Wolves

[tansy]

I understand that it's generally thought that present-day dogs, whether wild or domesticated, are descendents of wolves.
If breeders were to take a pair of wolves (or maybe a group of wolves), and selectively breed them for certain characteristics, and/or breed characteristics out of them...does anyone know how long it would take for them to be quite different from the original ones...how long for example would it take for them to breed, say, a husky type dog, or a chihuahua type dog, or whatever. How long would it take for them to appear really not wolf-like?
I know that dog breeds have changed quite significantly over several hubdred years, even over a hundred years or so, so I would imagine it wouldn't necessarily take that long, with deliberate selection to bring about large changes in appearance from an actual wolf?

 

[Hespera]

http://www.floridalupine.org/publications/PDF/trut-fox-study.pdf

 

[tansy]

Thanks Hespera - what a fascinating article,,,,I wonder if they are able to carry on with their research, whether the foxes might end up with a great deal of variation , such as one finds in domesticated dogs, particularly if they start breeding for other characeristics.

 

[Tenka]

I know that dog breeds have changed quite significantly over several hubdred years, even over a hundred years or so, so I would imagine it wouldn't necessarily take that long, with deliberate selection to bring about large changes in appearance from an actual wolf?

Are you asking for a time estimation assuming the right characteristics appeared and were immediately and successfully selected for?

Most of the dogs we have today are kind of 'cartoon versions' of breeds that were developed for specific purposes and while they were used for that purpose they may have existed like that fairly unchanged for a long period.
We had a beagle for many years, a show champion in his day but he wouldn't have gotten through the first hedge hunting foxes. Animals are capable of changing at a fast pace but very often at a cost of serious health problems caused by genetic bottlenecks.

I have here a year book of science from 1983 detailing problems common in breeds of dog including general and varied eye, spinal, and dental problems, glandular failures, epilepsy, birthing difficulties, arthritis or premature wearing of joints, respiratory problems, susceptibility to skin infection s in breeds with excessive skin folding, ear infections. Some breeds such as certain terriers can even suffer necrosis of bone tissue due to lack of blood supply.

Without modern medicine (and modern foolishness) a lot of the breeds we have would not exist.


Edit to add:

This is a bulldog from the early 1800s.

Compare with a modern bulldog, which are legendary for their ill health and fragility in contrast with their apparently robust physique.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I read somewhere that, after seven generations, the descendants of wild wolves were nigh indistinguishable from dogs.

Come to think of it, I may have read that article Hespera posted. Good find, girl!

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

"If somehow the recognized breeds existed only as fossils, paleontologists would consider them not one species but many - certainly more than the thirty-six species of wild dogs that live in nature today."

Question: Should we establish new species for varying varieties of dogs? If so, what should the critera be?

For instance, a 180 pound English Mastiff and a two pound Chihuahua would likely not produce viable offspring via natural selection.

 

[Washington]

"If somehow the recognized breeds existed only as fossils, paleontologists would consider them not one species but many - certainly more than the thirty-six species of wild dogs that live in nature today."

Possibly among the more diverse breeds. It would depend on the specific breeds.

Question: Should we establish new species for varying varieties of dogs? If so, what should the critera be?

Under current taxonomic codes it isn't possible. Artificially created variants such as breeds and cultivars are not officially sanctioned by any code.

BTW, until just recently dogs and wolves were considered separate species, Canis familiaris and C. lupus; however, the American Society of Mammologists has reclassified the domestic dog as C. lupus familiaris, a subspecies of wolf, and the wolf as C. l. nubilus and C. l. occidentalis, two subspecies. Whether the rest of the world agrees with this reclassification remains to be seen.

 

[Penumbra]

A species is usually a group of organisms that can breed and produce fertile offspring. There are gray areas, though, and sometimes they just use genetics to define what a species is...

I think dogs are considered all the same species because they can mate with each other and produce fertile offspring. Once they get so far separated that they can no longer do that, then I suppose they should be considered different species.

 

[Hespera]

A species is usually a group of organisms that can breed and produce fertile offspring. There are gray areas, though, and sometimes they just use genetics to define what a species is...

I think dogs are considered all the same species because they can mate with each other and produce fertile offspring. Once they get so far separated that they can no longer do that, then I suppose they should be considered different species.

Grey areas is right! The domestic cow and the american bison are not classified as the same genus even, and they can breed with fertile offspring.

IF you had such disparate dogs as exist now, that had developed naturally... the Isle of the Poodle and so forth.. I think they would rightly be considered different species.

No genetic difference whether wild or domestic... but as domestics, they are the same SPECIES, different BREED. Wild, they would be different species. Why? Just coz.

All of this by way of saying that "species" is a term that will never stop being argued over, as to what it means. Then there are subspecies.

