…and this is a 
I am horribly envious. I am speaking of the Village Dog Project, some current research going on that looks very cool.
Understanding the evolution and domestication in dogs requires genetic analysis of a global and diverse panel of non-breed-affiliated village dogs. With a network of worldwide and Cornell-affiliated collaborators, we plan to gather dog samples from remote villages, establish a genetic archive containing DNA and phenotypic information from these dogs, carry out genetic analyses on these samples, and develop computational methods for analyzing this dataset. In particular, we are interested in understanding the location, timing, and demographic conditions underlying domestication; the genetic changes involved in the transition of wolf to dog; the relationship between these village dogs and the breed dogs; and the effect that historical forces have shaped village dog diversity.
That looks informative and useful, and I'll be looking forward to the publication of the research. That's not what's got me envious, though: for that, you have to look at their field work. The researchers are spending the summer traveling to exotic, remote locations (admittedly, to the kinds of places rife with scavenging village dogs, but still…) to collect blood samples. They have a travel blog that will be recounting their adventures, and also explains the science a little more.
After initial domestication, dogs probably lived "breed-less" lives as human commensals (hanging around humans, not really helping or harming them but living off their trash) for many thousands of years. During this time, dog populations quickly expanded and spread across the globe. In the last few hundreds of years, several hundred dog breeds were formed from local dogs in many parts of the world; these breed dogs have entirely replaced the non-breed "indigenous" dogs in some parts of the world, notably in Western Europe and the USA. However, most dogs throughout the world still live their lives as non-breed, indigenous, commensal dogs. We refer to these dogs as "pariah" or "village" dogs. They tend to be smallish (25-40 pounds), often tan, short-haired dogs, though the type varies a bit according to the region you're in. The important point is that these dogs have not undergone the intense genetic bottleneck associated with breed formation. Thus, while breed dogs have only a small subset of the total genetic diversity of all dogs, it is likely that village dogs have a much greater range of the total diversity. Thus, they are very useful for looking at the original domestication event. They are informative of the original genetic bottleneck that led to the formation of domestic dogs many thousands of years ago.
Hmmm. We don't seem to have many dogs running loose around exotic, remote Morris, Minnesota, but there are a few feral cats living off the dumpsters near the grocery store.
I probably wouldn't try to read about visiting small midwestern towns to collect cats, though.
Comments
Posted by: Kel | June 23, 2009 10:48 AM
Careful PZ, or Jerry Coyne will be at you again :PPosted by: JD | June 23, 2009 10:50 AM
I'm still trying to recover from PZ envy.
One day at a time.
Posted by: Die Anyway | June 23, 2009 10:53 AM
If I could have gotten that kind of research grant I might have stayed in Biology instead of retraining in Computer Science (for the big bucks). Now the best I can do is hope it shows up on Nature on my local PBS station.
Posted by: guvic | June 23, 2009 10:55 AM
Something similar has been done on cats
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-taming-of-the-cat&page=1
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 23, 2009 11:07 AM
I'll be fascinated to see the results when they come in. Until recently, the domestication of the dog was reckoned to have taken place about 15,000 years ago, based on mtDNA findings. However, a recent paper Fossil dogs and wolves from Palaeolithic sites in Belgium, the Ukraine and Russia: osteometry, ancient DNA and stable isotopes claims a date of 31,700BP for a Belgian dog (claimed to be a dog rather than a wolf after comparison with recent wolves and dogs, and known prehistoric dogs). Given the enormous advantage even semi-domesticated dogs would give to a big-game-hunting band, I wonder if Homo sapiens sapiens' association with dogs was a factor in their replacement of Neandertals in Europe. (Wolves were present in the Middle East and India, where Homo s.s. spread before Europe.)
Posted by: gillt | June 23, 2009 11:08 AM
Sacrificing life and limb in the name of science! For it sure sounds like a hazardous job of not getting bit and infected with rabies. The researchers should hire Sarah Palin to fly around in a helicopter, shooting them from the air.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 23, 2009 11:12 AM
Sounds like the kind of work that gets you bitten a number of times, possibly with disease-infested teeth. No envy here.
