# Dunbar: why pack-theory just complicates things



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Let's Just Be Humans Training Dogs | Dog Star Daily


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

> Basing dog training on a misunderstanding of wolf behavior is as useful as basing human education on a misunderstanding of chimpanzee behavior.
> Dogs are not wolves and dog behavior is not the same as wolf behavior. In fact, the most striking difference between dog and wolf behavior is their interaction with people. Wolves have been naturally selected to grow up to be wary of people, whereas dogs have been artificially selected for their ease of socialization towards people. Consequently, it is hardly sound to use wolf behavior as a template for dog training.


The above taken directly from that link, written by Dr Ian Dunbar but I could have written that myself! He knows his subject so well! :thumbup:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

this is one of my fave bits - and it's also hopeful: 


> *bold added - *
> 
> _ Dog behavior is like watching simplified wolf behavior in slow motion.
> By and large, *dogs are easy to read and usually give ample* warning (*intention signals*)
> *of their actions and reactions*, whereas watching wolves requires a brain with a few more GHz and a bunch more Gigabytes. _


domestic dogs are like *ethology with training-wheels - * U don't have to videorecord them 
and then play it back frame by frame, to see what they are saying or feeling. that's a good thing :thumbup: 
it means that with just good, ordinary human-attention + perception, we can *understand* our dogs. 
they don't squeak like bats, flash microsignals like monkeys, live at accelerated speed like birds, 
brutalize one another like male-baboons, or sexually-segregate like elephants.

the bummer is, *dogs get us better than we get dogs.* 
the *hope* is, we will make more of an effort to grok dogs.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

What I wanna know is, why is Dunbar insulting Chimps?


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> What I wanna know is, why is Dunbar insulting Chimps?


LOL Rob  

What I think he means there is that it is misguided to assume that humans behave the same way as chimps although I myself have often made such assumptions about the behaviour of adolescents coming out of our local school, whooping and hooting (as well as effing and blinding) whilst swinging their bags round and roaring.  They reckon some of our behaviour is very similar to that of the Bonobos, a sub species of chimp - YouTube - Human characteristics of chimps - BBC wildlife However, that does not mean we ARE chimps though sometimes..........

To liken a dog to a wolf is the same as saying a Lion is a Tiger or that a Roe Deer is a Red Deer. Similar animals yes, but quite different in their ways of thinking and behavioural characteristics.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

CarolineH said:


> To liken a dog to a wolf is the same as saying a Lion is a Tiger or that a Roe Deer is a Red Deer. Similar animals yes, but quite different in their ways of thinking and behavioural characteristics.


I don't want to seem pedantic but it's more like comparing a pot bellied pig and a wild boar. Dogs & Wolves interbreed viably so they *are the same species* and DNA has conclusively shown the orgins of dogs are indeed Asiatic wolves, and without any jackal or other influence speculated on in past.

I quite agree, what matters though is how dogs (or indeed wolf hybrids) behave in domesticated settings, any insights from study of wild & feral behaviour need careful evaluation.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

CarolineH said:


> ...I myself have often made such assumptions about the [chimp-like] behaviour of adolescents [exiting] our local school,
> whooping and hooting (as well as effing and blinding) whilst swinging their bags round and roaring.  They reckon some of our behaviour is very similar to that of the Bonobos...


i don't think human-behavior resembles bonobo-behavior; i wish it did. 

bonobos solve conflicts and appease, apologize, and reconcile using sex... 
between adults, same sex, opp-sex, and even teen or pre-teens. 
*may i hasten to add, this is mostly 'gestural' - like air-humping in dogs, NOT full-blown sex.* 
it is like the momentary mounting of excited pups who have just met: an intention movement, 
not actual mating.

bonobos are peaceful, affiliative, tolerate child-behavior and look-out for other's infants + young, 
they do not fight violently over territory or food - males shout, the females start making overtures, 
and they eat side by side while the males are still yelling at each other, but there's no blood n gore.

i think humans, with our insistence on *doing something Right Now* in a crisis, even when it may be 
the WORST possible thing-to-do, we cannot wait - and in our strong species-tendency to shout, throw things, 
bang stuff, stomp, and otherwise display angrily, we much more resemble _Pan troglodytes_ - 
the 'common chimpanzee', notorious for poor impulse-control, manipulation, temper-tantrums, border-wars, etc.

here is another form of reconciliation behavior in another species - 
Science Friday Newsbriefs: After A Fight, Rooks Go To Their Mates For A Beak Rub


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Yep, let's face it, if the other species had a vote, between the survival of the Bonobos and us, we'd be exterminated.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Sorry Rob - I know the ability to successfully reproduce is widely accepted as the criteria but I just don't think that two animals with such stark differences can really be considered the same species.

There are substantial differences in both physiology / anatomy and behaviour. For example, wolves have considerably larger heads relative to body size than dogs. They have much more powerful jaws and significantly longer teeth. Their brains are much larger. Wolves come into season only once per year, they live in family groups (parents and offspring), and pups are raised jointly by both parents, as well as older siblings. Dogs on the other hand have two seasons per year, raise young as single-mums, and broadly speaking do NOT form packs or cohesive family units. Dogs have been selectively bred for thousands of generations to accept humans, to live and work with humans, and for traits such as working ability and appearence. Wolves, subject to the laws of evolution and natural selection are far more shy than dogs, with a natural tendency to avoid humans. I could go on but I won't.....

The point I'm trying to make is that wolves and dogs are two very different animals, living very different lives. Trying to understand dogs by watching wolves is simply not going to be accurate, because contrary to popular belief they are NOT the same, and do NOt behave the same.
If they were / did then every feral born dog would revert to being a wolf; and captive bred wolves would behave the same as domestic dogs. They don't.


