An evaluation of classical morphologic and morphometric parameters reported to distinguish wolves and dogs

Janssens, L. A. A.; Perri, Angela R.; Crombé, Philippe; Dongen, Stefan Van; Lawler, Dennis F.

doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.10.012

Cited by 22 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Drake et al (2015) claimed that Paleolithic dogs lack typical morphological traits of their domesticated counterparts such as cranial flexion and concavity near the orbits. Janssens, Perri, Crombé, Van Dongen, and Lawler (2019) considered that the small body size of the Paleolithic dogs can be solely explained by the low sample size of this group. According to these authors, Paleolithic dogs do not represent a discrete morphological group and fall within the natural morphological variability of modern wolves.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphological evidence for early dog domestication in the European Pleistocene: New evidence from a randomization approach to group differences

Galeta

Lázničková‐Galetová

Sablin

et al. 2020

The Anatomical Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The antiquity of the wolf/dog domestication has been recently pushed back in time from the Late Upper Paleolithic (~14,000 years ago) to the Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP; ~36,000 years ago). Some authors questioned this early dog domestication claiming that the putative (EUP) Paleolithic dogs fall within the morphological range of recent wolves. In this study, we reanalyzed a data set of large canid skulls using unbalanced‐ and balanced‐randomized discriminant analyses to assess whether the putative Paleolithic dogs are morphologically unique or whether they represent a subsample of the wolf morpho‐population. We evaluated morphological differences between 96 specimens of the 4 a priori reference groups (8 putative Paleolithic dogs, 41 recent northern dogs, 7 Pleistocene wolves, and 40 recent northern wolves) using discriminant analysis based on 5 ln‐transformed raw and allometrically size‐adjusted cranial measurements. Putative Paleolithic dogs are classified with high accuracies (87.5 and 100.0%, cross‐validated) and randomization experiment suggests that these classification rates cannot be exclusively explained by the small and uneven sample sizes of reference groups. It indicates that putative Upper Paleolithic dogs may represent a discrete canid group with morphological signs of domestication (a relatively shorter skull and wider palate and braincase) that distinguish them from sympatric Pleistocene wolves. The present results add evidence to the view that these specimens could represent incipient Paleolithic dogs that were involved in daily activities of European Upper Paleolithic forager groups.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphological evidence for early dog domestication in the European Pleistocene: New evidence from a randomization approach to group differences

Galeta

Lázničková‐Galetová

Sablin

et al. 2020

The Anatomical Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Morphological and morphometric evidence of dog domestication includes tooth crowding, carnassial size reduction, snout length reduction and breadth expansion, sagittal crest reduction, differences in mandibular shape, orientation, and robusticity, paedomorphosis, and higher incidence of dentognathic pathologies (Germonpr� e et al, 2009(Germonpr� e et al, , 2012Ovodov et al, 2011Ovodov et al, , 2015bOvodov et al, , 2017b. That said, the utility of such traits for distinguishing dogs from wolves has been strongly contested (Crockford and Kuzmin, 2012;Boudadi-Maligne and Escarguel, 2014;Morey, 2014;Drake et al, 2015;Janssens et al, 2016Janssens et al, , 2019Perri, 2016;Ameen et al, 2017). Some studies, for example, argue the Paleolithic protodog morphotype may reflect variability within and across wolf populations (Larson et al, 2012;Drake et al, 2015;Perri, 2016;Janssens et al, 2019).…”

Section: Morphological Studies On Dog Domesticationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That said, the utility of such traits for distinguishing dogs from wolves has been strongly contested (Crockford and Kuzmin, 2012;Boudadi-Maligne and Escarguel, 2014;Morey, 2014;Drake et al, 2015;Janssens et al, 2016Janssens et al, , 2019Perri, 2016;Ameen et al, 2017). Some studies, for example, argue the Paleolithic protodog morphotype may reflect variability within and across wolf populations (Larson et al, 2012;Drake et al, 2015;Perri, 2016;Janssens et al, 2019).…”

Section: Morphological Studies On Dog Domesticationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental microwear as a behavioral proxy for distinguishing between canids at the Upper Paleolithic (Gravettian) site of Předmostí, Czech Republic