I would think that the dingo would have been characterized genetically by now, though it could very well have gone through a differently-caused genetic bottleneck. I wonder how it compares with our dogs.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 23, 2009 11:17 AM
In 2006, the wife and I went to Madagascar to see lemurs, chameleons and other exotic fauna. One of the most interesting wildlife experiences was a visit to a Muslim village near the Tsingy de Bemaraha--an amazing karst formation in the west of the country. Muslims don't domesticate dogs per se (their loss), but they do co-exist with them, since they keep away predators, rats, snakes... This pack of dogs in the village was fascinating. They were ruled with an iron paw by an alpha that just exuded energy. The alpha never never walked anywhere--always trotted--and nearly all the dogs looked just like him! And all the dogs were cute--the same clowns we've come to know and love. I suspect that's because our ancestors ate all the ones that weren't cute.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 23, 2009 11:21 AM
But! But! But! But this is not going to show how a dog can turn into a cat. It will only show microevolution and changes within the canine kind.
Now that the creationist objection is past, this sounds like the coolest kind of project. I know it will take years to process everything but I so want to hear about the findings.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 23, 2009 11:24 AM
I probably wouldn't try to read about visiting small midwestern towns to collect cats, though.
I don't know. I think that chasing feral cats through streets, yards, and alleys would at least merit a couple good UTube videos. It could end up being a sport.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | June 23, 2009 11:34 AM
My neighbor has done some collecting and raises what he calls "Indian Dogs" or "Indigenous Dogs".
http://www.indiandogs.com/
When the coyotes start to howl, his whole kennel joins in and the valley here is filled with the sound of wild dogs in the mooonlight...
Apparently, he has revived a "breed"...
Posted by: bc23.5 | June 23, 2009 11:41 AM
"Thus, they are very useful for looking at the original domestication event."
I thought evolution happened slowly over time not all at once in a difinitive event. Fundie "i told you so" in 3...2...1...
Posted by: GD | June 23, 2009 11:55 AM
Cool project... Ethologist Ray Coppinger had a fascinating book out a few years ago called: DOGS: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution, that (among other things) talked about this idea of the village dog becoming the breeds we see today. It may be a bit dated by now but the I'd still recommend the book to dog lovers interested in canine origins. Coppinger's career and stories are enviable.
Posted by: shpalman | June 23, 2009 12:02 PM
I don't envy anyone who has to go to Sicily and take samples from the aggressive wild dogs there.
Posted by: uncle frogy | June 23, 2009 12:02 PM
I saw a documentary on dogs on PBS last year. There was some speculation on the domestication of the dog. They had a segment about the Russian fox fur business. A biologist was put in charge of one of the farms. He decided to try a breed out the hostile aggressive traits of the fox so it would be easier to feed and care for. He only selected foxes that would not shy away from humans. What he got was a tame fox and foxes with different color patterns that occurred in the wild. So the thinking was that it was not really humans that domesticated the wolf to get the dog but that it was the dog by breeding with only those who were not afraid to hang around humans.
So I wonder if you could reverse that and breed back to a "wolf" by only breeding dogs who were "spooks" dogs that tended to shy away from humans?
Posted by: J | June 23, 2009 12:11 PM
"...Cornell-affiliated!"
Woohoo!
Far above the busy humming
Of the bustling town
Reared against the arch of heaven
Looks She proudly down!
Join the chorus
Speed it onward
Loud Her praises tell!
Hail all hail
Our alma mater
Hail all hail COR-NELL!!!!"
Thank you.
Posted by: alexandre van de sande | June 23, 2009 12:25 PM
I wonder how they manage the selection bias. After all a dog that is too ferocious will not be allowed to be sampled and a dog that is too similar to a breed might be discarded as a recent breed (like the son of a breed dog with a stray or escaped one)
Posted by: thalarctos | June 23, 2009 12:29 PM
Well, there *are* other validated ways[1,2] to get DNA from non-domesticated animals without having to draw blood...