----------



## Plabebob (Nov 30, 2009)

While all your points are completely valid & I do agree with all of them, the fact is that the scientific definition of a species is that the animals can successfully breed. It's not a matter of opinion! This shouldn't have an effect on the fact that you clearly cannot generalise between dogs & wolves.



http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=species said:


> species (biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Plabebob said:


> ...the fact is that the scientific definition of a species is that the animals
> can successfully breed. It's not a matter of opinion!


then several large parrots which HYBRIDIZE in the wild when habitat-destruction makes their nests overlap are one species? [Aus]

lions + tigers are one species?

leopards and lions are one species? [a sanctuary had an *accidental breeding*, in Canada, i think]

zebras and horses? water-buffalo and dom-cattle? bison and dom-cattle?

*simply being interfertile is not the sole measure of a species.* 
culture, i-e, behavior which is learned, also differentiates - 
orca who eat fish vs orca who eat marine-mammals have different behavior, hunting strategies, 
social groups, etc, etc. they are not 'interchangeable'. they LOOK the same - in another chunk of time, 
they may be visually dissimilar.

the finches of Galapagos are probably interfertile - but are separated by the water between the islands. 
a male bird of one species was driven to another island by a storm - he mated and reared offspring, 
but no one announced, _LOOK! they're the same species..._


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> then several large parrots which HYBRIDIZE in the wild when habitat-destruction makes their nests overlap are one species? [Aus]
> 
> lions + tigers are one species?


Infertile offspring or non-viable in other ways. The seperate species may mate and be able produce offspring, eg) horses and donkeys.

There are sub-species designation, that would appear to be more appropriate for dogs, which according to over-whelming scientific evidence are modified wolves.

The Soviet Arctic Fox experiment, showed within 14 generations a "tameness" mutation, where their "caged" foxes became rather dog-like in their apparent affection and sociability with humans. They are still Arctic Foxes, but the behavioural mutation would make them effectively a new type of animal reared in a domestic setting.

@Colette : your view is not shared by Zoologists, who have to classify things.

I do agree that for behavoural study purposes, these different races would best being considered seperately

One reason that Wolves are endgangered in parts of their range, is pollution of their gene pool by feral dogs. They are simply not seperate species yet.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Rob - having studied comparitive anatomy as part of my degree I am well aware what the scientific community have to say on the matter. Regardless of the exact semantics of species vs sub-species etc; I still strongly feel it is totally inappropriate to tell Jo Public that they have wolves sitting in their living rooms. They do NOT.

The problem with Jo Public is that they will jump on one piece of info and then ignore the rest. It is people believing that dogs and wolves are the4 same that has caused dogs to be manhandled and dominated the world over.

Technically, yes, scientists consider them the same species - but their anatomy, physiology and most importantly behaviour is so VASTLY different that promoting this idea to pet dog owners is just aksing for trouble - and even abuse.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Colette said:


> Rob - having studied comparitive anatomy as part of my degree I am well aware what the scientific community have to say on the matter. Regardless of the exact semantics of species vs sub-species etc; I still strongly feel it is totally inappropriate to tell Jo Public that they have wolves sitting in their living rooms. They do NOT.


I agree with you. But incorrect claims and comparisons do not really help anyone. Jo Public may very well see on National Geographic or read about the origin of Dogs and draw their own conclusions. Fallacy undermines any case you try to make.



> The problem with Jo Public is that they will jump on one piece of info and then ignore the rest. It is people believing that dogs and wolves are the4 same that has caused dogs to be manhandled and dominated the world over.


All the more reason to be accurate. The selection for domestication and encouragement of breed traits with their differing behaviours suffices. No I cannot agree that the treatment of dogs in past, had anything to do with their wolf ancestry. Wolves have mostly faced extermination as pests, man's unrestrained illdisciplined foolish behaviour to domesticated animals, does not need "dodgy" ancestry to justify it.

Noone has ever claimed that Donkey's have wolf ancestry, yet I've seen them (and horses) treated with brutality brazenly in public, in other countries.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Infertile offspring or non-viable in other ways.
> The seperate species may mate and be able produce offspring, eg) horses and donkeys.


the hybridized parrots are not infertile; 
the Galapagos finch-hybrids were not infertile. 
the ligers and tions are not infertile.

but EVERYthing i name is an _'exception'_ to the rule, even tho i mention multiple species 
and U just one: domestic-dogs. :huh: that must be a very special 'rule'. 
i won't bother attempting to discuss this further; there's no point.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> domestic-dogs. :huh: that must be a very special 'rule'.
> i won't bother attempting to discuss this further; there's no point.


Arguing a case for domestic dogs to be given their own species is fair enough.

It is not really the best tactics to assume the outcome of that argument when comparing other things that are very clearly different species. It detracts from the key points.

What we are wanting understood is that dog behaviour in domestic setting, is not well predicted by studies of captive or wild wolves. The situations are clearly different, and the dogs have at least 15,000 years of selective breeding as colleagues of modern man, whilst Wolves have remained wild.

Whilst agreeing with an agrument in general, it does not mean there aren't some weaknesses in that argument & presentation that could be improved.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> It is not really the best tactics to assume the outcome of that argument
> when comparing other things that are very clearly different species.


IMO, wolves + dogs *are* very clearly, highly-divergent species: 
*one estrus each year* vs 2?

*pair-bond + extended-family*, vs single-mum + her pups?

*co-operative rearing of a single litter*, vs every bitch for herself?

*no instinctive grasp of human-gestures*, vs pups as young as 6-WO follow eye-gaze or pointed finger?

