Maria Mie+Alejandra Moreno
Biological Semiotics: Andrew Yang
Wolves
2 Dogs
For our project we
aim to look at the evolution of dogs and wolves, specifically emphasizing how
the connection to humans might have impacted the evolutionary process. From
information drawn from a recent study by PLoS Genetics, we were able to include
very recent data on the actual evolution of dogs and wolves; but by looking at
older studies we were able to see the ways in which scientists hypothesized the
evolution of dogs before the genome study, using not only genetics, but also
archeology, and biogeography. Using the studies including archaeology we were
able to also piece together a history of dog-human interaction that leads us to
the present day perception of our four-legged companions including taboos and
spiritual associations with dogs.
By looking at
articles regarding the treatment of wolves by humans we can see how wolves went
from public enemy #1 to a wild animal that is too often mistaken for having the
same temperament as it’s visually similar cousin, the dog. We’ve found that
depending on the time and situation humans can be either a positive or negative
impact on both wolves and dogs. For example, concerning dogs, certainly being a
loyal companion to humans have benefited the continued survival of the dog, as
they are some of the most bred animals, but on the flipside this over-breeding
can also be seen as a disadvantage, as many dogs now (especially purebred) tend
to have a lower degree of health than mutts. Now I know what you must be
thinking, “But doesn’t that go against the idea of sexual selection? If a male
dog is deemed fit as a stud wouldn’t it make sense that his offspring would be
fit like him?” To which I say, well maybe if this was out in nature where there
are more fit and desirable males for females to choose to have offspring with!
But in the case of tightly controlled breeding there is more of a chance of
inbreeding, and sometimes purposeful inbreeding, which then keeps more genetic
diversity from entering these purebred breed’s gene pools, which, like
inbreeding in humans, results in some very nasty diseases and overall less
healthy offspring. Even in wolves, now that there are many conservation
attempts, most would view human involvement as positive. Even in wolves, now that there are many
conservation attempts most would view human involvement now as positive, but as
wolves and humans start to share the same outdoor recreation spaces this leads
to habituation which causes wolves to become less wary of humans, expecting
food, which can lead to them being killed by less friendly humans or even
provokes not previously common violence from wolves who feel slighted out of a
snack. Being dependent on humans for food can also cause wolves to be less
likely to hunt their natural prey. Since wolves tend to be responsible for
killing the sick of their prey group, such as deer, when they instead depend on
humans and ignore their prey then the sick will keep living and have more of a
potential to spread their disease on to the rest of their group, which could
cause the whole group to get sick and potentially die, which can cause some big
ecosystem issues. So even when humans try and do good, the general population
still tends to do a little more harm than good to the wolf population.
We’ve also looked
at the connection between the juvenile behaviors of dogs in connection with
their juvenile features i.e. paedomorphs. Indeed many dogs tend to have
features prevalent in wolf pups, such as floppy ears and rounded profiles, in
addition to those features some dogs have features not prevalent in wolves at
all, not even as pups, such as piebald patterning and sickle-shaped tails. But
are these juvenile and uncommon traits related to the juvenile behaviors of
dogs? Research done by Russian geneticist D.K. Belyeav would suggests yes!
During his research breeding silver foxes he also noted that when he isolated
certain desirable behavior traits in the foxes their physical traits would also
change, including droopy ears and sickled tails. Besides generally docile and
playful behavior, another feature unique to dogs is that, like humans, dogs
tend to have a “left gaze bias”, meaning that they look at the right side of
the face first when encountering new humans. Because of this bias dogs tend to
be the only animal that can pick up on eye cues from humans, as well as
accurately interpreting human emotion. A trait that many scientists believe
came from co-habitation and evolving in conjunction with humans. Dogs,
throughout their c0-evolution with humans, have also developed the same
neurological function that occurs between humans. A recent study by the LA
Times proved, by using an 11 wolf sample, that dogs did, in fact, experience
oxytocin bursts when making eye contact with humans in the same way that humans
have oxytocin bursts when making eye contact with another human.
For our research
we decided to first present interviews with non-scientists to show the general
knowledge surrounding dog/wolf evolution. We then used video recordings of
wolves, dogs, and dogs in art as the backdrop to our spoken presentation. We
felt that the interviews would be a good way to open up the conversation in an
approachable and entertaining way. The subsequent video as backdrop would also
be a way to keep people’s attention while we break down the science and
research basis of our project.