[1] Wasser SK, Houston CS, Koehler GM, Cadd GG, Fain SR. Techniques for application of faecal DNA methods to field studies of Ursids. Mol Ecol. 1997 Nov;6(11):1091-7.
[2] Reed JZ, Tollit DJ, Thompson PM, Amos W. Molecular scatology: the use of molecular genetic analysis to assign species, sex and individual identity to seal faeces. Mol Ecol. 1997 Mar;6(3):225-34.
Posted by: Watchman | June 23, 2009 12:41 PM
Uncle Froggy, I was reading about the silver fox domestication (program? study?) last night - it's mentioned in the first 35 pages of Dawkins' The Ancestors' Tale. The tame foxes resembled collies, both in color and in general appearance - they'd even lost the pointy fox-ears in favor of "lovable" floppy ears. This fascinates me, because the foxes were bred for behavior only. It's as if the changes in color and ear were somehow bound to the changes in temperament. (Interesting also is that this all happened over the course of only 20 years. Pretty cool stuff.)
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 23, 2009 12:50 PM
This fascinates me, because the foxes were bred for behavior only. It's as if the changes in color and ear were somehow bound to the changes in temperament. - Watchman
IIRC, quite a few of the changes, including floppy ears, were neotenous, with neotenous behaviour being selected for and carrying the rest with it. However, that won't account for the coat colour changes, AFAIK. Black wolves, interestingly, have spread in parts of North America recently, and genetic analysis indicates introgression of the coat-colour genes from domestic dogs.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | June 23, 2009 12:59 PM
This is fascinating. I know in Armenia, there are countless stray "village" dogs running around, some in packs, some on their own. It would be an interesting exercise trying to obtain blood samples from such shy and timid dogs. They don't exactly trust people, since they tend to get kicked around a lot.
I figure in China, since they were bread for taste, they must be tastier than other village dogs. This would be another interesting premise to pursue.
Posted by: dNorrisM | June 23, 2009 12:59 PM
Silver Fox domestication?
Impossible.
knockgoats:
"I wonder if Homo sapiens sapiens' association with dogs was a factor in their replacement of Neandertals in Europe."
Cool!
Posted by: Fifi | June 23, 2009 1:36 PM
A few feral cats living off the dumpsters near the grocery store?
Mmmm...
Dr Frist! Dr Frist! Please report to Morris, Minnesota immmmmmmmmmediately!
Posted by: Duckphup | June 23, 2009 2:53 PM
Next, I can picture these guys visiting remote and exotic villages with a tranq-gun, zapping and collecting blood samples from village idiots. This might lead to an understanding of creotards.
Posted by: David G. | June 23, 2009 3:18 PM
The blog seems like a place for them to brag about their cool research trip and how I can't go with them. I may just be insanely jealous.
Posted by: Faithful Reader | June 23, 2009 3:23 PM
#16, my mind's ear always hears the parody:
High above Cayuga's waters
There's a awful smell.
Some say it's Cayuga's waters,
Some say it's Cornell!
:-)
Also, Carolina dogs may be of interest in this discussion
Posted by: meh1963 | June 23, 2009 3:29 PM
While it sounds risky - I mean, *wild dogs* - it sounds very cool.
I wonder if this will also provide a way to document behavioral changes over time (not just physical change)? Because I really, really want to know how a human got a dog-precursor to recognize it as pack-leader. It's something dog-phobic people don't do well, but it can be learned.
(Note I do not count cats in this. While cats are wonderful, cats are in no wise domesticated, as witness the canard dogs have masters, cats have staff.)
Posted by: Evolving Squid | June 23, 2009 4:14 PM
You know, that little synopsis is so versatile for explaining other things:
After attaining the age of majority, Paris lives "breed-less" life as human commensals (hanging around humans, not really helping or harming them but living off their trash)
After an initial widespread success, reality TV producers probably live "breed-less" lives as human commensals (hanging around humans, not really helping or harming them but living off their trash)
Posted by: DLC | June 23, 2009 7:58 PM
Unfortunately, animal control officers in most towns
deal with the Village dogs. Now, if we could just get them to deal with the village politicians.
