, Peter Mitchell (2014) of Oxford University follows up on an earlier paper on dog use by pre-colonial herders in southern Africa. Mitchell notes that dogs were one of several domestic animals kept by south African herders, but their economic and social relevance is poorly known. He reviews the evidence for the dog’s introduction into southern Africa and assesses the relative strengths of various lines of evidence (osteology; ancient DNA; animal tracks; faunal taphonomy) to identify those instances where the presence of dogs can most convincingly be established on sites used by herders.

The study reports skeletal evidence for herder-associated dogs comes from a handful of sites in the western half of South Africa, Namibia and, possibly, Botswana. A review of previous studies noted the strongest evidence is a nearly complete human burial in a shell midden at Cape St Francis on the Indian Ocean coast (dated 1150 ± 40 YBP) found with the skeleton of a small dog in the lap of the human skeleton. Other evidence suggests dogs have been present in the western regions of southern Africa since about at about the same time. Mitchell suggests that herder communities in the Cape acquired dogs through some exchange-mediated process of diffusion sourced ultimately to farmers in the eastern third of South Africa.

The first documented observation of dogs in southern Africa was made by Vasco da Gama and dates to 7 November 1497 when the Portuguese explorer observed people who were probably hunter-gatherers with dogs. Most observations of dogs with Khoe-speaking herders postdate the onset of Dutch colonization of the Cape in 1652. The dogs were medium height with short hair, long muzzles, and ears that could be erect and pointed or drooping. Analysis of skeletons buried at Zerrissene Mountain and Cape St Francis supports this description. These dogs were small, and more gracile overall than those found at agro-pastoralist sites in the Shashe-Limpopo Basin.

Some commentators suggest that the Khoe-speakers did not value their dogs highly, noting they were few in number and scrawny, and not cared for. But, in 1731 Peter Kolbe wrote more extensively about these people and considered the dogs well taken care of. Dogs of the Korana speaking people were larger and varied from grey to white to brown in color, but interbreeding with dogs introduced to South Africa by Europeans cannot, perhaps, be excluded. Korana dogs were also well treated. They were feed meat and milk.

Mitchell proposes dogs in used by herding cultures acted as companions, guard dogs, defenders of livestock, and as aids in hunting. While the Damara in north-central Namibia apparently ate dogs, there is no evidence to support this in the other cultures. Dogs also played a role in the belief systems of these peoples, to at least a limited degree.

Hendrik Wikar led an expedition to the north of the Cape Colony in the 1770s, and recounts the story of a group of women who chose to sleep on an elephant trail close to a river. Not having dogs with them, and having chosen not to light a fire, two were trampled to death by a passing elephant. Dogs could also alert their human companions to human enemies, Jan van Riebeeck describes this in early conflicts between the Cape Khoekhoen people and the Dutch East India Company in 1659. Dogs also alert people to the presence of predators of livestock. Today in Kenya, for example, annual livestock losses to predators are in the range of 1-6 %, though this understates their possible significance to individual owners.

European farmers in the 19th and 20th centuries employed shooting, traps and poisons to control jackals and reduce their attacks on sheep, precolonial herders must necessarily have depended more heavily upon dogs. Kolbe wrote about this in 1731 and describes how the Khoe-speakers would release dogs at night to guard livestock.

Mitchell suggests when and how dogs came to be part of the lives of southern African herders merits more research. Noting that it might be productive to look at the taphonomy of other faunal assemblages where sheep are prominent to see if there is evidence for canine-induced modification. Sheep do not travel by themselves, they needed to be looked after. Previous authors have proposed that dogs and livestock spread together in the Neolithic Sahara. And, it seems likely that success in a carnivore-rich African landscape would have been very difficult without the help of the dog.

Today, dogs are being used in southern Africa to protect sheep from local predators. There is a dual benefit because the dogs guard the sheep from the endangered cheetah and protect the cheetahs from being shot by the farmers. Anatolian sheep dogs are being used for this purpose. However indigenous dogs are still present in southern Africa, they are free-ranging and still exhibit behaviors involved in guarding livestock. For more on indigenous African dogs see the AfriCanis website; The story of the African Dog by Johan Gallant. And, SOS Dog, The purebred Dog Hobby re-examined by Johan and Edith Gallant.  

Citation

Mitchell, P. (2014). The canine connection II: dogs and southern African herders. Southern African Humanities, 26, 1-19.

Abstract: Is black coat color in wolves of Iran an evidence of admixed ancestry with dogs?

