- Location
- Andorra and Spain
Dogs are wolves. We’ve all heard it said, and it’s certainly compelling. But how true is it, and how should the answer determine how we live with our domesticated dogs?
Our dogs of today share 99.8% (1) of their DNA with the grey wolf, and are taxonomically classified as a subspecies of the wolf; Canis lupus familiaris. Yet, when we look at the dog at our feet, whether that be a greyhound, a pug, a Labrador, or any sort of Heinz-57, it’s not hard to wonder how this dog could possibly be so closely related to the noble grey wolf. Our faithful companion, asleep on his back on the sofa, feet gently twitching in the air as he dreams, seems a world away from the intense and formidable wolf; a magnificent beast of myth and legend.
So, how did this come to pass?
There is still some debate amongst scientists as to the exact process and timeline that morphed Akela into Old Yeller, but research on silver foxes in Siberia, started by geneticist Dmitry K Belyaev in the 1950s and continued, after his death, by researchers at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics, may provide some clues.
This study spent decades breeding together only the tamest of the foxes in their charge; the ones that were less fearful of humans. Within only a handful of generations, the foxes’ temperaments were changed so significantly that they not only tended to show no fear of humans, but, rather, demonstrated observable signs of affection, wagging their tails and licking the humans’ faces, much like our domestic dogs do. These behavioural changes are perhaps not all that surprising, considering the deliberate breeding for temperament, but what may be considered surprising is how they were also accompanied by significant physical changes. Different coloured coats manifested, along with floppy ears, variations in the length of leg, skull structure and tail and the ability to reproduce biannually, rather than once a year, as is true for the original foxes. (2)
These physical differences can be explained when we consider that an animal’s behaviour is intertwined with their biochemistry. Hormones, such as adrenaline and dopamine, are closely linked with the pigment melanin, which influences skin and coat colour. Altering the quantities of these hormones present in a species by breeding for tamer offspring leads to changes along this biochemical pathway and adaptations in colour occur. A complex chain of similar interactions cascades throughout the animal’s pathways as generations progress, creating the physical changes we recognise as intrinsically “doggy”.
This research gives us some insight into the probable evolution of grey wolves into dogs. It is hypothesised that, as man started to congregate into colonies, the waste they produced attracted the wolves. Only the least fearful of these wolves would approach the camps, and remain in the immediate area. Only the least aggressive would be tolerated by the humans. So, it is easy to envisage that these less flighty, less aggressive wolves inter-bred on the outskirts of the camps, effectively pre-empting Belyaev’s research, and creating the first strains of the domesticated dog we know today.
Nobody is certain exactly when this domestication occurred, with estimates ranging from 14,000 to 140,000 years ago. (2)
It wouldn’t have been as straightforward as a single split from wolves at this juncture, however. Logic dictates, and studies (3) (4) (5) tell us that continued backcrossing and hybridisation between wolves and domestic dogs continued – and, indeed continues to this day, as people purposefully cross-breed with wolves, often very controversially, to create wolf-dog hybrids. Despite the complexity of this cross-breeding, a recent study that took DNA from 85 breeds of dog traced them all back to the grey wolf, giving validation to the theory that all dogs evolved from wolves, rather than any other species of canid. (2)
Figure 1 – tree mapping the genetic distance between 85 breeds of dog, using the grey wolf as the root. The breeds listed show significantly significant branches, with the remaining breeds forming a single node with shared ancestry and hybridisation with the other branches. (6)
So, the question remains, how does this impact our understanding of the behaviour of domestic dogs today?
In 1947, Swiss animal behaviourist Rudolph Schenkel published a paper entitled “Expressions Studies on Wolves”, in which he documented his findings on the observations he had made of wolf packs in captivity. He noted that these wolves appeared to be in a constant battle for supremacy, to gain a position of dominance over the other members of the group. The leader, or “alpha”, pair would keep the lower-ranking wolves in place with the threat of aggression, and the lower-ranking “beta” wolves would regularly fight to determine their position within the hierarchy. He stated:
Schenkel’s observations were heavily intertwined with anecdotes of domestic dogs, the implication being that the behaviours he observed in his captive wolves would also be observed in our relationships with our own dogs. Further studies confirmed Schenkel’s lupine observations to be true (8), and the ideas became ingrained in our psyches, further cemented with the publication of L. David Mech’s book “The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species” in 1970, which strongly reinforced the ideas of the “alpha wolf”. Mech later renounced the conclusions he had reached in his 1970 paper, and stated, in his paper in 2000:
As Mech concluded, the studies that had been previously undertaken were simply not valid. It is not possible to study a group of unrelated wolves in a captive environment and extrapolate that behaviour to how wolves interact in the wild. He found that, in the wild, packs of wolves are simply a family. The “leaders” are the parents, the breeding pair, and the other members are their offspring. These offspring continue to live within the pack, gaining the benefit of protection and hunting partnership, until they are ready to move on to form families of their own.