Posted by: jupiter9 | June 23, 2009 8:14 PM
I am reminded of the companies that, for a fee, will tell you what pure breeds your mixed-breed dog comes from. People seem to think it's important to know. And to assume that, in the beginning, God created the collie, and the schnauzer, and the Shih-Tzu, and so on.
I always wonder how many dogs today in America are descended from dogs without any breed at all, like those pariah dogs. The articles I found about dogs that were living in the New World when it was colonized by Europeans suggests that they went extinct, however.
Posted by: Peter McKellar | June 23, 2009 8:30 PM
I was in Bangalore, India earlier this year and noticed the large number of village dogs - and they all seemed to be of a similar "breed" as described - small, tan and short-haired (and this seemed to be from one side of the city to the other). The research sounds really interesting.
The feral cat problem PZ describes is one I have seen worldwide. They are a real problem at universities where the biology students trap them and the bleeding heart Arts students free them :( The Acropolis is infested with the vermin (and their vermin ad infinitum), but they are often found hanging around temples and other sight-seeing spots.
Who can spell texo...taxa...toxoplasmosis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis
Posted by: Chas, PE | June 23, 2009 8:38 PM
One thing that always puzzled me, although not enough to really research it: Dogs come in sizes from Chihuahua to Great Dane -- but cats all come in between 5 to 20 pounds, more or less (Siamese to Maine Coon). Why aren't there some Great Dane sized Felis Domesticus? I know, there are tigers, ocelots, but those are different species -- not domestic.
Posted by: John Morales | June 23, 2009 10:21 PM
Chas,
This is just my opinion, not based on research — but...
Even the most domesticated cats are far more independent creatures than dogs*, and will express their displeasure physically at times. Breeding them to large size is just asking for trouble...
--
* and not nearly as smart, IMO. And I say this as both a cat and dog lover.
Posted by: Alf | June 24, 2009 12:04 AM
Here in Bangkok (population @12 million) we don't call them village dogs. We call them soi (street) dogs. Yes, and they look just like your village dogs.
Posted by: Alf | June 24, 2009 12:12 AM
Here in Bangkok (population @12 million) we don't call them village dogs. We call them soi (street) dogs. Yes, and they look just like your village dogs.
Posted by: SusanR | June 24, 2009 12:59 AM
Re: Those feral cats at the dumpsters.....The proper thing to do with feral cats is not to ignore them or harm them, it is to do Trap-Neuter-Return. Cats are caught in humane traps, taken to a vet to be spayed or neutered and vaccinated, and then returned to their home territory where they usually have a caretaker who feeds them. This controls cat populations without killing, without taking up space in shelters and without using taxpayers' money. My husband and I have done Trap-Neuter-Return for 10 years. It is sort of like fishing. And it is amazing to watch the transformation in the cats' personalitites after they have been fixed. The only hard part is finding enough names, because every cat gets a name, even if we will never see them again after they get released.
We once volunteered at a local vet clinic where 5 vets fixed 197 cats in one day. You haven't lived until you have been stuck in a room all day with dozens of unneutered tom cats waiting their turn for surgery.
Our local group is called Alley Cat Guardians, and we are about to open our own spay/neuter clinic for cats with the capacity to fix 50 cats per day, which is really good considering most of these are wild animals and require special handling. Don't just ignore those poor kitties! Help them! Step one is establish a feeding routine. There are groups all across the country doing Trap-Neuter-Return. The national group is called Alley Cat Allies.
Posted by: Knight of L-sama | June 24, 2009 3:41 AM
I'm with Glen Davidson in hoping that they include dingos in this study. They are believed to be descended from something fairly close to the original domestic dog but they have a fairly distinct set of vocalisations that suggests some degree of genetic drift or founder effect.
Posted by: cmb | June 24, 2009 4:00 AM
Wow--it's so cool to see so many people interested in what we do! If any of you guys are still curious, we posted a response to a number of your comments on the blog today--we love talking with people about this, so any further comments you have are more than welcome here!
