Promethean : great post, I agree with everything you say !

Evolution IS extremely slow, but what you are talking about is not true evolution, this is my "icing on the cake" ! You could take a wolf cub from the wild, before his eyes are open, and turn that 100% wolf cub into a pretty well behaved "dog". Yes, he would be nervous of humans, aloof, but he would accept them, particularly his own pack. He would have a huge prey drive for sure, he would doubtless dig for the Olympics, but overall I guarantee you you would be able to take that wolf to the pub.

If you put this male to another 100% wolf female who had also been raised in captivity in exactly the same way as the male, despite the fact the cubs are still going to be 100% wolf, they will be less wary, less aloof than their parents ... but they are still pure wolves ! Introduce a dog, so you are starting to breed F1's, F2's etc., very quickly indeed you will have an ordinary wolf cross like my Hal, who although he was 75%, did not match up to that high % in terms of difficulties. He was a challenge, and he was nowhere an ordinary "dog", but using the right training methods, he was fine, I might even go so far as to say reasonably obedient !!

So, within 4 generations we have gone from 100% wolf to a dog who was passed off as a dog for 10 years. This isn't evolution, this is man manipulating an animal who by their very nature can very quickly form a symbiotic relationship - because we are both a pack species, and we live by very similar rules. 100,000 years of domestication, if indeed that is the right figure, most experts think that wolves and man have been living together in a meaningful way that we could recognise today for only 10,000 years. Either figure is nowhere near long enough to have removed all of the wolf from the dog.

So sorry, but I shall insist on using the wolf comparison to my dying day !!

This is all so interesting! Great discussion isn't it

Ok this is my view

Not everyone was happy with the re-classification of the Canis lupus familiaris and indeed, in many scientific journals/papers, dogs are referred to still as Canis familiaris. I am doing a small research study and I will refer to Canis familiaris and I won't get marked down for it

(It has also seemingly caused problems with regards to the safety of the New Guinea Singing Dog for various reasons but that's a bit by the by, although an interesting story).

Coppinger discusses all of this and much more in his book "Dogs: a Startling new Understanding of Canine Origin, Behaviour and Evolution". I recommend that anyone, whatever side of the fence you are on, reads this as it's excellent, is not dogmatic or entrenched, but discusses many of the questions raised in this very thread

I think most would agree that wolves and dogs are very close genetically. We "know" this

This paper I've found and which seems to be available to all (makes a change! ) discusses some of this with regards to the Wayne study.
Here is the abstract plus a tiny bit from it (DD is domestic dog) :

http://newguinea-singing-dog-conserv...inOfTheDog.pdf

The Origin of the Dog Revisited
Janice Koler-Matznick

Abstract
The most widely accepted hypothesis of the origin of the dog, Canis familiaris, is that the
dog is a domesticated gray wolf, Canis lupus. This paper reviews the evidence for this
conclusion, finds many unanswered questions and conceptual gaps in the wolf origin
hypothesis, and explores the alternative hypothesis that the most likely ancestor of the
domestic dog was a medium-size, generalist canid.

.....

"The DD's variable social tolerance and
absence of hierarchical pack formation could also be due to natural (niche related) or
artificial selection for neotenous behavior compared to a non-pack-forming ancestor, or
to selective emphasis on gregariousness within a variable ancestral social repertoire.

.....Wayne (1986) compares DD skull morphology to wild canid species and
concludes that the DD is closer in skull morphology to the other canids in his study
(Canis latrans, Canis aureus,
Canis adustus, Canis mesomelas, Cuon alpinus, Lycaon pictus), than to the wolf. .....
....
Wayne and Ostrander (1999) emphasize
that, while molecular genetic data seem to support the origin of dogs from wolves, dogs
may have descended from a now extinct species of canid whose closest living relative
was the wolf".....

I've italicised a few points I've picked out, but it's well worth reading I think.

It seems a good study as it argues critically and also refers to scientists/ethologists such as Mech, Clutton-Brook, Vila etc who are all well known and respected. There are a few references to Mech's book “The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species,” which was published in the late 1960s.which Mech has himself been concerned about (explained in the next post as I don't want to make the posts overlong!!

Wys
x.