I think one of the main criteria is whether identifying a separate species is in some way useful. There is no earthly use in the exercise of putting latin names on the various breeds and mixes of dogs. AKC is handling calssificaiton Let them have it.

 

[Washington]

A species is usually a group of organisms that can breed and produce fertile offspring. There are gray areas, though, and sometimes they just use genetics to define what a species is...

I think dogs are considered all the same species because they can mate with each other and produce fertile offspring. Once they get so far separated that they can no longer do that, then I suppose they should be considered different species.

As you note, there are exceptions to this kind of definition. The various species concepts now in use have arisen out of the need to address classification issues that are often particular to only one branch or sphere of biology and therefore are seldom widely applicable.

Dromedaries and bactrians, camels two separate species, Camelus dromedarius and C. bactrianus, can mate and reproduce fertile offspring, although some males are born sterile. However because of their natural dispositions toward each other, when brought together they prefer to breed within their own species than with the other, which appears to be the reason they are still regarded as distinct species.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Yes, with artificial selection, all breeds can reproduce. The question should be whether they would or not with natural selection.

Maybe c.l.f. grandus and c.l.f. smallous

 

[tansy]

Sorry..only just caught up with all your posts...ive been really busy lately.

Sounds complicated, all this about species, breeds and genera etc. I'd always thought all that was cut-and-dried now...apparntly not necessarily.

So, just to get this straight, are different breeds of dogs considered sub-species, or merely different breeds?

I do get slightly confused with all this (not having really studied it. ) What are the current classifications...families, genera, species and subspecies? Are there more?

I've been watching a programme on tv about how humans dispersed from Afica..very interesting. It was saying that Neanderthals were a different species from homo sapiens. They'd also thought that modern humans might have interbred with them...however, having studied DNA from modern humans and Neanderthals, they haven't found any Neanderthal DNA in modern humans, so are concluding that theyb didnt interbreed...although, in theory, I dont think there was any physical reason why they shouldnt have done.

Do you think that, had Neanderthals survived to this day, that they would have been able to function the same as us, and might we have interbred by now ? (I know this has gone away from wolves, but really, it's still along the same lines)
I know they had larger brains than us, but I suppose that doesnt mean they were necessarily more "intelligent" than us...I believe that's more to do with how many "crinkles" they have on their brain? I dont suppose they've discovered how crinkly Neanderthals brains were?
They seem to have been essentially the same as us, from what they've found (aprt obviously from slight physical differences) - they made tools etc etc. However this programme said that the modern humans who overtook them, had flutes made from mammoth tusk. Also, I think that they had art (or maybe the art was more sophisticated, I dont quite remember that bit).
But does that mean to say Neanderthals wouldnt have developed these things? And who's to say that THEY didnt have flutes or whatever, only perhaps made from wood or something, which would have been unlikely to survive.
From the little I know, can one say that they were really a different species - after all, nowadays we have a great range of humans (all homo sapiens, I know)....but when one thinks of pygmies, and those really tall, slender people in Africa (the name of which escapes me at the moment), and all the different ranges of people all over the world, are we really so different from Neanderthals that we can be considered a different species?

 

[tansy]

Are you asking for a time estimation assuming the right characteristics appeared and were immediately and successfully selected for?

Most of the dogs we have today are kind of 'cartoon versions' of breeds that were developed for specific purposes and while they were used for that purpose they may have existed like that fairly unchanged for a long period.
We had a beagle for many years, a show champion in his day but he wouldn't have gotten through the first hedge hunting foxes. Animals are capable of changing at a fast pace but very often at a cost of serious health problems caused by genetic bottlenecks.

I have here a year book of science from 1983 detailing problems common in breeds of dog including general and varied eye, spinal, and dental problems, glandular failures, epilepsy, birthing difficulties, arthritis or premature wearing of joints, respiratory problems, susceptibility to skin infection s in breeds with excessive skin folding, ear infections. Some breeds such as certain terriers can even suffer necrosis of bone tissue due to lack of blood supply.

Without modern medicine (and modern foolishness) a lot of the breeds we have would not exist.


Edit to add:

This is a bulldog from the early 1800s.

Compare with a modern bulldog, which are legendary for their ill health and fragility in contrast with their apparently robust physique.

Yes, I realise much of that. But I wonder what would happen then if one could take small groups of wolves and isolate them in different conditions one lot on a small island, say, one lot in a setting to try amnd domesticate them, one lot in a desert (provided there was enough food and water), etc etc, I wonder if and how quickly they would change. From the sound of the above article on foxes, I would imagine that wolves being bred for tameabillity would quite quickly start to exhibit changes similar to the foxes. I assume that the wolves left wild but isolated in diverse conditions would quite quicly change also...maybe all getting white fur?...or grow really short fur, smaller paws or whatever? Like Darwin's finches etc.

