^ Never getting over that. Mini versions of Bhagavaan Ulooka.
"But but but His name doesn't necessarily imply..." Too bad, it does.
Post 1/?
Have long been aware that the subject of the locus of dog domestication is controversial. Do I even need to elaborate? It's Euros vs the more likely Eastern Asiatics to Circumpolar tribes (I think I read that the spitzes at least are usually admitted to be older among the latter and considered ancestral to the European kinds). Personally I think dog domestication may have multiple loci and at various dates but possibly all during the hunter-gatherer era. Nevertheless, spitze breeds may yet be Eastern Asiatic/Circumpolar in origin (also seen among Inuit) rather than European, but I'm willing to hold out until the final word's out on that.
But was surprised to find that there are aspects to the wolf itself that are still held to be contentious. This and the subsequent post(s) are about that.
The subject is obviously of foremost importance to me. But it concerns human species of Hindoos too in a way, as the next post will be significantly about different species of wolf kind of Bharatam.
1. Still shocking:
huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/dogs-wolf-ancestors-domestication_n_4616796.html
Anyone could have guessed it was pre-agriculture: hunter gatherer ancestors were known to do the hunting bit with domesticated wolves I mean dogs.
[Anyway, as was always obvious, oryanism in any case could never have dreamt of claiming the single greatest event in human history: when wolves first decided to make friends with mankind. Dog domestication predates PIE-ism. Mwaha. Haha. Hahahahahaha. And even IE-ists' self-aggrandising claims of horse-domestication turned out to have been false, with horses having apparently been independently domesticated by multiple non-IE populations in various areas... while there are questions hanging over whether the horse was ever even domesticated in the steppes.]
I had initially wondered why the HindOO wolves were left out from the study. But, as becomes apparent in the next post, apparently preliminary testing had revealed that except for one, the remainder of our 3 (or rather 4) wolf species are not thought to have originated dogs.
Yet one of these species - shared with Tibet and China - was until the late 1970s/early 80s at least thought to have been the progenitor of the domesticated kind. It's not made clear, but was a representative of that species the one that was the "Chinese" wolf considered in the above genetics study? (Else one would wonder why that wolf species was excluded from the above study.)
"But but but His name doesn't necessarily imply..." Too bad, it does.
Post 1/?
Have long been aware that the subject of the locus of dog domestication is controversial. Do I even need to elaborate? It's Euros vs the more likely Eastern Asiatics to Circumpolar tribes (I think I read that the spitzes at least are usually admitted to be older among the latter and considered ancestral to the European kinds). Personally I think dog domestication may have multiple loci and at various dates but possibly all during the hunter-gatherer era. Nevertheless, spitze breeds may yet be Eastern Asiatic/Circumpolar in origin (also seen among Inuit) rather than European, but I'm willing to hold out until the final word's out on that.
But was surprised to find that there are aspects to the wolf itself that are still held to be contentious. This and the subsequent post(s) are about that.
The subject is obviously of foremost importance to me. But it concerns human species of Hindoos too in a way, as the next post will be significantly about different species of wolf kind of Bharatam.
1. Still shocking:
huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/dogs-wolf-ancestors-domestication_n_4616796.html
Quote:Dogs' Closest Wolf Ancestors Went Extinct, DNA Study Shows
(Isn't it actually still in dispute whether it was dogs that were "domesticated", and to what extent if any, or whether they manipulated [domesticated] man and willingly entered into a symbiotic (some docos say "parasitic" with tongue in cheek) relationship with humans, just as some wolves have developed symbiosis with other mammal species? Plus, it's admitted of cats that these were never domesticated. The question has always been Who's Using Who. After all, many modern non-working/pet dogs get free food and shelter from humans, in return for getting coddled whether they will or no, plus sadly losing natural selection and even reproduction rights. Personally, am not sure it's worth it, but in wolf packs most wolves besides alphas don't usually get to mate anyway...)
LiveScience | By Stephanie Pappas
Posted: 01/17/2014 9:37 am EST Updated: 01/25/2014 4:01 pm EST
DOGS WOLF ANCESTORS
A new genetic analysis of modern dogs and wolves suggests that man's best friend was domesticated before agriculture.
But the origin of this domestication remains stubbornly mysterious. Researchers analyzed the genomes of wolves from three likely sites of domestication (the Middle East, Asia and eastern Europe), and found that modern dogs were not more closely related to any of the three. In fact, it seems that the closest wolf ancestors of today's dogs may have gone extinct, leaving no wild descendants.
"The dogs all form one group, and the wolves all form one group, and there's no wolf that these dogs are more closely related to of the three that we sampled," said study researcher John Novembre, a professor of genetics at the University of Chicago. "That's the big surprise of the study." [10 Things You Didn't Know About Dogs]
Domestication mystery
The origin of the domestic dog is a persistent mystery. Fossil evidence for domestication dates back as far as 33,000 years, based on the shape of the skull and on ancient DNA analysis. But the presence of a dog-like canine doesnââ¬â¢t prove the origin of modern dogs; even if the fossil represents a domesticated dog, it could have been a failed lineage that left no descendants.
