Canine Evolution and Domestication

Comprehending domestication as the process of adaptation from a life in the wild to a life in close association with humans is ethically essential to understand, work and live respectfully with those animals that have undergone this process. In the case of dogs, there are various theories to explain their origins and evolution; some identify the wolf as the dog’s ancestor, others, like Ray Coppinger, see wolves, jackals, coyotes, and dogs (all sexually interfertile[1]) as changing adaptations of the same species to different ecological niches. Ever changing planet conditions, founder effects or postzygotic culling by humans would have created selective pressures which caused genetic variations and gave us canids of different shapes and sizes. What many agree on is that some wild canids adapted to the new human agricultural niche and traded hunting for scavenging around human settlements and became less fearful of humans; those that were sufficiently tolerant of humans self-selected to be the ancestors of domestic dogs, by breeding in the proximity of humans; those that could not, re-joined the wild population. These early canines became physically smaller with weaker jaws and teeth; they would have vocalised their fear when other predators approached the camp thus becoming useful lookouts for humans. Dmitri Belyaev’s farm-fox experiment just shows us how quickly this loss of fear towards humans could take to develop.

According to Clive Wynne these early canids were not as fierce as wolves, nor were they amazing independent hunters having chosen the easier option of scavenging; during the end of the last ice age, the warming of the planet gave rise to dense forests that were more difficult to navigate compared to the ice age tundra, where massive beasts like mammoths were easily spotted and hunted. Humans and ancient canines, possibly by accident, both discovered how useful they could be to each other: Whilst these canines were fast enough to chase and corner a pray, they were not strong enough to complete the hunt on their own (unlike wolves). Canine vocalisations directed humans towards the cornered pray, who would get dispatched and shared among hunting partners. This hunting ritual, fuelled by strong emotions, would have enabled the genetic mutations which sparked the beginning of the special bond we know today. [2] This predisposition to tameness would have been an evolutionary advantage for survival compared to the more aloof individuals.  The pups with the friendliest genes would eventually have had a better chance of survival due to being favoured by humans and would have become the norm .[3]

Domestication (through the gradual approach of human settlements, the serendipitous partnership in hunting, and the evolutionary advantage of the friendliest) caused a change in three genes: WBSCR17, GTF21 and GTF21RD1[4], where a different level in their variation corresponds to a more or less pronounced level of affiliation, contact seeking and sociability; the diversity in the level of change of these genes is reflected nowadays in the friendliness or aloofness of different breeds and their presence in dogs or absence in wolves and other wild canids is what diversify the former from the latter.[5] 

According to Wynne, what makes dogs special domestic animals is this inclination to trust humans and seek their company. There is a caveat though! Society has been falsely led to believe that dogs are all naturally tame and loving, in addition to thinking that ‘real’ dogs are the so-called purebred, as opposed to the more dangerous, less reliable street dogs; on the contrary, ‘real’ dogs are street and village dogs that live totally or semi-independently (around 850 million of them). Purebred dogs were artificially selected by humans for traits they considered useful in various activities (herding, guarding etc). Although the previously mentioned genetic mutation that favoured affiliation has happened in all dogs, it is on its own no guarantee for tameness. Dogs that do not receive the initial human imprinting can be weary of humans, and although not as scared of humans as a wild animals would be [6], they would not naturally seek and love human company. In conclusion, tameness and trust in humans is not innate in dogs, even though their genes make it possible .[7]