A European black wolf, by Charles Hamilton Smith

Abstract: Melanism is not considered a typical characteristic in wolves of Iran and dark wolves are believed to have originated from crossbreeding with dogs. Such hybrid individuals can be identified with the combined use of genetic and morphological markers. We analyzed two black wolves using a 544 base pairs (bp) fragment of the mtDNA control region and 15 microsatellite loci in comparison with 28 dogs, 28 wolves, and four known hybrids. The artificial neural networks (ANNs) method was applied to microsatellite data to separate genetically differentiated samples of wolves, dogs, and hybrids, and to determine the correct class for the black specimens. Individual assignments based on ANNs showed that black samples were genetically closer to wolves. Also, in the neighbor-joining network of mtDNA haplotypes, wolves and dogs were separated, with the dark specimens located in the wolf branch as two separate haplotypes. Furthermore, we compared 20 craniometrical characters of the two black individuals with 14 other wolves. The results showed that craniometrical measures of the two black wolves fall within the range of wolf skulls. We found no trace of recent hybridization with free-ranging dogs in the two black wolves. Dark coat color might be the result of a natural combination of alleles in the coat-color-determining gene, mutation in the K locus due to past hybridization with free-ranging dogs, or the effect of ecological factors and adaption to habitat conditions.

Citation

Khosravi, R., Aghbolaghi, M. A., Rezaei, H. R., Nourani, E., & Kaboli, M. 2014. Is black coat color in wolves of Iran an evidence of admixed ancestry with dogs?  Journal of Applied Genetics, 1-9.

Dingoes recognized as a full species

Photo credit. André Geißenhöner

Scottish zoologist Robert Kerr published the first volume of what would be the two volume The Animal Kingdom in 1792. On page 144 he used the combination Canis antarctitus for the Australian wild dog. The following year, Friedrich Meyer a German physician and naturalist again described the Australia wild dog on pages 33-35 of his 1793 book Systematisch-summarische Uebersicht der neuesten zoologischen Entdeckungen in Neuholland und Afrika, (a volume that mostly focused on African primates and birds). The name dingo was long applied to the Australian dogs but Kerr’s name Canis antarcticus was overlooked. But, C. antarcticus should have had priority given it was published before Meyer’s description. ICZN Opinion 0.451 suppressed Kerr’s name and Meyer’s Canis dingo became the approved scientific name for Australia’s wild dogs to maintain nomenclature stability.

The dingo, is Australia's largest land predator as well as a controversial taxon threatened by hybridization with domestic dogs. Dingoes are thought to have arrived in Australia more than 5000 YBP (Years Before Present), and because of their isolation they became a unique canid. How to distinguish ‘pure’ dingoes from dingo-dog hybrids is an issue that has been recently dealt with in a paper by Crowther et al (2014).

 Crowther et al. notes that the confusion exists because there is no description or series of original specimens against which the identities of putative hybrid and ‘pure’ dingoes can be assessed. Current methods to classify dingoes have poor discriminatory abilities because natural variation within dingoes is poorly understood. Also, it is unknown if hybridization may have altered the genome of post-19th century reference specimens. The new research provides a description of the dingo based on pre-20th century specimens that are unlikely to have been influenced by hybridization.

The authors reasoned that because Australia was colonized by Europeans in 1788 and was only sparsely inhabited by European settlers prior to 1900, dingoes collected before this date would be less likely to have been influenced by hybridization with domestic dogs. A search for museum specimens collected prior 1900 produced a sample of 69 dingo skulls and six skins as well as specimens collected from archaeological and paleontological deposits dated before 1900. They used radiocarbon (C14) dating to determine if specimens from cave deposits lacking data on their context pre-dated 1900. Selected for comparison were domestic dogs of similar size which were or have frequently been used as stock-working dogs and hunting dogs in Australia. Thus it is likely they have interbred with dingoes. These breeds included Australian cattle dogs, kelpies, collies and greyhounds.

They found dingoes differ from the domestic dog in having a relatively larger palatal width, a relatively longer rostrum, a relatively shorter skull height and a relatively wider top ridge of skull. The pre-20th century dingoes were also found to lacked dewclaws on the hind legs. In the sample of 19th century dingo skins they found considerable variability in the color and including various combinations of yellow, white, ginger and darker variations from tan to black.

Diagnosing the dingo remains difficult due to the overlap in morphological characters with domestic dogs, localized adaptations in dingoes and morphological variation through time. Identification of diagnostic morphological characters is also difficult, especially when there is more variation within the domestic dogs in shape and size than in the entire canid clade. The morphological analyses showed that there is considerable overlap between domestic dogs and dingoes for most morphological characters. This was particularly the case for some Australian breeds, such as the Australian cattle dog, which are thought to have dingo ancestry. A similar degree of overlap in shape exists between North American wolves and closely related husky dogs.