*independent + never seek help*, vs human-affiliative + usually solicit help?

and even i, with less than 20/20 vision, can tell the difference between a Siberian Husky + a wolf - 
let alone a Pomeranian, Pekingese or Pudelpointer, a Pug, Puli, or Poodle, a Papillon, Pembroke, or Patterdale. 
that they are interfertile does not IMO mean they are interchangeable - nor that they should be interbred.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Well to speak against those points we have :

- successful interbreeding
- wolf hybrids (no dog wolf sub-species crosses) apparently acting like dogs when raised in domestic setting
- incontravertible DNA evidence

The points you're mentioning are behavoural, so can be explained by selection and small number of mutations.

My experience with the foster pup (under habituated & socialised), was I was having to teach her to follow a pointed finger, so I am skeptical about that being purely instinctive.

Let me say again, behaviourally I am agreeing that there's limitted usefulness in drawing conclusions about dogs & wolves from the behaviour of the other.

What I have tried to say all along, is simply that the analogy of "Humans v Chimpanzees", "Dogs & Wolves" is a poor one, and misleading. I feel it weakens Dunbar's case and can only lower his reputation as it looks sloppy. Furthermore the implication that we as a species act more civilised and better than the wild chimpanzees is also sophistry.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> The points you're mentioning are behavoural, so can be explained by selection and small number of mutations.


TWO estrus periods annually is not 'behavior'. it's physiology, which is *genes*- 
and behavior BTW is also * genetic *. it may have more or less learned-components, but it also 
has an underlying genetic + heritable component.

that's why Pointers point, Retrievers fetch, and guarding-breeds are prone to RG and territorial-aggro: 
the heritability of behavior, which has been selected for by human-controlled I-E domestic breeding. 


RobD-BCactive said:


> My... foster pup (under habituated & socialised)... I [had] to teach her to follow a pointed finger,
> so I am skeptical about that being purely instinctive.


despite Ur skepticism, i posted the research on PF-uk months ago, possibly a year ago.

they reared WOLVES with a human-caregiver per pup, from 21-days age on, in their home; 
they reared a litter of pups *normally*, with their dam, receiving normal interaction with humans; 
they reared another litter who got NO attn or human-contact; humans interacted only with the dam, 
and only when feeding her; the pups were not touched, fed, spoken to, etc; they were mere witnesses 
to coming + going humans.

*even 6-WO fearful, unsocialized pups beat the human-reared wolf-cubs in using human-gestures 
and body-language to help indicate an answer*; also in a later experiment, human-reared wolves 
made no attempt to solicit human-help to solve an otherwise insoluble problem, while human-contact, 
untrained pups all solicited help; the pups had not been *taught* humans fix problems, 
they solicited spontaneously, while the wolves who lived in human-homes and had probably been assisted 
many, many times over months of 24-7 life together, ignored the human, and fruitlessly persisted 
in attempting to 'fix' the problem themselves, even in the face of repeated failure.

if U have another explanation than instinct, i don't. :huh:

to succeed in teaching the wolves to follow a finger-point required extensive + intensive formal training; 
spontaneously it was an epic failure, as wolves used their own senses + ignored human cues or helpful clues, 
while even deliberately unsocialized, basically *semi-feral domestic-dog pups used human body-language 
as information spontaneously* - untaught. here is one abstract - 
SpringerLink - Animal Cognition, Volume 11, Number 3

also to get back to primates, DOGS even untaught, consistently outperform chimps in the use of human 
body-language to find a food-cache; dogs again did this spontaneously, and chimps despite over 98% 
common-DNA with humans, acquired the skill only by diligent and extensive teaching. 
the likelihood that humans co-evolved symbiotically with dogs is IMO very high - they are not 'domestic' 
only in the sense that cattle or sheep are, they are sensitive to human facial, postural and emotional cues 
to an extraordinary degree, without any teaching or even human-exposure.

wolves are not - even when human-reared, even when given 24-7 care by a single caregiver, 
with a secure bond and intensive exposure to that person; they don't 'pick it up'. 
despite the constant opportunity to observe human-behavior, gestures, posture, etc, it goes right past them.

-- terry


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> - wolf hybrids (no dog wolf sub-species crosses) apparently acting like dogs when raised in domestic setting


when i talk about *HYBRIDS* i refer to *dog x wolf progeny*, F1 or F2 - 
50% wolf, 75% wolf [F2 progeny of a backcross to wolf of 50/50 F1], 
or 25% wolf [F2 progeny of dom-dog backcross of 50/50 F1]. 
and no - they don't _*act like dogs*_ in human-homes.

lets not muddy the waters with hybrids, period - no WOLF-outcrosses, no long-ago 
wolf-dilution like Saarloos or Czech wolf-dog from the 1930s or 40s.

lets stick to domestic-dogs without recent infusions of wolf-outcrosses, 
and wild wolves - it simplifies things without dragging in the &$#@! about Saarloos, etc.


----------



## andrea 35 (Nov 22, 2007)

I know of two wolf hybrids, act pretty much like dogs to me , or did when i walked them .


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

andrea 35 said:


> I know of two wolf hybrids, act pretty much like dogs to me , or did when i walked them .


i *reiterate - * are they 25% or more WOLF, with either a parent or grandparent who is full WOLF? 
 this is precisely why i did not want to open this particular can of worms. :lol: * :::: *


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

The twice yearly season falls under mutation and selection to the conditions dogs find living with man. I just don't see those differences as large enough to justify a seperate species. Other animals adapt to local conditions to without a new species designation being required.



leashedForLife said:


> they reared WOLVES with a human-caregiver per pup, from 21-days age on, in their home;
> they reared a litter of pups *normally*, with their dam, receiving normal interaction with humans;
> they reared another litter who got NO attn or human-contact; humans interacted only with the dam,
> and only when feeding her; the pups were not touched, fed, spoken to, etc; they were mere witnesses
> ...