If we were to
continue this project we would most likely try and spend more time just doing
observation of wolf and dog behavior. Especially observation between dogs and
their owners to try and see the ways that not only dogs have adapted to humans
but also how the owner’s behavior has also adjusted to the dog, so to further
research the symbiotic relationship not only from the dog’s point of view but
also the human owner’s point of view as well. Similarly I think it would be
interesting to observe the differences between wolves who have a lot of contact
with their human keepers in conservation programs and wolves who have very
little contact with human keepers in similar programs, to see if under certain
circumstances human contact could be beneficial for wolves, or even if at some
point certain wolves might start to exhibit any dog-like behavior towards their
keepers.
Annotated
Bibliography
Musiani, Marco and Paul C. Paquet.
“The Practice of Wolf Persecution, Protection, and Restoration in Canada and
the United States,” BioScience 54
(2004): 50-60.
The authors looked into how the
relationships between humans and wolves changed and adapted throughout time
based on public opinion of wolves, and changing ideas on the importance of
environmental protection.
Pate, Jennifer, Manfredo, Michael
J., Bright, Alan D., and Geoff Tischbein. “Coloradans Attitudes toward
Reintroducing the Gray Wolf into Colorado,” Wildlife
Society Bulletin 24 (1996): 421-428.
The authors looked at the
Coloradans attitude towards the potential reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Colorado
so to hypothesis how they would vote on the reintroduction of the animals and
the potential success rate of reintroducing the animals.
Morey, Darcy F. “The Early
Evolution of the Domestic Dog,” American
Scientist 82 (1994): 336-347.
The author looked at potential
paths the domestic dog might have taken to evolve to the point that it is at
now. Author also looked at how breeding certain traits into domestic dogs might
have led to the change in physical appearance in dogs versus wolves.
Larson, Greger, Karlsson, Elinor
K., Perri, Angela, Webster, Matthew T., Ho, Simon Y.W., Peters, Joris, Stahl,
Peter W., Piper, Phillip J., Lingaas, Frode, Fredholm, Merete, Comstock, Kenine
E., Modiano, Jaime F., Schelling, Claude, Agoulnik, Alexander I., Leegwater, Peter
A., Dobney, Keith, Vigne Jean-Denis, Vilà, Carles, Andersson, Leif, and Kerstin
Linblad-Toh. “Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archeology,
and biogeography,” Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (2012):
8878-8883.
By integrating genetics,
archeology, and biogeography the authors reexamined the potential process dogs
took to evolve into what we now today as domestic dogs.
Vilà, Carles, and Robert K. Wayne.
“Hybridization between Wolves and Dogs,” Conservation
Biology 13 (1999): 195-198.
The authors looked into the
possibility of domestic dogs and gray wolves mating, and what concerns that
might cause for conservationists attempting to preserve gray wolves and not
gray wolf/domestic dog hybrids.
McNay, Mark E. “Wolf-Human
Interaction in Alaska and Canada,” Wildlife
Society Bulletin 30 (2002): 831-843.
The author looked into the history
of wolf-human interaction in Alaska and Canada, from the active killing of
wolves in the early 1900s to the conservation movements in the late 1900s. The
author also looked at how habituation to humans, through contact at nature
reservations and camping sites, have ended up as a disadvantage for wolves.
Lobell, Jarrett A., and Erica A.
Powell. “More than Man’s Best Friend,” Archeology 63 (2010): 26-35.
The authors looked at the integral
roles domesticated dogs have played throughout the history of humankind.
Schenkel, Rudolf. “Submission: Its
Features and Function in the Wolf and Dog,” American
Zoologist 7 (1967): 319-329.
The author looked at the
differences in use and form of submission in both wolves and dogs.
Cohn, Jeffrey. “How Wild Wolves
Became Domestic Dogs,” BioScience 47
(1997): 725-728.
The author explored the evolution
process that led wild wolves to become domestic dogs.
“Genomes of modern dogs and wolves
provide new insights on domestication,” last modified January 16, 2014, http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2014/20140116-domesticated-dogs.html.
New information on the evolution of
dogs and wolves, showing that both dogs and wolves seemed to have come from a
common (now extinct) ancestor, based on study published by PLoS Genetics.
el-Showk, Sedeer. “Dogs are not
Domesticated Wolves,” Accumulated
Glitches, February 10, 2014, http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/accumulating-glitches/dogs_are_not_domesicated_wolves.
A blog post extrapolating on the
new findings from the study published by PLoS Genetics.
Healy, Melissa, “Those Puppy Dog
Eyes Trigger Chemical Connection With Humans,” LA Times, April 17, 2015, http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-sn-dog-human-bond-eyes-20150416-story.html.
Report emphasizing on the
neurological function that occurs in humans and dogs discussing also how
beneficial the connection could be in medical terms to humans. Begins and ends
by writing about service dogs.
No comments:
Post a Comment