Michael

A story from the New York Times, which you can read here, reveals recent progress made in understanding the domestication of wolves:

On the basis of DNA from several wolf populations and from the hairs collected off 654 dogs around the world, Dr. Savolainen calculates a date for domestication either 40,000 years ago, if all dogs come from a single wolf, or around 15,000 years ago, the date he prefers, if three animals drawn from the same population were the wolf Eves [i.e., the ancestral females] of the dog lineage. Dr. Savolainen believes that dogs originated from wolves somewhere in East Asia, because there is greater genetic diversity, often a sign of greater antiquity, in Asian dogs than in European dogs.

However, there remains a debate over exactly how this domestication took place, given the circumstances:

The dates yielded by dog DNA suggest that wolves were domesticated by hunter-gatherers, before the invention of agriculture and permanent human settlements. But domestication is an arduous process, in which animals must be selected for a particular trait through many generations, by several generations of people. It is hard to see how hunter-gatherers could have foreseen the payoff from domesticating wolves, or would have known what traits to select for.

I want to jump into this debate with my own, er, crackpot theory: humans selected which little wolf puppies to shower attention (and, more importantly, food) on because of how the little rascals looked. In short, the domestication of wolves was guided by (human) aesthetics.

A related story in the Wall Street Journal lists the, ahem, design modifications that occurred as a result of domestication: (1) snouts became smaller and less overtly toothy; (2) ears became floppy; (3) tails curled up or became less rigid; and (4) coloring became more varied and splotchy.

Canines: Early and Late Models

Of course, one can argue about priorities here: whether people deliberately bred wolves to appear cuddly or whether people have learned to “read” canines that have shorter snouts, floppy ears, curled up tails and varied colors as unlikely to devour Grandma and Little Red Riding Hood. But either way, it suggests that people have good reasons to be conscious of “design” in their surroundings and certainly don’t tolerate just anything around them because it happened to wander in from the cold.

Cheers,

Friedrich

Great speculations. Woof!

More news on the biogology-and-aesthetics front in an article in Discover magazine about the sensation of disgust. Not only does it turn out that people in all cultures sometimes experience disgust, it's in reaction to (by and large) the same basket of provocations -- decaying meat, feces, et. The article can be read here. Hard-wired, anyone?

It of course makes me reflect that if disgust is hard-wired, perhaps aesthetic delight is too. But more on that in some later posting.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on November 29, 2002 09:10 PM

You know what intrigues me? Aesthetically, both models are pleasing. The wolf doesn't look dangerous to me, and that picture is gorgeous. Were he to wander up to my campfire, I would be inclined to scratch behind his ears. It's the knowledge that he's a wild animal that would stay my hand (or make it reach very slowly for a weapon.) Now, the intriguing part for me is what's instinctive and what's learned? I sure can't seperate the two, and I only assume that I've learned that wolves are dangerous. Or have I learned that "wolf at river" photos are beautiful? Ach. My head spins.

Committed dog person,
Scott

PS The puppies are just plain "awww, how cute!" cute.

Posted by: Scott Chaffin on November 30, 2002 04:12 PM

You know what intrigues me? Aesthetically, both models are pleasing. The wolf doesn't look dangerous to me, and that picture is gorgeous. Were he to wander up to my campfire, I would be inclined to scratch behind his ears. It's the knowledge that he's a wild animal that would stay my hand (or make it reach very slowly for a weapon.) Now, the intriguing part for me is what's instinctive and what's learned? I sure can't seperate the two, and I only assume that I've learned that wolves are dangerous. Or have I learned that "wolf at river" photos are beautiful? Ach. My head spins.

Committed dog person,
Scott

PS The puppies are just plain "awww, how cute!" cute.

Posted by: Scott Chaffin on November 30, 2002 04:16 PM

FYI - curly tails, floppy ears, and varied colors seem to be a byproduct of domestication. Attempts to breed various foxes and other silky canines for their coats have been thwarted by this effect.

Personally, I like the idea that it was the dog's idea. First ran across this notion in high school and I've amused myself ever since, considering the chance that everything we do is the result of the invisible paw, so to speak.

Posted by: tgcm on December 4, 2002 02:11 AM

Here's a link to a detailed description of an experiment in breeding domesticated (attracted to and compliant with humans) foxes. The change in appearance is a side effect of selecting for the change in behavior. http://home.wlu.edu/~blackmerh/jsk/canid.htm

Posted by: Nancy Lebovitz on December 5, 2002 10:29 AM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?