Very interesting, but it doesn't prove an instinctive understanding of the finger point gesture. It just shows that dogs are selected to be more sociable and be aided by and aid humans better, which is what you would expect as a result of selection for those traits.

As for wolf behaviour v dog behaviour, I think most ppl will see large similarities. I saw film of wolf-wolf crosses, and I would definitely not regard them as behaving so hugely different, nor were they not accepting of the humans. That is not to say you can pick out differences, and it seems generally accepted that dog behaviours are often seen in juvenile wolves. Having seen a "Singing Dog" which lived with a behavioural researcher one could say something very similar, they just don't make good pets. So this "aloofness" doesn't appear to be a peculiarly wolf trait, but one present in primitive dogs to.

As the quality of research into wolves in past has not been very good, hence the "pack leader Dominance theory", I don't understand why it matters so much.

Have you seen the film made with the guy who made efforts to be accepted by a wolf pack in as natural conditions as he could have whilst having the wolves in a secure protected environment?



> the likelihood that humans co-evolved symbiotically with dogs is IMO very high


That is a theory, I find very elegant and attractive. Unfortunately I'm not sure there's enough archaeological evidence from ancient human sites to really support it. If dogs and humans, co-evolved in a symbiotic way, I would expect evidence of dogs at prehistoric man sites to be much more common and more ancient.

I am very sure that having dogs, would be a huge advantage to both hunter-gatherers and early agricultural soceities.

Isn't there a problem with the theory, if you view Wolves & Dogs as distinct species, with one being useful to man, and the other being a rival? You need to explain how you get from one species to the other.

If Wolves can be selected for tameness, and then biddability, and eventually the breed traits, emphasising different elements of the wolf's behaviour, you don't need a seperate species to fit what we see today.

Anyway I thought we weren't going to waste time discussing this


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

At the end of the day, wolves are NOT dogs, dogs are NOT wolves, donkeys are NOT horses, lions are NOT tigers and humans are NOT chimpanzees. (and most so-called 'wolf-hybrids' are simply crosses betweens huskies and GSDs' (etc) because the name 'wolf hybrid' commands a higher price and people fall for it!)  Dogs and Wolves â Different Socks in the Trousers of Evolution | Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors


----------



## andrea 35 (Nov 22, 2007)

leashedForLife said:


> i *reiterate - * are they 25% or more WOLF, with either a parent or grandparent who is full WOLF?
> this is precisely why i did not want to open this particular can of worms. :lol: * :::: *


They are 50% wolf 50% Malamute .


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

andrea 35 said:


> They are 50% wolf 50% Malamute .


Are they DEFRA licensed? 
http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/wildlife/protect/dwaa/hybrid.htm 
*Wolf-dog hybrids and the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976*

Wolf-dog hybrids are not a true species but rather a hybrid of the domestic dog crossed with the wolf. Such animals are required to be licensed under the Act. This is because the Schedule to the Act states that any hybrid of a kind of mammal specified in the Schedule must be licensed; a wolf is a mammal specified in the Schedule as it is included in the listing of all species of Canidae (i.e. the dog family) and does not fall within the specified exemptions to this listing, unlike the _Canis familiaris_, the domestic dog (but not the Dingo, _Canis familiaris dingo_), raccoon dogs and foxes.
In addition, under the Act any animal with at least one parent as such a hybrid requires a licence. However, the *second* generation following a wolf/domestic dog hybrid does not require a licence if neither of its parents are such a hybrid, as illustrated below.

Quoted from http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/wildlife/protect/dwaa/hybrid.htm where the rest can be read.


----------



## andrea 35 (Nov 22, 2007)

I assume so , they were bought over form the states by a very nice person who worked in rescue, she couldnt leave them in the USA as they would have been pts , they had been attacked by dogs when they were young and they then became wary and unpredicatable so the old owners gave them up to rescue . The lady who bought them back also bought back other dogs who she knew had no chance of being re homed but couldnt bare the thought of them being pts without her being there to protect them , so she shipped the dogs to the UK , they wouldnt have let her bring them back without her admitting what they were .
I can tell you now , they walked better than my Labs were proud animals with the most amazing coats , and very gentle eyes .


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

Species boundaries. Depends entirely on whether you are a lumper or a splitter. If you think animals are bad you should try defining a species in plants. :lol:

Taxonomy is, unfortunately, not a precise science.

Dogs are a subspecies of the species "wolf". Dogs being _Canis lupis_ subsp. _familiaris_, with the wolf being _Canis lupis_. Because a taxonomist somewhere decided that to be the case based on all the information available. That's how it works. The person who names them and publishes successfully's word goes - until someone else does a revision of the Genus or Family which becomes widely accepted. That's how it works in Botany at least and I assume Zoology follows much the same principals, only it's easier.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

CarolineH said:


> At the end of the day, wolves are NOT dogs, dogs are NOT wolves,


Dunbar - "Dog behavior is like watching simplified wolf behavior in slow motion"
"the most striking difference between dog and wolf behavior is their interaction with people. Wolves have been naturally selected to grow up to be wary of people, whereas dogs have been artificially selected for their ease of socialization towards people"

That's perfectly consistent with dogs being a subset of wolves, with relatively few mutations adding to the genome. In fact it is better explained by dogs being wolf descendants, or you have a problem saying where the dog behaviours selected by Man came from. So the first part can be true, but the negative is not true ie Wolves are NOT dogs does not imply that Dogs are NOT wolves.

