Of dogs, wolves, and debate: A reply to Janssens et al. (2021)

Prassack, Kari A.; DuBois, Josephine; Lázničková‐Galetová, Martina; Germonpré, Mietje; Ungar, Peter S.

doi:10.1016/j.jas.2020.105228

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It therefore seems plausible that many pups taken from these dens could have displayed altered craniodental morphometry and body size reduction, resulting in the distinctive Palaeodog morphotype ( Germonpré et al, 2009 ). Indeed, in the model proposed here, young socialized Palaeodogs probably would have been the canid type that was most commonly encountered in and around the large congregation sites, either as camp-living companions or in loose association with people (see also Koungoulos, 2021 ); both variants could have survived principally on food provided by humans (i.e., lean meat and bones from reindeer and muskoxen; Bocherens et al, 2015 ; Prassack et al, 2020 , 2021 ).…”

Section: Implications Of Human-dingo Relations For Wolf Domesticationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These sites are also notable for the presence of both Pleistocene wolves and Palaeodogs. Furthermore, these two morphotypes represent ecologically distinct populations that differ in their dental microwear textures (Prassack et al, 2020(Prassack et al, , 2021 and stable isotope ratios (Bocherens et al, 2015), suggesting that the Pleistocene wolves ate more suitable and softer food items that contained a large portion of mammoth meat compared to the Palaeodogs. The latter had more bones in their diet, which consisted mostly of reindeer and muskox (Bocherens et al, 2015;Prassack et al, 2020Prassack et al, , 2021.…”

Section: Den-raiding Near Human Aggregation Sitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, these two morphotypes represent ecologically distinct populations that differ in their dental microwear textures (Prassack et al, 2020(Prassack et al, , 2021 and stable isotope ratios (Bocherens et al, 2015), suggesting that the Pleistocene wolves ate more suitable and softer food items that contained a large portion of mammoth meat compared to the Palaeodogs. The latter had more bones in their diet, which consisted mostly of reindeer and muskox (Bocherens et al, 2015;Prassack et al, 2020Prassack et al, , 2021. Likely, the Pleistocene wolves scavenged mammoth carcasses at human kill sites, like other carnivores also did, while Palaeodogs were fed lean meat (Bocherens et al, 2015;Lahtinen et al, 2021).…”

Section: Den-raiding Near Human Aggregation Sitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The human-initiated model of wolf domestication – An expansion based on human-dingo relations in Aboriginal Australia

2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The historically known relationship of interspecies companionship between Aboriginal foraging communities in Australia and free-ranging dingoes provides a model for understanding the human-canid relations that gave rise to the first domesticated dogs. Here, we propose that a broadly similar relationship might have developed early in time between wild-living wolves and mobile groups of foragers in Late Pleistocene Eurasia, with hunter-gatherers routinely raiding wild wolf dens for pre-weaned pups, which were socialized to humans and kept in camp as tamed companions (“pets”). We outline a model in which captive wolf pups that reverted to the wild to breed when they were sexually mature established their territories in the vicinity of foraging communities — in a “liminal” ecological zone between humans and truly wild-living wolves. Many (or most) of the wolf pups humans took from the wilderness to rear in camp may have derived from these liminal dens where the breeding pairs had been under indirect human selection for tameness over many generations. This highlights the importance of the large seasonal hunting/aggregation camps associated with mammoth kill-sites in Gravettian/Epigravettian central Europe. Large numbers of foragers gathered regularly at these locations during the wild wolf birthing season. We infer that if a pattern of this kind occurred over long periods of time then there might have been a pronounced effect on genetic variation in free-ranging wolves that denned and whelped in the liminal zones in the vicinity of these human seasonal aggregation sites. The argument is not that wolves were domesticated in central Europe. Rather, it is this pattern of hunter-gatherers who caught and reared wild wolf pups gathering seasonally in large numbers that might have been the catalyst for the early changes leading to the first domesticated dogs — whether in western Eurasia or further afield.

show abstract