Recognizing the dingo as a full species is likely to remain controversial. But, lineage based species concepts will likely accept the dingo as a species. The full article is available on-line.

Citations

Crowther MS, Fillios M, Colman N and Letnic M. 2014. An updated description of the Australian dingo (Canis dingo Meyer, 1793). Journal of Zoology, 293: 192–203. doi: 10.1111/jzo.12134.

Dog remains from Santa Rosa Island, California

Remains of a dog on Santa Rosa Island, CA (T. Rick)

In a recent paper in Ethnobiology Letters Hofman and Rick (2014) report on the remains of six dog skeletons from Santa Rosa Island, in the Channel Islands of California. Native Americans colonized the Channel Islands about 13,000 YBP and inhabited the islands until about 1822. The island Chumash people were maritime foragers during the Late Holocene and potentially earlier. They lived in large villages and had sophisticated mainland and island exchange networks. Dog remains have been found in Channel Island sites as early as ~6000 YBP, but they are most common in sites dated from ~1500 YBP to the Historic Period. Ethnographic accounts of dogs are limited, suggesting that the mainland Chumash may have occasionally used dogs for food, but it is unclear if they were used in hunting.  Archaeological data suggest that dogs may have been used for hunting and as working animals. Documents discussing Vizcaino’s 1602 expedition suggested that Santa Catalina Island dogs were of medium size and similar to spotted retrievers found in Europe at the time.

CA-SRI-2 is a large late Holocene village and cemetery complex on northwest Santa Rosa Island and has produced a number of dog remains. The site was excavated by Phil Orr in the 1940s-1960s and then revisited in by Rick in 2000-2003. Rick et al. (2011) used δ13C and δ15N data from dog, fox, and human bones to reconstruct diet among these three species. The Native Americans and their dogs at CA-SRI-2 had similar diets -high trophic marine organisms like finfishes, marine mammals, and seabirds, complemented by seeds, corms, and other carbohydrates. In contrast, the CA-SRI-2 island foxes appear to have eaten lower trophic level terrestrial foods. Their data confirm the commensal relationship between dogs and people, with some modest carbon enrichment in dogs perhaps from higher consumption of C3 plants and bone collagen.

The CA-SRI-2 dogs are similar in size and share some aspects of morphology to other Channel Island dogs. Two of the CASRI dogs are consistent with medium facial size (mesaticephalic dogs) and have similar characteristics to a dog from San Nicolas Island though that dog was more brachycephalic than the CA-SRI-2 dogs. Shoulder height estimates suggest that the CA-SRI-2 dogs were large to medium in size (42.52-55.09 cm), falling within or above the estimates for three other Channel Island dogs.

The CA-SRI-2 dogs share many characteristics with Plains-Indian Dog breed measurements reported by Allen for San Nicolas Island but, like some of those dogs, they also have some overlap with the Shortnosed Indian Dog. The mix of Allen’s Shortnosed and Plains-Indian Dog characteristics is further supported by dog mandible and teeth measurements reported by others for three dogs from Santa Cruz Island and a dog from San Miguel Island. These data suggest that prehistoric southern California dogs had a mix of traits with many falling into the large Indian Dog category and still others falling into the small Indian Dog category. Domestic dogs were important companions for humans on the northern and southern Channel Islands, and were scavenging and/or being fed the same types of foods that people were eating, and were often given special burial treatment.

Citations

Hofman, C., & Rick, T. (2014). The Dogs of CA-SRI-2: Osteometry of Canis familiaris from Santa Rosa Island, California. Ethnobiology Letters, 5, 65-76.

Rick, T. C., B. J. Culleton, C. B. Smith, J. R. Johnson, and D. J. Kennett. 2011. Stable Isotope Analysis of Dog, Fox, and Human Diets at a Late Holocene Chumash Village (CA-SRI-2) on Santa Rosa Island, California. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:1385-1393.

Free-ranging dogs in India, daily activity

Indian Pariah Dog, Central India 

Many countries, both developed and developing have large populations of free-ranging dogs, notably Mexico, Ecuador, Zambia, Zimbabwe Italy, India, Nepal and Japan. Free-ranging dogs are a ubiquitous part of the urban ecology in these counties and others. However, dogs in India have lived outside of human homes for centuries and been used for hunting. Dog figurines and remains have been unearthed in the Indus Valley Civilization and references to dogs can be found in ancient Indian texts like the Rg Veda, the Puranas, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana and the Manu Samhita. Dogs are also present in many folk tales from across the country. The Hindu culture considers dog outcasts, associated with death and evil. However householder’s that have dogs outside their house have the daily duty feeding the dogs and outcasts. While the European influence has introduced pedigreed dogs to the homes of the middle class and elite society, the Indian pariah dog has continued to live on the streets, depending on garbage and begging for food.