A bit more on Mech, who has to be looked at when looking at the alpha/pack question :

For info on Mech and his influence on the "alpha" view and his altered views see an article written by him, and another which summarises it, by renowned wolf dog hybrid trainer and behaviourist Nicole Wilde. She has herself written books on wolf hybrids and how to live with them:

The Man who Cried Alpha

http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/man-who-cried-alpha

Whatever Happened to the term Alpha Wolf? (seminal reading!) by Mech himself! Good man

http://www.wolf.org/wolves/news/iwma.../alphawolf.pdf

I know sometimes it's "boring" looking at links to articles but these are important to this discussion IMO

Wys
x

I believe it's very important to understand that the scientists who brought us info on wolves have altered their views ...and that as the idea of pack theory is flawed even with the wolves, there is no way it should be related to dogs

The alpha wolf idea has become integrated into dog training culture for no good reason, although some think it is because we as humans like hierarchy! Ie the church, army, etc.

Here's a bit from Nicole Wilde's blog . Forgive all the bold but I felt the points were very important :

http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/man-who-cried-alpha

“You must be the alpha dog in your pack.” “If you’re not the alpha, your dog will try to take over that role.” You’ve heard these phrases before. “Alpha” is commonly understood to mean the top dog; the head honcho; the big cheese. [B]But where did the term come from, and is it still applicable today?B]

David L. Mech has studied wolves for 50 years and is a seminal source of information on wolves and their behavior.
He’s written several books, including “The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species,” which was published in the late 1960s (and which he is concerned is still circulating with thousands upon thousands of copies out there, with as he feels now some wrong information).

... At the time, scientists did not think as we do now of wolves as forming and retaining families, but as groups who came together in the winters in order to be more effective hunters.

...to study wolves, a group was formed by combining wolves from various zoos. These wolves had no relationship with each other, so like any other social group, a sort of hierarchy had to be worked out. This was the situation that Schenkel observed before releasing his famous publication that described wolf behavior, pack order, and the “alpha pair.”

Thanks to Mech’s book and other publications that then dispersed this information, the (flawed - Wys) idea of an “alpha” trickled down to the general public.

Since Schenkel’s time, scientists have realized that the story of how wolves form and maintain packs is different than originally thought.

The real story is this: A male and female wolf find each other, court, mate, and soon have offspring. The parents affectionately guide the offspring, teach them necessarily life skills, and keep them safe. Those pups, at about a year of age, become older siblings to the next litter, and like human siblings, dominate the new pups—but there is no “fighting for rank.” The rank is obvious. The parents are still in charge, period. Eventually, the offspring will disperse and eventually form their own packs.

.....In the late 1990s, after David Mech lived on Ellesmere Island with a pack of wild wolves, he wanted to correct the information that now pervades our consciousness about wolf behavior, especially the ever-prevalent concept of the “alpha.”

He published an article in 1999 in the Canadian Journal of Zoology and another in 2000 in the Canadian Field Naturalist, which discussed true pack structure.

According to Mech, “The issue is not merely one of semantics or political correctness. It is one of biological correctness such that the term we use for breeding wolves accurately captures the biological and social role of the animals rather than perpetuate a faulty view.

Since we have so many television shows, books, and other media which have, unfortunately, not only been perpetuating this faulty view but basing training and behavior modification methods upon it, it is important that the public be made aware of the real truth of wolf packs. And if enough people know the truth, maybe we can eventually stop crying “alpha” and get back to training our dogs with affectionate guidance, as good leaders do.

To read the article “What Happened to the Term Alpha Wolf?” go to http://www.wolf.org/wolves/news/iwma.../alphawolf.pdf

Wys
x

There is a similar thread (maybe they could be merged) ATM discussing observed behaiour in multi-dog households. The observations bear out the more recent studies that have found the wolf-pack structure absent in groups / packs of dogs. In the `Dog` pack, hierarchy is fluid - the best thief steals, the best fighter protects. This is in part due to the one huge difference between dogs and wolves - the breeding cycle . Whereas the Wolf alpha bitch and alpha male are the only ones to procreate, which of necessity requires an extremely ordered pack hierarchy, in dogs it`s a free-for-all. Indeed, a bitch can and will couple with a variety of mates. This alone blows the wolf=dog theory out of the water for me. The drive to perpetuate one`s own genes is so basic that anyone who has seen feral dogs all leaping on an unfortunate in-season bitch can see perfectly well that none of the males is `alpha`and controls the pack. It just so happens that one gets lucky - by being the fastest, snappiest or just in the right place at the right time.

Excellent reading, and a well rounded post.