Denying the domestic Dog's origins isn't really going to convince anyone.

What matters more is how to take advantage of the domestication and selection for reading human's, sociability and trainability, as well as the breed traits.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> [the research experiment] doesn't prove an instinctive understanding of the finger point gesture.


if it was not TAUGHT to a dom-dog pup, who is un-socialized to humans - 
then how does the behavior appear? :huh: telepathy from the human?

*instinct* means a pattern of behavior that requires no learning - 
it is spontaneously exhibited, and may be environmentally triggered 
[a beaver hears running-water; they stack branches against the speakers of the stereo system...] 
or behaviorally triggered [feeding a tidbit to another bird during courtship; nest building...] 
or stimulus triggered [the sensation of FALLING makes human-infants clench their toes + hands, 
trying to clutch to slow or stop their fall].

humans IMO are an environmental trigger for domestic-dog attention, and following human-gaze 
or finger-pointing is a byproduct of that instinctive attention; it needs no learning, it arises 
and manifests as a full-blown behavioral sequence.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

You said they did it quicker than a wolf pup. I just see nothing quantitive to justify the claim to instinctive non-learned behaviour.

As I said, I had experience of a very trainable young dog, that had no instinctive understanding of finger pointing, I damn well know I was teaching her.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Denying the domestic Dog's origins isn't really going to convince anyone.


oh for pity's sweet sake, rob - *no-one is DENYING the origin of the domestic dog.* 
we are saying and HAVE been saying, _"wolves + dogs are *NOW* different."_ they have been sexually segregated 
species, IOW breeding separately, for approx 60k years, according to mitochondrial-DNA mutations.

i'm done.  have a nice life, 
- terry


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> You said they did it quicker than a wolf pup.
> I just see nothing quantitive to justify the claim to instinctive non-learned behaviour.


i said no such thing - please use the supplied *link* and read the abstract. 
i said pups DID IT ON THEIR OWN.

i QUOTE myself: post # *19- *
__________________________ 
_to succeed in teaching the wolves to follow a finger-point required extensive + intensive formal training;
spontaneously it was an epic failure, as wolves used their own senses + ignored human cues or helpful clues,
while even deliberately *unsocialized, basically semi-feral domestic-dog pups used human body-language
as information spontaneously - untaught*. here is one abstract -
SpringerLink - Animal Cognition, Volume 11, Number 3 _


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

on service-dogs AKA assistance-dogs - 
The Film | Through a Dog's Eyes | PBS

OR: The Film | Through a Dog's Eyes | PBS

this film shows the breeding, rearing, + training of SD-candidates, + finally *pairing* with disabled handlers; 
the match is the most-important facet of the undertaking - that bond is crucial to the team's success or failure. 
approx 5-mins into the film, *Dr. Miklosi discusses the evolutionary connection between humans + dom-dogs. *

25-mins into the video, see the discussion of *Minimal-Movement Cues - * 
he * looks * at the floor to get the dog to drop, with no verbal cue; 
a nonverbal disabled-handler can *control* the dog and *elicit* cued behavior :thumbup:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Dog Science | Through a Dog's Eyes | PBS

familydogproject

wolf + dog differences familydogproject 


> _ *Our young handreared dogs*, but not wolves, *were able to use more difficult human
> pointing gestures (e.g., momentary distal pointing) spontaneously*. Young wolves needed massive training
> to reach the same level of success that dogs reached instantly. _


______________________

social cognition - 
familydogproject 


> _ The attention of humans (the direction of looking  head orientation) has an important effect
> on the dogs behaviour. Dogs take human attention into account when they retrieve objects or respond
> to commands. In the latter, they can also figure out whether a command was intended to them or somebody else.
> 
> ...


_____________________

attachment + relationships - 
familydogproject 


> _ The most striking feature of the social life of *dogs* is that they *seem to prefer joining human groups*.
> The dog-human relationship has a long evolutionary history and this could be based both on dogs evolutionary heritage, being the descendants of wolves, and on changes which took place during their adaptation to living with humans.
> However, *the notion that the dog is just a tamed version of the wolf and the affiliative behaviour of dogs
> towards human is simply the manifestation of a wolf-like behaviour in an interspecific context is
> ...


__________________

social learning: familydogproject


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Just want to reiterate some of the thingsd I mentioned earlier, again this is stuff I was taught at uni.

As with most cases of wild vs domesticated wolves have larger heads relative to body size, larger brains, longer teeth and more powerful jaws. This is true even for the breeds of dog that most closely resemble wolves (GSDs, huskies etc). The physical differences are even more pronounced in many other breeds.

Rob, as you are a stickler for accuracy, trying to claim that the differences between wolves and dogs are purely behavioural is false.

Andrea - I think either the person you know is lying, has been lied to themselves, or is breaking the law.
Owning a 50% wolf hybrid doesn't simply require paying a fee for a licence. The DWA also has strict rules in place for public health and safety. Wolves etc are not allowed to be owned like pet dogs - they require proper purpose built, secure housing and could not be walked down the street like a dog. If this woman is genuinely keeping two straight wolf-dog crosses in this way she is breaking the law.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

It's interesting but I just can't see how a scientist classifying from scratch today with DNA evidence, given successful inter-breeding and many shared wolf-like (or dog-like) behaviours, is going to claim a seperate species.

Details are great, but the ones you're highlighting seem to me to be outweighed by the similarities (in general), and the *DNA evidence has told us clearly, that dogs are descended from wolves, without hybridisation with jackals.* That was the most accepted theory to the orgin of dogs, in the last century.