This isn’t the only flaw in applying the understanding of social structures of wolves to dogs. For, even if it were true that wolves in packs were constantly vying for status as “pack leader”, it doesn’t hold true that the same would necessarily apply to our domesticated dogs.
Yes, dogs share 99.8% of their DNA with the grey wolf (1), but this does not mean they behave in exactly the same way. After all, Homo sapiens shares 98.7% of its DNA with the bonobo (10) and yet we don’t base our understanding of all human behaviour on that of bonobos in the wild. To do so would be nonsensical. Let’s not forget that dogs are the oldest of domesticated animals. We have observed the changes to the behaviour and physiology of silver foxes after just a few generations of controlled breeding, so to deny that there would be significant differences between modern dogs and their ancient ancestors would be absurd. I would expand upon Mech’s quote above to say that:
“Attempting to apply information about the behaviour of assemblages of unrelated captive wolves to the behaviour of domesticated dogs has resulted in considerable confusion. Such an approach is analogous to trying to draw inferences about human family dynamics by studying unrelated bonobos in captivity.”
Does this mean that dominance is a myth? Yes and no. It is very important that we don’t become inaccurate in our haste to distance ourselves from the idea of the alpha wolf living under our roof. In ethology, dominance is defined as an “individual's preferential access to resources over another” (11). By this definition alone, it is clear that, in almost the entirety of cases, we, the owners of dogs, are the dominant party. For it is the owner who controls all the resources; the dog’s access to food, shelter, freedom, and sex. Understanding this gives us a very powerful tool. For it enables us to use these resources for manipulating our dogs’ behaviour for our own ends. Understanding that we, by very definition, are the dominant parties in our relationship, we can free ourselves from the shackles that bound us to the struggle to establish and maintain our alpha status, and, instead, forge a more harmonious relationship with our charges, based on behaviour modification through operant conditioning.
Works Cited
1. Molecular evolution of the dog family. Wayne, R. K. 1993, Theoretical & Applied Genetics, p. 6.
2. Shelbourne, Toni. The truth about wolves and dogs - Dispelling the myths of dog training. Dorchester : Veloce Publishing Ltd, 2012.
3. Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog. Vilà C, Savolainen P, Maldonado JE, Amoim IR, Rice JE, Honeycutt RL, Crandall KA, Lundeberg J, Wayne RK. 5319, 1997, Science, Vol. 276, pp. 1687-1689.
4. Phylogenetic relationships, evolution, and genetic diversity of the domestic dog. Vilà C, Maldonado JE, Wayne RK. 1, 1999, Journal Heredity, Vol. 90, pp. 71-77.
5. Genes of domestic mammals augmented by backcrossing with wild ancestors. Vilà C, Seddon J, Ellegren H. 4, 2005, Trends Genetics, Vol. 21, pp. 214-218.
6. Genetic structure of the purebred domestic dog. Parker HG, Kim LV, Sutter NB, Carlson S, Lorentzen TD, Malek TB, Johnson GS, DeFrance HB, Ostrander EA, Kruglyak L. 2004, Science, Vol. 304, pp. 1160–1164.
7. Expressions Studies on Wolves. Schenkel, Rudolph. 1947.
8. Social relationships in a group of captive wolves. Rabb, G. B., Woolpy, J. H., and Ginsburg, B. E. 7, 1967, American Zoologist.
9. Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs. Mech, L. David. 2000.
10. The bonobo genome compared with the chimpanzee and human genomes. Prüfer, Kay et al. 7404, 28 Jun 2012, Nature, Vol. 486, pp. 527-531.
11. Bland, J. About Gender: Dominance and Male Behaviour. [Online] 2002. [Cited: 10 Sept 2017.] About Gender: Ethology - Dominance and Male Behaviour.