Posted by: Peter McKellar | June 24, 2009 4:43 AM
SusanR @36
Whilst I honestly sympathise with your intent, you are very, very far from having the correct answer as stated above (at least in the context of Australia).
In Australia we have successfully reduced fly numbers by a breed-neuter (irradiate)-release program, but that is only effective in monogamous species. Another program uses the "males only" approach and reduces numbers by this method. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many tomcats you neuter and re-release, you will not reduce the feral cat numbers. You are more likely to force selective pressure to breed a more toxic form (amongst the remaining unneutered population).
I think the problem comes with confusing someone's pet tabby with feral, disease spreading vermin. A capture-neuter-release program for pet cats however.... ;)
How would you feel about a neuter and release program for sewer rats or cockroaches? Do you test the cats to see if they are carrying toxoplasmosis before they are released or just figure they are furry so therefore no danger to anyone?
Have you considered the carnage they daily inflict on native animal populations and the ecological damage that flows from this?
I am proud to live in a shire that has banned cats in the new suburbs.
Susan, I admire your efforts, but I challenge their premise. Have you considered shifting your efforts to more productive rescue projects involving wildlife? In Australia we have 2 groups - WIRES and FAWNA that welcome volunteers, provide training and do very good work with injured animals. Plus you get a licence to keep native animals - not an easy thing here.
Posted by: sailor1031 | June 24, 2009 8:11 AM
I had samoyeds for 30+ years. Hard to look at a sam and see any connection to 'village dogs'. OTOH looking at an arctic wolf one sees many similarities. Can anyone tell me if there was some crossbreeding there? The siberians who had these dogs named them 'white dog that breeds white'. My first sam (when i lived in Labrador) howled just like the local grey wolves....we called him "howls at ore trains" but could never get an innu translation of that.
Posted by: SusanR | June 24, 2009 4:52 PM
Peter McKellar #39:
I'm sorry I confused you. Trap-Neuter-Return is not done only on tom cats, it is done on all cats, even kittens as soon as they weigh 2 lbs. Tamable kittens and tame stray cats are fostered and adopted into homes whenever possible. I have 10 years of in-the-field experience that proves this does drastically reduce outdoor cat poopulations. It is trap and remove(otherwise known as trap and kill) that increases the pressure to breed on the remaining uncaught cats. And the cats are very observant. Whenever trap and remove is done, many cats learn to never go into a trap because they have seen that previous cats who did do not return.
Contrary to what people think, cats are not loners, they live in groups called colonies, and are very territorial. A group of fixed ferals will allow very few newcomers to live in their territory. The people in the areas where we have done TNR are very thankful for it because it has eliminated the continual litters of kittens, and virtually eliminated the fighting, yowling, spraying and other annoying behaviors associated with unfixed cats.
Trap and remove creates a vacuum, and remaining cats and new wandering cats move into that vacuum and breed the area to its capacity again in just a few months.
A pet cat that is caught in a trap acts very differently than a feral cat. However, every pet cat we catch goes to the vet to verify if already fixed. If not, it gets fixed too.
Since cats are domesticated and we humans are responsible for the large numbers of homeless cats, it is our moral responsibility to manage this problem humanely.
TNR has many years of science behind it already. For instance, the rate of diseases in feral cats is almost the same as in pet cats. They are not disease-ridden. Toxoplasmosis is found in soil and raw meats, and humans are much more likely to contract it from those sources than from feral cats.
I have personally cared for hundreds of sick cats, some former ferals, including cats who needed enemas, and I have never contracted Toxo.
Contrary to popular opinion, cats do not inflict "carnage" on wildlife. Humans do. The primary crimes against wildlife stem from loss of habitat. Cats are rodent specialists, and will choose to hunt them over birds. I have 7 outdoor cats confined to my yard with cat fencing. I also have dozens of trees with dozens of nesting birds. We might have one bird casualty per year, and it is usally a baby that has fallen or was pushed from a nest. We have no rodents visiting our yard or home, ever.