Another good post,

I have never considered myself "Alpha" to my dogs, I am as the article says.. a parent in the sense of "teaching" my dogs manners, just like I would do so with my children... not because I am bigger/stronger, but because I am the adult , and it is my job to keep the safe and teach them to fit in with society.

I also dont believe there is a true Alpha in a pack of domesticated dogs.

My two for instance play a dominant role in different situations.

I think you will almost always find , that the female in the domestic pack, will usually take the "bossy" role, and the male is more than likely to "submit" (just like all the male species , anything for a quiet life)

Each is better at one job than the other, and like with humans, the more ability or confidence you have will show in what ever situation you feel you have the upper hand in.

My two, Millie is the fighter, she will think before she acts, she is a bossy madam, she will throw her weight around .

She barsk like crazy if anyone knocks on the door, but she is NEVER the firs to investigate... she leaves that to Bandit.

He is the one who is the protector, she is the one with then mouth

Each if them have a role to play and each play it with Alpha status

Interesting reading

How I see it
Yes our dogs are domesticated wolves, yes DNA they are v similar and they can breed with true wolves

But
Our input into the breeding is huge, for thousands of years we have chose the wolf who most wanted to be with people, a truly dom dog by our fireside would have been a danger and would have been driven off or killed - never allowed to mate

Studing wolves is interesting, and it shows where the dogs came from - but not what they are today

We are v similar to lots of primates but our culture is different so a study on great apes wouldnt tell you how to raise your children

It is widley thought that a domesticated animal is retained in its more juvinile state, and that does seem to hold true with dogs - alert barking, pointing, retreving are modified prey behaviours that the young in the pack use

But basically the best way to study dogs is to study them in their natural habitat - with humans

Treating them as wolves is just to difficult because we dont really understand wolves all that well, we dont know why they do what they do
and of course the more we study the different the results

I remember when chimp studies suggested that the alpha was an agressive bully who lead with power and bullying
- then they looked at a different group and found the alpha in that pack was a politition who made friends who backed him up

we cannot know everything about every wolf pack structure cos we cant study them all
we cant even know everything about one single wolf pack cos we dont speak wolf, and we dont know how much factors in the past have affected the packs behaviour - just as dogs learn from their envirnoment then wolves must too - and different conditions when they are growing up will make them behaive differently

Over the years, OH has studied both sides of the Mech coin and at one time we were in communication with Dorothy Prendergast, who I believe was a friend or colleague of Nicole Wilde. This was back in the days of the Wolf Hybrid Times, which we purchased in a plain wrapper from the States, a bit like a porn magazine !!

You just cannot escape from that DNA ... domesticated dogs are direct descendants from the wolf, they cannot be descendants of a close relative of the wolf, now extinct, because if they were they would not share the same DNA. In addition, adding credence to the argument, is that domestic dogs can be traced back through the mitochondrial RNA to 4 wolf bitches - gray wolf, not some extinct species.

It is these two irrefutable facts that make me doggedly continue to believe that our dogs are domesticated wolves. This does not mean to say of course that I cannot accept the huge differences between your average labrador and a wild wolf. But having lived with a domesticated high % wolf cross, and in another life with an F1 (I'm not talking about reincarnation here, but another country and a different man !), I know what I am talking about.

I accept too of course that a domesticated 100% wolf is not exactly the same as a wild 100% wolf, but there are very, very similar as to make little difference, particularly if they live in a natural pack situation as, say, at Woburn (I believe that pack is no more, but I may be wrong).

It is my personal experience, plus the irrefutable genetic evidence that will always prevent me from accepting that dogs bear so little resemblance to their wild ancestors that they have to be treated as if they were a separate species, or a related species even. They are not, they are the SAME species, and despite the 100,000 years of symbiosis with man, they still retain many of their wolf traits. In particular, their pack instinct, which we still have despite thousands of years of coming out of caves and civilisation. We still have a very strong pack instinct, and a very similar social structure to dogs ... dogs have inherited this from the wolf, and we have inherited it from our cavemen and hunter gatherers.

I dont think any one disputs the direct link to wolves, but through man and naturally selection, they are as far removed form wolves as we are from Monkeys.

Aren't we less than 1% differen from a chimpanzee?

I read somewhere that the difference between a domesticated dog and a wolf was 0.02% in the mitrochondrial DNA. That's the same difference as between a caucasian (white person) and a Chinese person. So not much difference really