“I wanna be your dog”: Evaluating the efficacy of univariate and multivariate methods for differentiating domestic and wild canids in North America

Abstract

The domestic dog (Canis familiaris) holds a unique place in human cultures as the first species to be domesticated and has been adapted to a greater diversity of functions requiring far greater morphological variation than any other domesticate. Because of this variability in morphology and pronounced skeletal similarities with other canid species, dog remains are frequently challenging to identify in the archaeological record. Analysts have attempted to overcome these challenges by proposing a diverse array of methods for identifying dog remains. Unfortunately, recent analyses have quantitatively tested and critiqued the effectiveness of several methods widely used for identifying dog remains since the mid‐1900s. In addition, many methods were developed specifically for differentiating dogs from their progenitor species, the grey wolf (Canis lupus) and analysts working in many regions of the world have frequently assumed, without testing; they will remain effective in differentiating dog remains from other canid species. Using data collected on 538 North American dog, wolf, coyote and fox mandibles, we test the effectiveness of several methods for differentiating dogs from an array of North American canids. Our results reveal that no single method is universally effective and that differentiating dogs from mid‐sized canids, like the North American coyote, remains a significant challenge for archaeologists working in North America and likely other parts of the world.

Forensic Tools for Species Identification of Skeletal Remains: Metrics, Statistics, and OsteoID

“…Sheep and goat long bones are also difficult to differentiate [ 29 , 68 ]. Domestic dogs pose many issues, not just because of their similarity to other canids included in this study (e.g., coyotes and wolves) [ 69 , 70 ] but also because of their high degree of variability in both morphology and size [ 71 , 72 ]. The DFA species classification rates were significantly higher than chance, but the probability of species misidentification remains relatively high.…”

The Puppy in the Pit: Osteobiography of an Eighteenth-Century Dog at the Three Cranes Tavern, Massachusetts

“…There have been numerous attempts to standardize identification of canids based on cranial and dental differences over the years (e.g., Ameen et al 2017;Andersone and Ozolins 2000;Benecke 1987;Bockelmann 1920;Clutton-Brock 1963;Germonpré et al 2015;Morey 1994;Olsen and Olsen 1977;Studer 1901). However, recent reviews and morphometric studies of these collected methods concluded that many measurements used for differentiation show a great deal of variation within modern and archaeological dog, wolf, coyote, and fox specimens (Janssens et al 2019;Welker et al 2020). A mulitvariate approach is best for distinguishing dogs from other canids, and in this case the ratio of M1 length to mandibular bowing in the TCT dog specimen was compared to the measurements of the same presented in Welker et al (2020).…”

“…However, recent reviews and morphometric studies of these collected methods concluded that many measurements used for differentiation show a great deal of variation within modern and archaeological dog, wolf, coyote, and fox specimens (Janssens et al 2019;Welker et al 2020). A mulitvariate approach is best for distinguishing dogs from other canids, and in this case the ratio of M1 length to mandibular bowing in the TCT dog specimen was compared to the measurements of the same presented in Welker et al (2020). While the TCT dog specimen's left M1 length of 13.66 mm and mandibular bowing angle of 17.17° falls outside the significant cluster (95% CI) of domestic dog measurements presented by Welker et al (2020), it does closely correspond to several samples within their dataset which belong to both Chihuahua and toy sized mixed breed dogs (Welker et al 2020).…”