Feral cats in colonies managed by TNR are well fed and lose most of the desire to hunt. You cannot blame what happens to wildlife on cats. I love all animals, and will help any animal in need, wild or otherwise, pet or farm. The only animal I am not terribly fond of is humans. The planet is getting closer to the point where almost all wildlife will become urbanized, and we need to learn how to peacefully coexist with the other critters.
TNR is not native to the US. It was done in many other countries before here. The only things impeding progress in controlling cat populations is failure to enact mandatory spay neuter laws for pet cats, including supposed indoor-only cats, and the inability of people to comprehend the vacuum effect. The same people keep trapping and removing in the sames areas year after year, and guess what? Still cats there! Unfixed, unvaccinated, unfed cats. Trap and remove is not only inhumane, it is illogical. I have seen it played out over and over and over again.
Posted by: spurge | June 25, 2009 7:56 AM
"Contrary to popular opinion, cats do not inflict "carnage" on wildlife. Humans do."
It is not popular opinion it is supported by evidence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_7890000/newsid_7892400/7892466.stm
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 25, 2009 8:39 AM
Cats are rodent specialists, and will choose to hunt them over birds. - SusanR
This is true, however they will certainly take birds, and reptiles and amphibians. Nor do they considerately allow rare species of rodents (e.g. dormice in the UK) to escape. For some figures, see Predation of wildlife by domestic cats - the number of birds killed alone is estimated to be tens of millions per year in the UK. Whether this makes a significant difference to populations is another question, but it can't simply be dismissed; nor can the inhibitory effect on choice of nesting locations of the mere presence of cats. The situation would probably be worse in places where the native fauna have not evolved in the presence of this or a similar predator.
OTOH, Susan's point about neutered and released cats keeping others out seems well taken. Conservation issues are often more complex than first appears (anyone see that recent articles suggesting the presence of dingoes helped populations of small marsupials by keeping foxes down?), but while animal welfare is important, sentimentality should not be allowed to distort conclusions.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 25, 2009 8:43 AM
I love all animals, and will help any animal in need, wild or otherwise, pet or farm. The only animal I am not terribly fond of is humans. SusanR
I hadn't read this far. Yuck. I wouldn't now trust SusanR not to be lying her misanthropic head off.
Posted by: SusanR | June 25, 2009 3:06 PM
I have no reason to lie. And I help humans too. I have found that I am much more likely to have a happy ending when I help a down and out animal than when I help a down and out human. The humans keep up the same self-destructive behaviour and end up in the same place they were before I helped them. 3 years ago I spent $25,000 setting up a homeless family in an apartment with 6 months pre-paid rent and household furnishings. The woman was employed at our vet. They immediately reindulged in their methamphetamine habits (unknown to me previously) and are now back down to nothing.
About the stats on bird predation: The bird groups are the liars. They have greatly exaggerated the effect cats have on their populations. What everyone does not seem to comprehend here is this: You don't have a choice about having large numbers of outdoor cats. The only choice you have is between a fixed, managed colony or, by trap and remove and kill, a constantly changing unfixed, unvaccinated, unfed colony. Unless and until the overall pet cat population is controlled, and we are many years away from doing that, you do not have the option of not having cats in the area. You can control by constantly killing, or by neutering. In my world it is wrong to kill without a very, very compelling reason to do so, and none of the reasons given for killing cats is anywhere near compelling. When there is a non-lethal method of control, it is always superior to a lethal method of control.
Posted by: spurge | June 25, 2009 3:25 PM
"The bird groups are the liars."
Citation needed.
Posted by: NeverTheTwain | June 30, 2009 4:40 PM
My father used to travel extensively on business, and he noticed the prevalence of what he called the "world dog." Smallish, tan, short-haired...the archetype of the article. He joked that it was the exact same animal, and took pictures of it in Europe, the Middle East, India, and elsewhere. Arf!
Posted by: cat and bird advocate | July 6, 2009 3:34 AM
TNR is ineffective, hurts wildlife, poses risks to public health and is inhumane for cats.
Posted by: cat and bird advocate | July 6, 2009 3:36 AM
TNR is ineffective, hurts wildlife, poses risks to public health and is inhumane for cats.