(Note how that last hypothesis itself implies multiple - at least temporal if not spatial - domestication events.)
Researchers know that dogs regularly lived with humans by about 10,000 years ago, and dogs and people are found buried together as early as 14,000 years ago. Various genetic studies have pointed to China, the Middle East and Europe as the origin for today's domesticated dogs.
Novembre and his colleagues wanted to refine the understanding of domestication using high-quality, full genomes. They gathered full gene sequences from a wolf in Israel, a wolf in China and a wolf in Croatia to encompass the possible sites of the original dog domestication. Next, they also sequenced the full genomes of an Australian dingo, a feral dog species thought to have originated in Southeast Asia, and an African basenji. Neither of these dogs have territories that overlap with wolves, so researchers hoped they would see little of the post-domestication interbreeding that so often confuses the story of how dogs and wolves split.
The researchers also had a previously done full genome sequence for a Boxer.
Complicated canines
The high-quality, full sequences allowed the researchers to look at genetic variations across the entire genome. That's important, Novembre told LiveScience, because previous work was limited to snippets of DNA, chosen because they were known to vary from dog breed to dog breed. [The Coolest Animal Genomes]
"When we apply these to looking at dogs and wolves, we don't get a complete picture, because we can't see the variations that existed in wolves but vanished in dogs," Novembre said.
The new results, published today (Jan. 16) in the journal PLOS Genetics, reveal that dogs do not hail from the same lineage as modern wolves ââ¬â a big surprise, said Novembre, who was hoping to see evidence for either a single domestication or multiple domestication events, where, for example, the Australian dingo would be most related to the Asian wolf and the African basenji would be most related to the Middle Eastern wolf.
(See a few paras further below.)
Instead, the dogs are all most closely related to each other. The pattern suggests that dogs arose from a now-extinct line of wolves, Novembre said. Later, early in domesticated doggie history, they interbred with still-wild wolves, causing a genetic snarl that frustrates dog genetics researchers to this day.
The sequences also revealed that the first dogs arose from a very small number of the wolves that lived in their day, Novembre said. Around the time of domestication, both wolves and dogs experienced what's known as a population bottleneck ââ¬â their numbers dropped. Genes can't explain why these drops occurred, Novembre said, but in the case of wolves, human encroachment and competition for large prey probably played a role.
Finally, the comparisons suggest that wolves and dogs split between 9,000 and 34,000 years ago, with a likely interval being between 11,000 and 16,000 years ago, before the rise of agriculture. Those findings are in line with the fossil record, Novembre said.
Previous research had suggested that perhaps dog domestication got a push from a genetic mutation that made it easier for modern dogs' ancestors to digest starch ââ¬â meaning they could scavenge from human garbage piles. The new study looked at that gene mutation and found that it certainly occurred, but likely after dogs were already domesticated. Dingos, for example, are unquestionably dogs and not wolves, but they have few copies of the starch-friendly gene.
"You had domestication occurring in the context of dogs hanging around human hunter-gatherer groups, and only later, when these groups began to switch to farming, did they change their diets," Novembre said.
More answers coming?
However, there are still many questions left to answer. The reason for such a wide range of 25,000 years for the origin of domestication is that researchers had to base the estimate on rates of mutation in the genome. Mutations are rare, Novembre said, and estimating how often they happen is a tricky proposition. The best way is to compare the genomes of parents and offspring, but that work has not yet been done with dogs. Once it's done, Novembre said, the team will be able to refine its estimates.
However, the discovery that modern wolves and modern dogs seem to be more like sister groups than ancestors and descendants means that modern DNA sequences likely won't reveal the origin of domestication. To answer that question, Novembre said, ancient DNA analyses will be necessary.
So far, DNA sequences extracted from fossils are incomplete. But just as researchers have now sequenced a complete Neanderthal genome, they're on the cusp of sequencing full genomes from fossil dogs and wolves.
"Several groups are hammering away" at the problem, Novembre said, adding that a full ancient dog genome could be as few as nine months away.
Copyright 2014 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Anyone could have guessed it was pre-agriculture: hunter gatherer ancestors were known to do the hunting bit with domesticated wolves I mean dogs.
[Anyway, as was always obvious, oryanism in any case could never have dreamt of claiming the single greatest event in human history: when wolves first decided to make friends with mankind. Dog domestication predates PIE-ism. Mwaha. Haha. Hahahahahaha. And even IE-ists' self-aggrandising claims of horse-domestication turned out to have been false, with horses having apparently been independently domesticated by multiple non-IE populations in various areas... while there are questions hanging over whether the horse was ever even domesticated in the steppes.]
I had initially wondered why the HindOO wolves were left out from the study. But, as becomes apparent in the next post, apparently preliminary testing had revealed that except for one, the remainder of our 3 (or rather 4) wolf species are not thought to have originated dogs.
Yet one of these species - shared with Tibet and China - was until the late 1970s/early 80s at least thought to have been the progenitor of the domesticated kind. It's not made clear, but was a representative of that species the one that was the "Chinese" wolf considered in the above genetics study? (Else one would wonder why that wolf species was excluded from the above study.)