Our dogs of today share 99.8% (1) of their DNA with the grey wolf, and are taxonomically classified as a subspecies of the wolf; Canis lupus familiaris. Yet, when we look at the dog at our feet, whether that be a greyhound, a pug, a Labrador, or any sort of Heinz-57, it’s not hard to wonder how this dog could possibly be so closely related to the noble grey wolf. Our faithful companion, asleep on his back on the sofa, feet gently twitching in the air as he dreams, seems a world away from the intense and formidable wolf; a magnificent beast of myth and legend.
So, how did this come to pass?
There is still some debate amongst scientists as to the exact process and timeline that morphed Akela into Old Yeller, but research on silver foxes in Siberia, started by geneticist Dmitry K Belyaev in the 1950s and continued, after his death, by researchers at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics, may provide some clues.
This study spent decades breeding together only the tamest of the foxes in their charge; the ones that were less fearful of humans. Within only a handful of generations, the foxes’ temperaments were changed so significantly that they not only tended to show no fear of humans, but, rather, demonstrated observable signs of affection, wagging their tails and licking the humans’ faces, much like our domestic dogs do. These behavioural changes are perhaps not all that surprising, considering the deliberate breeding for temperament, but what may be considered surprising is how they were also accompanied by significant physical changes. Different coloured coats manifested, along with floppy ears, variations in the length of leg, skull structure and tail and the ability to reproduce biannually, rather than once a year, as is true for the original foxes. (2)
These physical differences can be explained when we consider that an animal’s behaviour is intertwined with their biochemistry. Hormones, such as adrenaline and dopamine, are closely linked with the pigment melanin, which influences skin and coat colour. Altering the quantities of these hormones present in a species by breeding for tamer offspring leads to changes along this biochemical pathway and adaptations in colour occur. A complex chain of similar interactions cascades throughout the animal’s pathways as generations progress, creating the physical changes we recognise as intrinsically “doggy”.
This research gives us some insight into the probable evolution of grey wolves into dogs. It is hypothesised that, as man started to congregate into colonies, the waste they produced attracted the wolves. Only the least fearful of these wolves would approach the camps, and remain in the immediate area. Only the least aggressive would be tolerated by the humans. So, it is easy to envisage that these less flighty, less aggressive wolves inter-bred on the outskirts of the camps, effectively pre-empting Belyaev’s research, and creating the first strains of the domesticated dog we know today.
Nobody is certain exactly when this domestication occurred, with estimates ranging from 14,000 to 140,000 years ago. (2)
It wouldn’t have been as straightforward as a single split from wolves at this juncture, however. Logic dictates, and studies (3) (4) (5) tell us that continued backcrossing and hybridisation between wolves and domestic dogs continued – and, indeed continues to this day, as people purposefully cross-breed with wolves, often very controversially, to create wolf-dog hybrids. Despite the complexity of this cross-breeding, a recent study that took DNA from 85 breeds of dog traced them all back to the grey wolf, giving validation to the theory that all dogs evolved from wolves, rather than any other species of canid. (2)
Figure 1 – tree mapping the genetic distance between 85 breeds of dog, using the grey wolf as the root. The breeds listed show significantly significant branches, with the remaining breeds forming a single node with shared ancestry and hybridisation with the other branches. (6)
So, the question remains, how does this impact our understanding of the behaviour of domestic dogs today?
In 1947, Swiss animal behaviourist Rudolph Schenkel published a paper entitled “Expressions Studies on Wolves”, in which he documented his findings on the observations he had made of wolf packs in captivity. He noted that these wolves appeared to be in a constant battle for supremacy, to gain a position of dominance over the other members of the group. The leader, or “alpha”, pair would keep the lower-ranking wolves in place with the threat of aggression, and the lower-ranking “beta” wolves would regularly fight to determine their position within the hierarchy. He stated:
“A bitch and a dog as top animals carry through their rank order and as single individuals of the society, they form a pair. Between them there is no question of status and argument concerning rank… By incessant control and repression of all types of competition (within the same sex), both of these "α animals" defend their social position.” (7)
Schenkel’s observations were heavily intertwined with anecdotes of domestic dogs, the implication being that the behaviours he observed in his captive wolves would also be observed in our relationships with our own dogs. Further studies confirmed Schenkel’s lupine observations to be true (8), and the ideas became ingrained in our psyches, further cemented with the publication of L. David Mech’s book “The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species” in 1970, which strongly reinforced the ideas of the “alpha wolf”. Mech later renounced the conclusions he had reached in his 1970 paper, and stated, in his paper in 2000:
“Attempting to apply information about the behavior of assemblages of unrelated captive wolves to the familial structure of natural packs has resulted in considerable confusion. Such an approach is analogous to trying to draw inferences about human family dynamics by studying humans in refugee camps. The concept of the alpha wolf as a “top dog” ruling a group of similar-aged compatriots is particularly misleading.” (9)
As Mech concluded, the studies that had been previously undertaken were simply not valid. It is not possible to study a group of unrelated wolves in a captive environment and extrapolate that behaviour to how wolves interact in the wild. He found that, in the wild, packs of wolves are simply a family. The “leaders” are the parents, the breeding pair, and the other members are their offspring. These offspring continue to live within the pack, gaining the benefit of protection and hunting partnership, until they are ready to move on to form families of their own.