The species issue does not imply anything about dog (or wolf if that was justified) training, the best methods should be researched and employed, without worrying one jot about the origins. There's a huge range of anatomical and behavioural differences between dog breeds, yet those would surely never be considered to justify seperate species, given the weight of contrary evidence. I just don't understand why it seems of such importance.

The pack Dominance theory is over-turned anyway, as it was based on discredited wolf behaviour research, so saying Wolves actually naturally live in family groups, is far more appealing to the DW influence person, than these *nerdy* details on specifics when every watcher of a Wolf wildlife documentary will see for themselves behavioural simalarites.

If you compare dog behaviour to cats, pigs, wild cats, wild boar and wolves, I think if we are noting general tendencies which animals are going to look most similar to each other.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> ...the *DNA evidence has told us clearly, that dogs are descended from wolves, without hybridisation with jackals.*


other than U just now, rob, nobody mentioned jackals as dom-dog ancestors - 
*and no one DENIES domestic-dogs descend from wolves.*

domestic-donkeys are descended from Asiatic asses; 
domestic-cats are descended from African + European wildcats.

nobody expects to slap a pack-saddle on an Asiatic-ass, or live with an African or European wildcat 
*in their home as a house-pet, with a litter-box and a catnip-mouse to "kill".* 
domestic-donkeys and Euro or African wildcats ARE * STILL interfertile with their wild versions - 
but who would want to screw things up by introducing wild-genes and wild-behavior? 
nobody runs around claiming the wild + domestic species are THE SAME.

domestic-dogs are no longer wolves; they have *some* wolf body-language, but when studied, 
breeds who were least-like wolves in appearance, had the fewest wolf-type body-language: 
CKC-Spaniels, Pekes, etc, had as few as 6 or 7, while breeds resembling wolves had as many as 12 to 14; 
NO BREEDS displayed the full repertoire of wolf body-language signals, not even Sibes, Mals, etc; 
the most 'wolf-like' in appearance only displayed a little over half the known wolf-specific grammar of signals.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> other than U just now, rob, nobody mentioned jackals as dom-dog ancestors -
> *and no one DENIES domestic-dogs descend from wolves.*


That was the widely circulated "probable" explanation in the 20th century, based on best evidence at that time.

Well hopefully noone believes Man "descended" from Chimpanzees, so perhaps introducing the comparisons, deflected from the essential point.

At end of day, you have many specifics to justify a seperate species, and I'm choosing to focus on the core definition of species and the general so I'm uncomfortable with that distinction even if past science made false assumptions based on the extraordinary plasticity of the wolf genome, when under artificial selection.

Once again, I agree that wolf and dog studies are of limmited interest when faced with practical issues of the other kind of animal.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

In botany the DNA data is usually combined, with the addition of an expert judgement, with physiological observation to define species boundaries and draw phylogenetic trees. But then again there are some who would go on genetic data alone - it's all fairly subjective at times!

I don't know how it works in zoology but again I'm assuming it's similar.

However unhelpful it is in terms of dog behaviour and training you can't really deny that dogs and wolves are very closely related - a dog is a subspecies of the species wolf, and the most recent common ancester of a wolf and a dog would be not much different at all from the modern wolf, when you consider that dog evolution has been artificially pushed alon by selective breeding.

I don't know what my point is. :lol:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> That was the widely circulated "probable" explanation in the 20th century, based on best evidence at that time.


the 1st century was 0 to 100; the 2nd, 100 to 200; the 20th was 1900 to 2000. 
how many things changed in physics, math, medicine, etc, over that century? 
in 1900 we still bled people to release bad-humours, and quantum-physics was not born, yet.

:crazy: *and BTW the only one that > I < ever heard espouse that 'theory' was *konrad lorenz*, 
who was not exactly scientifically accurate in all things; his study of geese and imprinting 
is one of the few things he wrote, which has stood the test of time intact. 
the rest has been dissected, with some portion kept and a lot discarded. * 
Short Bio: Psychology History

King Solomon's ring: new light on ... - Google Books

readable copy: On Aggression - Google Books

* he was also a Nazi-sympathizer who defended eugenics vigorously - let's not go there, eh?* :nonod:


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> how many things changed in physics, math, medicine, etc, over that century?


Now that's just way too far off topic, for even someone who loves a good discussion as much as myself to answer


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Now that's just way too far off topic, for even someone who loves a good discussion as much as myself to answer


then U'll be happy to know it's rhetorical -  i am making a comparison + noting that MANY 
forms of new knowledge arrived in that 100 years. 
- t


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

/me lights the blue touch paper and retires to a safe distance



grandad said:


> This is the root of the whole problem scientists are encountering when trying to differentiate between wolves and dogs. They are just too closely related, which is what led to the Society of Mammalogists and the Smithsonian Institution's taxonomical reclassification of dogs ( Canis lupus familiaris) as a subspecies of wolf (Canis lupus) in 1993 .


Found this thread, looking for some of the Dunbar seminar stuff. Wow! I got given a hard time for this 



RobD-BCactive said:


> I don't want to seem pedantic but it's more like comparing a pot bellied pig and a wild boar. Dogs & Wolves interbreed viably so they *are the same species* and DNA has conclusively shown the orgins of dogs are indeed Asiatic wolves, and without any jackal or other influence speculated on in past.
> 
> I quite agree, what matters though is how dogs (or indeed wolf hybrids) behave in domesticated settings, any insights from study of wild & feral behaviour need careful evaluation.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

the behavior of dogs vs wolves is so divergent, lumping them together for any other reason than genetics 
is ridiculous; and *breeding the two* together is IMO even more ridiculous.