The subject of tameness and friendliness is close to my heart because it seems to be the one aspect that is most misunderstood by humans. We tend to fantasise on dogs’ nature and assume that these domestic animals should instinctively know, feel, and apply human social values whilst forsaking the biological natural response that we all share in the animal kingdom: the fight or flight response linked to the amygdala in mammals. James Nestor in Breath [8] speaks of an experiment where monkeys’ amygdalae (two almond-size nodes at the centre of the temporal lobes) were clipped. These nodes help monkeys, humans, and other mammals remember, make decisions, and process emotions. They also work as the alarm circuit of fear, signalling threats and initiating a reaction to fight or run away. Without the amygdalae, in the experiment, all the monkeys ‘appeared retarded in their ability to foresee and avoid dangerous confrontations.’ Survival is impossible or extremely precarious without fear. In dogs, fear can cause flight or fight, the latter being normally signalled by body language that gradually increases in antagonism, each step meant to forewarn and avoid the ultimate most costly engagement. On our part, we seem to understand/accept that mishandling of other domestic animals (cats, bulls!), would have unpleasant if not serious consequences! On the other hand, we demand that dogs not only love us but also give up any form of communication that could indicate any emotional discomfort: in the name of tameness, we expect them to accept any form of human handling and interaction (pleasant or unpleasant). In the name of tameness, we also want our dogs to behave ‘sensibly and respectfully’ towards other animal species, irrespective of their imprinting, thus forsaking their natural hunting instinct wherever it happens to be either artificially selected for or randomly resurfacing in various degrees due to their historical ancestry .[9]  

I believe there is a need for educating people with regards to the meaning of tameness and what is considered its antithesis: aggressiveness; irrespective of antecedents (as in Kim Brophey’s L.E.G.S model – Learning. Environment. Genetics. Self)[10] wherever an aggressive response is seen, a dog is labelled as aggressive, hence problematic, and often euthanised. All four elements of L.E.G.S are essential to understand the life of every individual, including humans. We humans play God with dogs’ genes and do not pay enough attention to the ever-changing environmental pressures of our world, expecting dogs to fit in no matter what. From free canids with full agency, we have turned them into captive animals with lack of choice; whenever they do not fit the mould, we speak of behavioural issues! Dogs deserve better.

  
Footnotes

[1] Behavioural ecologists try to keep wolves from breeding with dogs. Sterilization of local dogs is carried out to keep them from breeding with the Ethiopian wolf: Coppinger, R., Coppinger, L. and Beck, A.M. (2016) in What is a dog? foreword by Alan M. Beck. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, p. 202. 

[2] This still happens in Nicaragua for the Mayangna people, whose dogs are not the typical scavenging animal leading a solitary existence but are actively involved in the hunt. Wynne, Clive. Dog is Love: Why and How Your Dog Loves You (p. 198). Quercus. Kindle Edition.

[3] L., W.C.D. (2020) “5,” in Dog is love: Why and how your dog loves you. London: Quercus. 

[4] These three genes are linked to the Williams syndrome in humans, who show hyper-sociability, extreme gregariousness, a desire to form close and warm relationships, to love and be loved.

[5] L., W.C.D. (2019) “6,”.

[6] Both street dogs and wolves would be capable of scavenging around human settlements, but dogs would be able to do it in daylight, not only at night.

[7]  Experimental imprinting of wolves sees the window of opportunity for a successful outcome closing at 3 weeks from birth and human contact must be constant, 24/7. With dogs, imprinting is much easier and does not require full immersion. Taming dogs is so simple that we don’t even realise we are doing it. At the same time, experiments where dogs had no human contact for the first 14 weeks of their life saw dogs behave as ‘little wild animals’. L., W.C.D. (2019) location 192 of 272.

[8] Nestor, J. (2020) “Pp166,167,” in Breath: The lost art and science of our most misunderstood function. London: Penguin Books.

[9] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/qcs-dog-savages-beloved-local-thames-seal-z0fd38zh6

[10] Brophey, K. (2018) “1,” in Meet your dog: The game-changing behavior guide for the modern dog lover. San Francisco: Chronicle Books.

Bibliography

Brophey, K. (2018), Meet your dog: The game-changing behavior guide for the modern dog lover. San Francisco: Chronicle Books.

Coppinger, R., Coppinger, L. and Beck, A.M. (2016) in What is a dog? foreword by Alan M. Beck. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

L., W.C.D. (2020), Dog is love: Why and how your dog loves you. London: Quercus.

Nestor, J. (2020), Breath: The lost art and science of our most misunderstood function. London: Penguin Books.