Prassack

DuBois

Lázničková‐Galetová

et al. 2020

Journal of Archaeological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Morphological and genetic evidence put dog domestication during the Paleolithic, sometime between 40,000 and 15,000 years ago, with identification of the earliest dogs debated. We predict that these earliest dogs (referred to herein as protodogs), while potentially difficult to distinguish morphologically from wolves, experienced behavioral shifts, including changes in diet. Specifically, protodogs may have consumed more bone and other less desirable scraps within human settlement areas. Here we apply Dental Microwear Texture Analysis (DMTA) to canids from the Gravettian site of P� redmostí (approx. 28,500 BP), which were previously assigned to the Paleolithic dog or Pleistocene wolf morphotypes. We test whether these groups separate out significantly by dietrelated variation in microwear patterning. Results are consistent with differences in dietary breadth, with the Paleolithic dog morphotype showing evidence of greater durophagy than those assigned to the wolf morphotype. This supports the presence of two morphologically and behaviorally distinct canid types at this middle Upper Paleolithic site. Our primary goal here was to test whether these two morphotypes expressed notable differences in dietary behavior. However, in the context of a major Gravettian settlement, this may also support evidence of early stage dog domestication. Dental microwear is a behavioral signal that may appear generations before morphological changes are established in a population. It shows promise for distinguishing protodogs from wolves in the Pleistocene and domesticated dogs from wolves elsewhere in the archaeological record.

show abstract

“…This domestication during the Upper Palaeolithic (Davis & Valla, 1978;Müller, 2005;Vigne, 2011) certainly brought several advantages to hunter-gatherer groups (hunting assistance, group protection, etc) but these gains remain difficult to see in the archaeological record. The timing of this innovation is still debated but we now consider that dogs lived with humans for at least the last 15,000 years (Boudadi-Maligne & Escarguel, 2014;Janssens et al, 2019;Perri, 2016;Pionnier-Capitan et al, 2011). Several recently re-evaluated Western European Upper Palaeolithic sites (Boudadi-Maligne et al, 2012Janssens et al, 2018;Napierala & Uerpmann, 2012;Pionnier-Capitan et al, 2011) have produced small canid remains, including the Grotte-abri du Moulin in Southwestern France.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The earliest double dog deposit in the Palaeolithic record: The case of the Azilian level of Grotte‐abri du Moulin (Troubat, France)

Boudadi‐Maligne

Mallye

Ferrié³

et al. 2020

Intl J of Osteoarchaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is now largely accepted that the wolf was the first animal to be domesticated during Pleistocene time. Although the exact timing of this event is still the subject of considerable debate, it is generally agreed upon that dogs lived side-by-side with humans for at least the last 15,000 years. Recent discoveries from the "Grotte-abri du Moulin" (Troubat, France) provide crucial new information as to our understanding of the relationships between humans and dogs during prehistory. The site produced a deep stratigraphic sequence demonstrating that the cave was occupied from the Middle Magdalenian (ca. 17.5 ky cal BP) to the Sauveterrian period (ca. 9.5 ky cal BP). Faunal remains from layer 6, attributed to the Azilian culture, included a small Canis. The biometric study of these remains is fully consistent with their attribution to the dog (Canis familiaris). A total of 147 dog remains were isolated and represent a minimum of two individuals. These remains were recovered from a restricted space and several skeletal elements remained in anatomical connection or in loose connection. The most labile elements were only slightly dispersed and there is no evidence of human or carnivore modification on these bones. Direct radiocarbon dates obtained from a complete tibia demonstrate the dog remains to be contemporaneous with the Azilian occupation of the cave. The Grotte-abri du Moulin evidence represents, therefore, the earliest known occurrence of an intentional double dog deposit and evidence for a particularly close relationship between Azilian groups and their dogs.

show abstract

An evaluation of classical morphologic and morphometric parameters reported to distinguish wolves and dogs

Cited by 22 publications

References 70 publications

Morphological evidence for early dog domestication in the European Pleistocene: New evidence from a randomization approach to group differences

Morphological evidence for early dog domestication in the European Pleistocene: New evidence from a randomization approach to group differences

Dental microwear as a behavioral proxy for distinguishing between canids at the Upper Paleolithic (Gravettian) site of Předmostí, Czech Republic

The earliest double dog deposit in the Palaeolithic record: The case of the Azilian level of Grotte‐abri du Moulin (Troubat, France)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About