In a recent paper Majumder et al. (2014) study free-ranging dogs, noting very little is known about the ecoethology and most of what we know about dog behavior is based on studies of pets reared by humans. The free-ranging dogs lead a scavenging life, depending on human excesses for their survival, and rarely hunt. They are often considered a menace by many people, as dirty animals that bark, bite and spread rabies. These notions are often founded on personal biases and little scientific data exist to either support or refute such claims. As part of an extended study on the behavioral ecology of free-ranging dogs in India, they carried out random sampling of dog behavior through censuses in two cities and one township of India. Data from 1941 sightings provided the basis for a time activity budget of dogs during the part of the day when they share the streets with humans.

The analysis revealed that the dogs are inactive for over half of the day, either sleeping, lazing or just sitting. Sampling was done only during the time when dogs could actually be seen on the streets, and were not hiding in shelters, so the authors suggest this is actually an underestimate. Their results match the observations on free-ranging dogs in Berkeley, California, USA, in which repeated sampling were carried out in a 48 ha residential area for seven months. In this study, 1243 sightings were made on about 50 unique free-ranging dogs, which were found to be resting in 44.4% of the sightings. This study also reported that free-ranging dogs were most abundant in the early mornings and late afternoons, with the percentage of dogs found to be resting increasing with temperature, for an observed temperature range of 9–29⁰C. Though temperature was not recorded during this study, the temperature range during observations was 8–36⁰C, considering all the time periods and the three locations covered. When the dogs were not resting, they were most often seen to be walking. Since the sampling was based on random sightings, the purpose of walking was unknown. Dogs typically walk in search of food, and also for marking their territories. Interaction rates were quite low, and all recorded instances of interaction with humans were submissive. Thus, this analysis does not support the general notion of free-ranging dogs being aggressive, unfriendly animals that are a constant source of nuisance to people on the streets of India.

Dogs bark and howl, often producing a chorus reminiscent of their wolf ancestors, and this makes them an irritant with many humans. Many encounters between dogs are often interrupted by people who chase them away, often by throwing stones or dousing them with water. Dogs were sighted producing sound in only 65 cases, which was 3.34% of the total observations. Thus, the perception of dogs as noisy and aggressive creatures that present a threat to human well-being is quite biased.

However, it is true that many dogs in the Indian streets are rabid, and dog bites do occur, though these are not regular incidents as perceived by some. Dogs are efficient scavengers, and are responsible for removing of a large volume of garbage from the streets. While this preliminary study suggests that the general perception of these dogs as a nuisance is quite flawed. The authors argue that the solution to dog–human conflict is not culling, but efficient management of garbage and rabies in the country, and a positive attitude towards dogs.

Citation

Majumder SS, Chatterjee A, & Bhadra A. (2014). A dog’s day with humans–time activity budget of free-ranging dogs in India. Current Science, 106(6), 874.

Dogs Jealous?

Jealousy is usually thought of as being unique to humans, in part because of the complex cognitions often involved in this emotion. However, from a functional perspective, one might expect that an emotion that evolved to protect social bonds from interlopers might exist in other social species, particularly one as cognitively sophisticated as the dog.

Harris and Prouvost (2014) experimented using a paradigm from human infant studies to examine jealousy in domestic dogs. They found that dogs exhibited significantly more jealous behaviors (such as snapping, getting between the owner and object, pushing/touching the object/owner) when their owners displayed affectionate behaviors towards what appeared to be another dog as compared to nonsocial objects.

When their owners showed affection toward a stuffed dog, the real puppies in the study responded by snapping or pushing the stuffed dog aside. This jealous streak only surfaced when owners were attending to the stuffed dog and not when they were occupied with random objects. However, this was no ordinary stuffed dog: It was engineered to bark, whine and wag its tail convincingly.

Since jealously is generally believed to be an emotion that requires more complex thinking, the researchers suggested there could be a more basic form of jealousy specific to dogs and some other social animals that helps protect their bonds and ward off outsiders.

"Many people have assumed that jealousy is a social construction of human beings -- or that it's an emotion specifically tied to sexual and romantic relationships," study co-author Christine Harris, a psychology professor at UCSD, said in a university news release. "Our results challenge these ideas, showing that animals besides ourselves display strong distress whenever a rival usurps a loved one's affection."

As for whether the puppies in the study viewed the stuffed dog as an actual rival, the researchers pointed to this result as evidence that they did: 86 percent of the puppies sniffed the stuffed dog's rear end.