 

[tansy]

"If somehow the recognized breeds existed only as fossils, paleontologists would consider them not one species but many - certainly more than the thirty-six species of wild dogs that live in nature today."

Question: Should we establish new species for varying varieties of dogs? If so, what should the critera be?

For instance, a 180 pound English Mastiff and a two pound Chihuahua would likely not produce viable offspring via natural selection.

Not that I'm suggesting it, but what would happen if say they introduced sperm from a chihuahua into a female mastiff (as im assuming it would be difficult for them to actually mate) - would the offspring be viable then?

 

[tansy]

Possibly among the more diverse breeds. It would depend on the specific breeds.



Under current taxonomic codes it isn't possible. Artificially created variants such as breeds and cultivars are not officially sanctioned by any code.

BTW, until just recently dogs and wolves were considered separate species, Canis familiaris and C. lupus; however, the American Society of Mammologists has reclassified the domestic dog as C. lupus familiaris, a subspecies of wolf, and the wolf as C. l. nubilus and C. l. occidentalis, two subspecies. Whether the rest of the world agrees with this reclassification remains to be seen.

Interesting - do you think it's p[ossible that wolves and dogs could kind of have the same relationship to each other as, say, homo sapiens and Neanderthals..not necessarily direct descent?

 

[Hespera]

Tansy... no, i would say absolutely not. neanderthal and homo s are way more different.

somewhat related thought

if one were to release a bunch of dogs of all breeds on say the continent of Australia back before people or dingos...you can be confident that when you came back in say 500 years, there'd be no poodles. dalmations, or bulldogs! All the dogs would look about the same, and it would be something that looked a lot like a coyote , dingo or wolf.

 

[tansy]

Tansy... no, i would say absolutely not. neanderthal and homo s are way more different.

How are we different apart from larger brain, short stocky body, thicker bones, protruding brow ridge..those are the only things i remember for the moment

somewhat related thought

if one were to release a bunch of dogs of all breeds on say the continent of Australia back before people or dingos...you can be confident that when you came back in say 500 years, there'd be no poodles. dalmations, or bulldogs! All the dogs would look about the same, and it would be something that looked a lot like a coyote , dingo or wolf


QUOTE]

So are you saying they'd all return to original type?
What then if all humans were put in Australia...would they all return to type, as it were?

 

[Hespera]

Interesting question Tansy!

One can think of so many scenarios on something like that. but lets say that you put people of every race there and then zap them back to caveman level of culture.

lets make it desert outback for the setting.

all the northern european types would be selected against.... skin cancer basically.

if the races stuck to themselves, maybe some would be eliminated by warfare.

however it happened, i think that if you checked back in say 10,000 years... people having a lot longer generation time than dogs....that you'd find one pretty uniform race of people. dark skinned, and with a physical stature suited to the environment.

with dogs, btw, there is a certain sort of dog that is to be found all over the world as a sort of wild dump dog. small, short hair, upright ears. I dont know where to find a reference to this, but Im sure it wont be hard to find.

 

[tansy]

Interesting question Tansy!

One can think of so many scenarios on something like that. but lets say that you put people of every race there and then zap them back to caveman level of culture.

lets make it desert outback for the setting.

all the northern european types would be selected against.... skin cancer basically.

if the races stuck to themselves, maybe some would be eliminated by warfare.

however it happened, i think that if you checked back in say 10,000 years... people having a lot longer generation time than dogs....that you'd find one pretty uniform race of people. dark skinned, and with a physical stature suited to the environment.

with dogs, btw, there is a certain sort of dog that is to be found all over the world as a sort of wild dump dog. small, short hair, upright ears. I dont know where to find a reference to this, but Im sure it wont be hard to find.

Thanks - maybe humans would end upa s wild dump humans! LOL

Do you think that along the way of human variation, some genetic info might have been irretrievably lost?

Gotta go out now for a bit, so i'll catch up later.

 

[Kharak]

From the little I know, can one say that they were really a different species - after all, nowadays we have a great range of humans (all homo sapiens, I know)....but when one thinks of pygmies, and those really tall, slender people in Africa (the name of which escapes me at the moment), and all the different ranges of people all over the world, are we really so different from Neanderthals that we can be considered a different species?

A lot of the reason mammals even survived to sizes beyond rodents is dumb luck: Asteroid cleared out those ecological niches out for us just nicely. Gone are the epic sized reptilian predators of the sea and land, gone are the largest land animals to have ever existed, sigh...

I can imagine the Neanderthals, who exceeded us in certain capacities, were the victims of such dumb luck. There are so many factors at play that the competitiveness of species against species can be ruined with issues such as disease or even local disasters such as wildfires or flooding. Evolution is the survival of the fittest, it's the survival of the most adaptable. Whoever can take the place of the dead guy first wins.