This isn’t the only flaw in applying the understanding of social structures of wolves to dogs. For, even if it were true that wolves in packs were constantly vying for status as “pack leader”, it doesn’t hold true that the same would necessarily apply to our domesticated dogs.
Yes, dogs share 99.8% of their DNA with the grey wolf (1), but this does not mean they behave in exactly the same way. After all, Homo sapiens shares 98.7% of its DNA with the bonobo (10) and yet we don’t base our understanding of all human behaviour on that of bonobos in the wild. To do so would be nonsensical. Let’s not forget that dogs are the oldest of domesticated animals. We have observed the changes to the behaviour and physiology of silver foxes after just a few generations of controlled breeding, so to deny that there would be significant differences between modern dogs and their ancient ancestors would be absurd. I would expand upon Mech’s quote above to say that:
“Attempting to apply information about the behaviour of assemblages of unrelated captive wolves to the behaviour of domesticated dogs has resulted in considerable confusion. Such an approach is analogous to trying to draw inferences about human family dynamics by studying unrelated bonobos in captivity.”
Does this mean that dominance is a myth? Yes and no. It is very important that we don’t become inaccurate in our haste to distance ourselves from the idea of the alpha wolf living under our roof. In ethology, dominance is defined as an “individual's preferential access to resources over another” (11). By this definition alone, it is clear that, in almost the entirety of cases, we, the owners of dogs, are the dominant party. For it is the owner who controls all the resources; the dog’s access to food, shelter, freedom, and sex. Understanding this gives us a very powerful tool. For it enables us to use these resources for manipulating our dogs’ behaviour for our own ends. Understanding that we, by very definition, are the dominant parties in our relationship, we can free ourselves from the shackles that bound us to the struggle to establish and maintain our alpha status, and, instead, forge a more harmonious relationship with our charges, based on behaviour modification through operant conditioning.
Works Cited
1. Molecular evolution of the dog family. Wayne, R. K. 1993, Theoretical & Applied Genetics, p. 6.
2. Shelbourne, Toni. The truth about wolves and dogs - Dispelling the myths of dog training. Dorchester : Veloce Publishing Ltd, 2012.
3. Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog. Vilà C, Savolainen P, Maldonado JE, Amoim IR, Rice JE, Honeycutt RL, Crandall KA, Lundeberg J, Wayne RK. 5319, 1997, Science, Vol. 276, pp. 1687-1689.
4. Phylogenetic relationships, evolution, and genetic diversity of the domestic dog. Vilà C, Maldonado JE, Wayne RK. 1, 1999, Journal Heredity, Vol. 90, pp. 71-77.
5. Genes of domestic mammals augmented by backcrossing with wild ancestors. Vilà C, Seddon J, Ellegren H. 4, 2005, Trends Genetics, Vol. 21, pp. 214-218.
6. Genetic structure of the purebred domestic dog. Parker HG, Kim LV, Sutter NB, Carlson S, Lorentzen TD, Malek TB, Johnson GS, DeFrance HB, Ostrander EA, Kruglyak L. 2004, Science, Vol. 304, pp. 1160–1164.
7. Expressions Studies on Wolves. Schenkel, Rudolph. 1947.
8. Social relationships in a group of captive wolves. Rabb, G. B., Woolpy, J. H., and Ginsburg, B. E. 7, 1967, American Zoologist.
9. Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs. Mech, L. David. 2000.
10. The bonobo genome compared with the chimpanzee and human genomes. Prüfer, Kay et al. 7404, 28 Jun 2012, Nature, Vol. 486, pp. 527-531.
11. Bland, J. About Gender: Dominance and Male Behaviour. [Online] 2002. [Cited: 10 Sept 2017.] About Gender: Ethology - Dominance and Male Behaviour.