The study, published July 23 in the journal PLOS ONE, involved 36 puppies. Each dog was just 6 months old. All of the puppies were tested separately and videotaped.

During the test, owners were told to ignore their dog and turn their attention to three different objects. First, the owners attended to the realistic-looking stuffed dog. Then they focused on a pail. The third object in the test was a book.

In observing the dogs' behavior, the researchers looked for signs of aggression, attention-seeking and interest in their owner or the objects. The test was designed to help the researchers determine if the dogs felt an emotion similar to jealousy, or if they were just generally annoyed when they lost their owners' attention.

The dogs demonstrated more jealous behaviors when their owner focused on the stuffed dog than when their owner paid attention to the other objects, the study found. These behaviors included trying to come between their owner and the stuffed dog, pushing their owner and snapping when the owners displayed affection toward the stuffed dog.

The researchers concluded a form of primitive jealousy that exists in babies may also exist in at least one other social animal: dogs. This emotion, the study's authors suggested, may have evolved to help infants compete for resources from their parents, including food, attention, love and care.

Citation

Harris CR, Prouvost C (2014) Jealousy in Dogs. PLoS ONE 9(7): e94597. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094597

Dogs as vectors of rabies

While rabies is considered a relatively rare disease in developed countries, in much of the developing world it remains a serious health issue for humans. Two recent papers deal with dogs as vectors of rabies to humans.

Electron micrograph of the Rabies Virus. This electron 

micrograph shows the rabies virus - the small gray 

bodies, as well as Negri bodies, or cellular inclusions. 

CDC/Dr. Fred Murphy.

Aréchiga Ceballos et al. (2014) report that over 90% of human deaths from rabies worldwide are caused by dog bites. Mass vaccination, along with the effective control of dog populations, has been used successfully in industrialized countries to control this disease. However, a lower success rate in developing countries is due to a number of factors, including vaccination campaigns that do not cover a sufficient number of animals or reach all communities, and a wide biodiversity that increases the number of reservoirs of the rabies virus. Educational programs are needed, which focus on the commitment involved when acquiring a domestic animal, stating clearly what is required to provide it with a good quality of life. New technologies developed in the industrialized world will not always be successful in less developed countries. Approaches must be adapted to the particular conditions in each country, taking cultural and socio-economic issues into account. Authorities must promote research on dog population dynamics, the development of non-invasive methods to control dog populations and the most efficient, stable and low-cost options for vaccination. Under the One Health model, it is hoped that dog-transmitted human rabies will be accorded high priority as a zoonosis by human health authorities, international authorities and donor agencies to support ambitious eradication goals, particularly those being set in South-East Asia. Well-designed and adequately resourced vaccination programs, based on the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) guidelines, will have significant animal welfare benefits, due to the availability of improved vaccines (in terms of efficacy, duration of immunity, ease of administration and lower cost), advances in dog population management and the more widespread implementation of the OIE Guidelines on stray Dog Control. Animal welfare benefits include not only the elimination of pain and suffering caused by the clinical disease itself, but also the avoidance of the indirect impact of inhumane culling when methods are used that have not been approved by the OIE.

In a second, recent paper on dogs and rabies Ajoke et al. (2014)  review the risk factors associated with dog trading and slaughtering dogs for food in the transmission of rabies in Nigeria. Emphasis on the potential role that the butchers play in rabies transmission and their susceptibility to rabies through contact with infectious meat samples and materials is also discussed. Dog meat has become a delicacy in many parts of Nigeria. It is eaten for various reasons including medicinal values, source of protein, and in rituals. Dogs are transported to the slaughter-houses for processing and they may have multiple origins. The rabies virus has been confirmed in apparently healthy dogs to be slaughtered showing that butchers are at risk, especially in Nigeria, where the butchers neither wear protective gear nor have they been vaccinated against rabies. The authors recommend regular vaccination for butchers and dogs. They conclude that dog trading, slaughtering and consumption probably play a major role in the epidemiology of rabies from dogs to humans in Nigeria.

Citation
Ajoke E., Solomon A, and Ikhide E. 2014. The role of dog trading and slaughter for meat in rabies epidemiology with special reference to Nigeria - a review. Journal of Experimental Biology and Agricultural Sciences, 2:130-136.

Aréchiga Ceballos N, Karunaratna D, Aguilar Setién 2014. Control of canine rabies in developing countries: key features and animal welfare implications. A Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics)  33:311-321

The Donggyeong, a poorly known dog from Korea

Native dogs of Korea

The Cultural Heritage Administration (Korea) registered the Donggyeong breed on its list of natural monuments in 2012. This is a state-designated heritage classification for animals, plants and biological and geological features carrying exceptional historical, cultural, scientific, aesthetic or academic value. The Jindo and the Sapsal dogs had been previously given this designation (see photos to the left).