Retrieverman just published a recent blog about Lab x wolf hybrids, which is extremely asinine, IMO 
[not the blog,  & not the blog-author, either :skep: the BREEDING of any Lab to any wolf, sheesh...]

it is my considered opinion that breeding dogs to wolves does *nothing* to enhance either species, 
& results in 50:50 F1 progeny who do not fit in human-homes comfortably, & cannot be released 
to the wild for obvious [or *what should be* obvious] reasons: 
they aren't wolves anymore, but neither fish not fowl, & have no niche where they belong. :nonod:


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> other than U just now, rob, nobody mentioned jackals as dom-dog ancestors -
> *and no one DENIES domestic-dogs descend from wolves.*
> 
> domestic-donkeys are descended from Asiatic asses;
> ...


And how does one explain scent marking.Is this not an innat, hard wired, natural behaviour and why hasn't it been bred out of the domestic dog in the last 60k years?


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

grandad said:


> And how does one explain scent marking.Is this not an innat, hard wired, natural behaviour and why hasn't it been bred out of the domestic dog in the last 60k years?


Because there hasn't been any evolutionary need for it to be, perhaps?

A lot of body language signals are not as important in dogs as the situations that dogs find themselves in are not as dangerous as what wolves would find themselves in. Furthermore, dogs are neotenised wolves and so their grasp of body language postures is different to adult wolves and, what's more, has evolved into a noticeably different communication system over the period of domestication.


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

Most animals scent mark, even hamsters. Doesn't make them wolves.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

how many NON-wolf wolves are there, if 'marking' = wolf?...

- housecats, both sexes - even after desex

- house-mice: _Mus domesticus,_ both sexes

- horses: stud-piles, over-marking

- rhino: manure-piles, both sexes

- bobcat, puma, tiger... both sexes

- domestic pig: shared toilet area & remainder clean, if they have space; both sexes

- meerkat: both sexes

- lemur: both sexes, wrist-glands as well as urine & stool

- domestic ferrets: both sexes...

- domestic gerbils, both sexes...

- otters: both sexes

- beaver: both sexes...

- deer species: whitetail, elk, moose: males in rut


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> how many NON-wolf wolves are there, if 'marking' = wolf?...
> 
> - housecats, both sexes - even after desex
> 
> ...


So.........innate and instinctual in most species and sub-species then. Must have evolved that way.


----------



## raindog (Jul 1, 2008)

Two brief points:

1. Out of interest, have there been any studies of feral dog "packs?"
In other words, given no human input, will domestic dogs revert to more wolflike behaviours? Do domestic dogs, which by and large live in ones and two, actually need to exhibit pack behaviour? The prison example referred to above seems to show that humans can revert to this type of behaviour in certain circumstances. Does the same hold true for domestic canines?

2. Not all domestic dog breeds are the same. My breed - the Siberian Husky, although it is genetically closer to the Jack Russel than to the wolf, does, because of its history, exhibit definite "pack" behaviour - not "wolfpack" behaviour, but "Sibepack" behaviour!

Mick


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

Raindog, I do believe there have been but my memory is so rubbbish that I cannot even recall who did it. I dare say someone will be along in a bit to add the releveant links to those studies but in the meantime I have found this - LINK

There's an interesting video clip on that page which is worth listening to.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

Colette said:


> There are substantial differences in both physiology / anatomy and behaviour. For example, wolves have considerably larger heads relative to body size than dogs. They have much more powerful jaws and significantly longer teeth. Their brains are much larger. .


This is partially false, at least in terms of size. While it is "truthier" for the Grey, when compared to what is believed the true ancestor of dogs, the Asian wolves. The size differences are not as marked given that the Asian is smaller than the Grey (not the imaginary aliens)

The other stuff I agree with.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

raindog said:


> Two brief points:
> 
> 1. Out of interest, have there been any studies of feral dog "packs?"
> In other words, given no human input, will domestic dogs revert to more wolflike behaviours? Do domestic dogs, which by and large live in ones and two, actually need to exhibit pack behaviour? The prison example referred to above seems to show that humans can revert to this type of behaviour in certain circumstances. Does the same hold true for domestic canines?
> ...


yes, several studies, start with this one

*Comparative social ecology of feral dogs and wolves*
L. BOITANI and P. CIUCCI


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

Corinthian said:


> This is partially false, at least in terms of size. While it is "truthier" for the Grey, when compared to what is believed the true ancestor of dogs, the Asian wolves. The size differences are not as marked given that the Asian is smaller than the Grey (not the imaginary aliens)
> 
> The other stuff I agree with.


Somewhere there is an article/study outlining the size of dogs brains & jaws and the relationship to the size of brain and jaws of the wolf. I forget the actual context, but it was something along the lines of the size of the jaw relevant to the size of the head and the measurements taken were similar in both species (lupis and familiaris) I'm sure someone will enlighten us


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

raindog said:


> 1. Out of interest, have there been any studies of feral dog "packs?"
> IOW, given no human input, will domestic dogs revert to more wolflike behaviours?