The oldest reference to the Donggyeong is in The Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms, a book about Korea’s Three Kingdoms era, a period between the fourth and seventh centuries, and written during the Goryeo period (918-1392). One of the chapters of the book, “Assorted Information on the Donggyeong,” is dedicated to the dog. The Donggyeong was also a model for dogs appearing on earthenware made by during the Silla Dynasty (B.C. 57-935). 

At first glance, the Donggyeong looks very similar to the Jindo. However, the key distinction is in the tail: While the Jindo’s tail is long and curved, the Donggyeong has  a bobtail or completely lacks a tail.

In 2007 locals initiated a project to preserve the breed, forming an organization called the Korea Preservation Association for Gyeongju Dog Donggyeong and started breeding the dog in Gyeongju. Today, there are some 306 Donggyeong dogs which are officially recognized by the CHA.

In a forthcoming paper in the Journal of Veterinary Medical Science (Japan) Gil-jae Cho and colleagues analyze 10 microsatellite markers in the Donggyeong dog and compare it to 12 other dog breeds (369 individual dogs). The number of alleles per locus varied from 5 to 10 with a mean value of 7.6 in the Donggyeong dog. This study found specific alleles in the Donggyeong dog when compared with other dog breeds. Also, the results showed two Korean native dogs cluster together while other dog breeds form a distinctly different cluster. The closest distance (0.1184) was observed between the Donggyeong and Jindo suggesting a common ancestor.

Citations

Lee, E. W., Choi, S. K., & Cho, G. J. (in press, 2014). Molecular Genetic Diversity of the Gyeongju Donggyeong Dog in Korea. The Journal of veterinary medical science/the Japanese Society of Veterinary Science.

Dog of Silla royalty gets heritage designation. Korea JoogAng Daily. April 9, 2012.

Detection dogs and big cats

Greg Davidson and detection dog Chevy searching for cougar scat.

Detection dogs can be trained to locate explosives, illegal drugs, wildlife scat, or human remains. They have even been trained to locate illicit mobile phones in prisons. But, they have become extremely valuable for wildlife biologists and have been used to collect data on invasive species as well as endangered species.

In a forthcoming study in the Journal of Wildlife Management, Greg Davidson and colleagues from Find it Detection Dogs, used detection dogs to estimate the population size of cougars in northeast Oregon. Cougars are solitary, elusive, and have large home ranges. The researchers surveyed a 220 km² area using conservation detection dogs trained to locate cougar scat. Two hundred and seventy-two scat samples were collected, and 249 were analyzed for individual identification using DNA.  From 73 samples, 21 cougars (9 males and 12 females) could be recognized. The authors evaluated four models to estimate cougar densities: Huggins closed population capture–recapture (Huggins), CAPWIRE, multiple detections with Poisson (MDP), and spatially explicit capture–recapture (SECR). Their population estimates for the study area were 26 (9 males and 17 females) from Huggins models, 24 (9 males and 15 females) from CAPWIRE, and 27 (9 males and 18 females) from the MDP model.

This study demonstrates the efficacy of using detection dogs to collect cougar scat. The results suggest the probability of a dog finding a cougar’s scat on the landscape (given scat was available) in any of the 4 surveys was 0.99 for males and 0.68 for females. As a result, the authors were able to collected scat from all 4 GPS-collared cougars known to occupy a portion of the study area. The reported capture probabilities of this study were the largest observed for any previous study conducted with wild felids, which highlight the benefits of using scat detecting dogs to estimate cougar densities. Determining the age of the cougars captured was not possible because of the use of scat; so, their estimates included adults, subadults, and juveniles old enough to leave den sites.

Citation

Davidson, G. A., Clark, D. A., Johnson, B. K., Waits, L. P., & Adams, J. R. (in press, 2014). Estimating cougar densities in northeast Oregon using conservation detection dogs. The Journal of Wildlife Management. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.758

The advantages of being a scavenger, and the evolution of dogs

Dogs are scavnegers. JCM

 One night in the tropics I had to stop to change a tire. My companion was looking along the roadside for snakes while I set up the jack, removed the tire from the trunk and jacked-up the car. It was just about this time when I heard him vomiting. He returned to the car muttering – “oh that was horrible.” At first I thought he was talking about dinner.  After inquiring about his health he said, he was ok, but had seen something vile –telling me not to look. Needless to say I did look and found the remains of a goat, which had been tied along the road and hit by a vehicle. Actually when I say remains - the only remains of the goat was a seething mass of maggots in the perfect outline of the goat. Decomposition repels humans- the odor, the bloat, the liquefaction – horrible stuff but it eventually happens to all of us when the ecosystem recycles our molecules.

Animals die from a variety of causes other than predation. Accidents and disease take their toll and when they die the carcass is a valuable source of calories, proteins, and nutrients for any animal that can scavenge the remains. In the tropics scavengers are in a race with the decomposers (bacteria and fungi) to obtain those nutrients, but at high latitudes where cooler temperatures prevail decomposition is much slower. Large animal carcasses may stay around for months or even years if it is in an area of permafrost, because temperatures do not favor bacterial or fungal growth.

Virtually any vertebrate predator can be a scavenger, even predators that are dedicated predator may eat carrion on occasion.

DeVault et al. (2002) note, “The costs and benefits associated with carrion use influences the evolution of scavenging behavior in vertebrates, resulting in a continuum of facultative scavengers that use carrion to varying degrees. The realized usage of carrion by a vertebrate species is influenced by the speed and efficiency with which it forages, its visual and olfactory abilities, and its capacity for detoxifying products of decomposition. A deeper understanding of carrion use by facultative scavengers will improve our knowledge of community and ecosystem processes, especially the flow of energy through food webs.”

Making a living scavenging carrion has its advantages: the animal is dead so there is no chance the prey will injure the predator as it is killed and there is little effort involved in actually getting to the meal, but, there may be completion from other scavengers.

To be sure wolves do act as scavengers, but when they kill prey they also provide food for other scavengers in the community.

So, under what conditions might a population of wolves be selected to be scavengers instead of predators? The possible answers to this question will provide clues as to how a population of wolves evolved into dogs sometime between 135,000 and 40,000 YBP (years before present).

Citation

DeVault TL, Rhodes OE Jr, and Shivik JA 2003. Scavenging by vertebrates: behavioral, ecological, and evolutionary perspectives on an important energy transfer pathway in terrestrial ecosystems. USDA National Wildlife Research Center – Staff Publications Paper 269.

How long ago did the dog and wolf separate from their ancestor?

Dates for the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for dogs and wolves are remarkable recent. When Stan Olsen (1983) wrote his classic work on domestic dog fossils (1983) he noted the oldest known remains were from Palegawra Cave in northeastern Iraq with an estimated age of 12 thousand years before present (YBP).

But subsequent evidence suggests that dogs split from wolves much latter than those fossils would imply. Deep in Chauvet cave, in France, Garcia (2005) found a track of footprints from a large canid associated with one of a child. Torch wipes made by this child were dated at about 26,000 YBP. Based on the short length of medial fingers in the footprints the canid track was interpreted as being made by a large dog.

Genetic data also suggests that the dogs originated prior to the often cited 15,000 YBP. Ostrander and Wayne (2005) report that mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence analysis shed some light on the location of dog domestication as well as the number of founding matralines. They found dog sequences in at least four distinct clades, suggesting a single origin event and at least three other origination or interbreeding events. They also found nucleotide diversity high, implying an origin date of 135 to 40 thousand YBP. And Ostrander and Wayne (2005) suggests dogs may have had a long prehistory when they were not phenotypically distinct from wolf progenitors. Therefore early dogs may not have been recognized as domesticated in the archaeological record prior to 15,000 YBP because of their physical similarity to gray wolves.

However, a group of morphologically distinct canids hypothesized to be early domesticated dogs have been identified by Germonpré et al., (2009, 2012). Seven complete large canid skulls and 26 skull fragments from the Gravettian Předmostí site in the Czech Republic were examined, three skulls were identified as European Palaeolithic dogs, characterized by short skulls, short snouts, wide palates and braincases, and even-sized carnassials. The presence of dogs at Předmostí supports the hypothesis that domestication of dogs began long before the Late Glacial. One of the skulls was identified as a Pleistocene wolf, three other skulls could not be assigned to a group. Furthermore, at Předmostí, several human modifications of the skulls and canines hint at a specific relationship between humans and large canids.

While this has been controversial (see Crockford and Kuzmin, 2012), the evidence continues to mount supporting a much older origin of dogs. Druzhkova et al. (2013) provide molecular evidence that the 33,000-year old Pleistocene dog from Altai has a unique haplotype and the Altai dog is more closely related to modern dogs and prehistoric New World canids than it is to extant wolves.

In a forthcoming article in Quaternary International Pat Shipman of Pennsylvania State University asks the question, how do you kill 86 mammoths. The author examines a series of Eurasian archaeological sites formed between about 40 and 15 thousand years ago that feature unusually large numbers of mammoth remains with abundant artifacts and, often, mammoth bone dwellings. 