1 - Yes, many: the Coppingers' was probably the most-extensive & most-recent, watching dog-behavior 
on 5 of the 7 continents; Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, India, African cities & villages, Brazil, etc. 
city-strays, city-ferals, village dogs [owned but free-roaming], feral dogs with no owners but sometimes 
with 'sponsors' who feed a specific dog - a bartender, hotel-keeper, cook, housewife, fisherman... 
feral dogs roaming the countryside, too.

what they found was that individual dogs exhibited territoriality, choosing an area where they roamed in patterns, 
eating / scavenging here, resting there, sleeping under/behind this wall, often in shade at this place ~ 2-pm, 
and so on.

they also congregated around common interests - new-trash tossed, a dump, water, bitches in heat. 
they would quarrel or even fight over scarce things: meat [rare] vs spoiled bread [common], estrous bitches, 
meaty bones... but rarely even postured over plentiful items [all sorts of trash at a dump].

they *did not* display active submission / appeasement to other dogs whom they had recently fought... 
which would be one sign of a hierarchy, even a short-lived one.

they had buddies - a dog they'd rest with, or dogs they'd walk with... but there was no cohesive group travel 
[a hallmark of a pack: purposeful movement together, toward a common goal] EXCEPT in parts of western Europe, 
where they theorized that local wolves, who will eat dogs, had taught them there's safety in numbers. 
once they got where they were going [the dump, dumpster, water...], they dispersed, & ate or hunted alone.



raindog said:


> [2] Do domestic dogs, which by and large live in ones & twos, actually need to exhibit pack behaviour?


very rarely - a pack of big-game hunting dogs are unified in the scent & chase & bring to bay parts, 
but no DOG decides who or what we hunt; a human makes that choice, as well as Where & When we hunt, 
if we're the dogs.

dogs WILL often defend their buddies from an attacker, just as many dogs will defend their humans from attack; 
but i see this as a result of bonding [attachment, affection], not 'pack' behavior. bitches & pups are family, 
& *unlike* wolves, fox, jackals, coyote, hyena, et al, Domestic Dogs Have No Pair Bond - the basis of a pack, 
just as the human family of parents & children are the basis of extended family or society.

bitches are left to pregnancy, whelping, feeding, rearing & defending their pups on their own - 
male dogs *do not* ward & feed their pregnant mate while she digs a den, feed her when she's heavy in whelp 
& can't hunt for herself, feed her while she nurses neonates, feed HIS PUPS when they begin eating solids... 
once she's out of estrus, they lose all interest.

pups out of the nest may be played with, at 6-WO and up, but they don't upchuck their own meals 
to hungry pups who beg regularly - which even juvenile wolves will do, who are helping their parents rear 
the next litter. juvie-wolves will stay with their parents till they're 2 or 3-YO; they learn to hunt, 
help feed younger sibs or half-sibs, watch the den, mind the kids while the breeding pair hunt, & so on.

young-pups of 12-WO or under are objects of utter fascination for wolves of all ages; they readily adopt them, 
and orphans rarely die - a nearby pack will often remove them from a den & carry them to their own area, 
rearing them just as they would their own pups. this has been repeatedly documented.

domestic-dog bitches with young litters will adopt young mammals that are not even their own species - 
and domestic-dog bitches with experience rearing litters can sometimes be induced to adopt, lactate, rear 
& live with other dams' pups, or raise tiger-cubs or cheetahs or whatever. 
but not 'every' bitch is willing to adopt non-dog infants; most will adopt a pup not their own, but the stranger 
must be properly introduced into her own litter, wiped with some scent from herself & her pups, to make this 
a likely proposition - if U just plunk a stranger in among the rest, she may simply nose the baby aside, 
to chill & die.

do domestic-dogs NEED to operate as packs? 
no - not outside of hunting scenarios, where a group of dogs is expected to co-operate in finding game 
and bringing the hunter to it. So dogs' time spent in pack-activities is very limited, and when the hunt ends, 
the pack disintegrates into individual dogs, with their individual buddies, as well as disliked or enemies. 
just like us, not all dogs get along with all dogs; they have likes, dislikes & preferences. 

dogs in one household can be more usefully thought of as adopted kids, who are often unrelated 
but nonetheless make up a family; just as in blended human families, the kids may not all get along, 
but all are loved to one degree or another by their adoptive parents & are provided for. 
they accommodate one another's preferences & will often *defer* to a k9-housemate over those things 
which are more-precious to her or him than to themselves.

*Deference* is IMO & IME more important in day-to-day dog relations than 'dominance'. 
dogs defer often & readily over space [narrow openings], preferred toys, access to humans 
for attention, and so on.

i frequently reward my 'audience' dog just for being polite observers while i am training another dog, 
generally about once for every 3 to 5 treats / toy-games / etc, awarded to the student-dog, for several reasons:
it gets them to pay attention & learn, be mindful of their manners, & they also *learn* that when another dog 
gets a reward, there is no reason to struggle for one of my own - _'My turn is Next!'_ :thumbup:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

_Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior & Evolution_ by Ray & Lorna Coppinger -



> _"Today, the popular dog-press seems to feel that if dogs descended from wolves,
> they would have wolf qualities. But the natural selection model points out that the wolf qualities
> are severely modified. Dogs do not think like wolves, nor do they behave like them." _


the process of domestication & evolution toward domestication, while the proto-dogs grew more tolerant 
of human presence & less flighty, plus the later deliberate human selection for traits that we wanted - 
by eating pups who were colors or patterns we did not want, or who were too snappish or guarded game 
after we'd killed it, or however we 'weeded' the proto-dogs, later became selection for working dogs 
to herd, guard or hunt, or as household companions - there were toy-sized dogs in classic Egypt & Rome, 
& among the Aztecs when the Spanish invaded.

later in the more-modern period, not only working traits but an identifiable common appearance became 
a breeding aim, so color, coat, size, etc, became more uniform within breeds.

Cavalier King-Charles Spaniels are among the least-wolflike breeds in behavior, showing a very few 
of the original rich body-language grammar of wolves, remaining puppylike in many ways more than 
the average dog-breeds, such as sleeping touching one another like puppies, even tho there is plenty of room.

most adult-dogs will sleep separate, altho play & rest may be group activities - they will sleep touching 
only if it's cold to conserve body-heat, or if the soft comfy space is limited, like a shared bed or sofa.


----------