Since the late 19th century, archaeological sites dominated by mammoth remains have been a focus for research. How the bones of large numbers of mammoths, ranging from a minimum number of five individuals to hundreds of individuals, were deposited in one place remains an un-answered question. And, despite previous investigation, the cause of death of mammoths in these sites has remained controversial.

Two predominate hypotheses have been used to explain these megasites (a reference to the large number of mammoth remains): (1) the mammoths died natural deaths which were subsequently scavenged by humans; (2) or that specialized human hunting resulted in the deaths of the mammoths. Questions about collection and excavation techniques pose challenges for synthesizing the information, but the wealth of material has produced numerous published zooarchaeological analyses of the sites, including number of non-mammoth species represented, minimum numbers of mammoths at each site, mammoth age at death, and mammoth age profiles from individual sites.

All of these mammoth megasites are dated after the appearance of modern humans in Eurasia. These unusual sites are of interest given the obvious successes of the humans that made them. But, also because of the large number of individual mammoths and the scarcity of carnivore tooth marks and gnawing.  The evidence suggest the mammoth hunters had invented a new ability to retain and control the mammoth carcasses – protecting all of that valuable protein from scavengers.

Age profiles of mammoths at the megasites differ statistically at the p < 0.01 level from age profiles of African elephant populations that died of either attritional or catastrophic causes. However, age profiles from some mammoth sites exhibit a chain of linked resemblances with each other through time and space, again suggesting hunter behavioral and technological innovation.

The megasites Shipman analyzed are spread across most of the Eurasian continent and over a substantial time span. The introduction and spread of complex projectile weaponry by modern humans was probably important in producing the abrupt changes in assemblages associated with hominins that started about 45,000 YBP. Previous authors observed that reduced weight projectile weapons are a “niche-broadening technology” because they are easily carried, retain energy longer in flight, and they reduce the risk of injury when hunting dangerous animals or in combat when fighting other people. Thus early modern humans may have broaden their ecological niche. The reduced weight projectile weapons transforms the hunters from ambush predators (as Neanderthals were) to being long-distance hunters. Shipman also suggests a second advance which occurred during MIS 3 (marine isotope stage 3, which started 57,000 YBP) may have enhanced the advantages of reduced weight projectile weapon technology - a quasi-domesticated large canids willing to work cooperatively with humans.

Shipman (2014) hypothesize that this innovation may have been facilitated by an early attempt to domesticate dogs, as indicated by a group of genetically and morphologically distinct large canids which first appear in archaeological sites at about 32,000 YBP.

Thus at the moment it would appear that the MRCA of dogs and wolves is indeed much older than 15,000 YBP. It also appears that dogs, were co-operating with humans at least 32,000 YPB. But did humans domesticate the dog, or did dogs evolve from wolves all on their own?

Citations

Crockford, S. J., & Kuzmin, Y. V. (2012). Comments on Germonpré et al., Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 2009 “Fossil dogs and wolves from Palaeolithic sites in Belgium, the Ukraine and Russia: osteometry, ancient DNA and stable isotopes”, and Germonpré, Lázkičková-Galetová, and Sablin, Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 2012 “Palaeolithic dog skulls at the Gravettian Předmostí site, the Czech Republic”. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(8), 2797-2801.

Druzhkova AS, Thalmann O, Trifonov VA, Leonard JA, Vorobieva NV, et al. (2013) Ancient DNA Analysis Affirms the Canid from Altai as a Primitive Dog. PLoS ONE 8(3): e57754. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057754.

Garcia, M.A., 2005. Ichnologie ge’ne’ rale de la grotte Chauvet. Bulletin de la Socie’ te’ pre’ historique francaise 102, 103–108.

Germonpré, M., Sablin, M. V., Stevens, R. E., Hedges, R. E., Hofreiter, M., Stiller, M., & Després, V. R. (2009). Fossil dogs and wolves from Palaeolithic sites in Belgium, the Ukraine and Russia: osteometry, ancient DNA and stable isotopes. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36: 473-490.

Germonpré, M., Lázničková-Galetová, M., & Sablin, M. V. (2012). Palaeolithic dog skulls at the Gravettian Předmostí site, the Czech Republic. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(1), 184-202.

Kolosov, P. N. (2014). Primitive Mammoth Hunters and the Earliest Breed of Dog. Natural Resources, 2014.

Olsen, S. J. (1985). Origins of the domestic dog: the fossil record. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 117 pp.

Ostrander, E. A., & Wayne, R. K. (2005). The canine genome. Genome research, 15(12), 1706-1716.

Shipman, P. (in press, 2014). How do you kill 86 mammoths? Taphonomic investigations of mammoth megasites. Quaternary International.