Cranial Shape and the Modularity of Hybridization in Dingoes and Dogs; Hybridization Does Not Spell the End for Native Morphology

Parr, William C.; Wilson, L. T.; Wroe, Stephen; Colman, N.; Crowther, Mathew S.; Letnic, Mike

doi:10.1007/s11692-016-9371-x

Cited by 50 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A study by Gonzalez (2012) found that the Dingo presents clearly identifiable character states including: 1) low cranial height, 2) well developed and characteristically shaped occipital process, 3) large auditory bulla, 4) well developed angular process, and 5) a large diastema between lower premolar 2 (PM 2 ) and lower premolar 3 (PM 3 ). In contrast to these observations, Parr et al (2016) showed that the morphology of pure and hybrid Dingoes overlaps greatly so that hybrid animals cannot be reliably distinguished from Dingoes on the basis of cranial metrics. They also found that hybridization with dog breeds does not bring the Dingo cranial morphology towards that of the wolf.…”

Section: Morphologymentioning

confidence: 63%

The Wayward Dog: Is the Australian native dog or Dingo a distinct species?

Jackson

Groves

Flemming

et al. 2017

Zootaxa

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The taxonomic identity and status of the Australian Dingo has been unsettled and controversial since its initial description in 1792. Since that time it has been referred to by various names including Canis dingo, Canis lupus dingo, Canis familiaris and Canis familiaris dingo. Of these names C. l. dingo and C. f. dingo have been most often used, but it has recently been proposed that the Australian Dingo should be once again recognized as a full species-Canis dingo. There is an urgent need to address the instability of the names referring to the Dingo because of the consequences for management and policy. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the morphological, genetic, ecological and biological data to determine the taxonomic relationships of the Dingo with the aim of confirming the correct scientific name. The recent proposal for Canis dingo as the most appropriate name is not sustainable under zoological nomenclature protocols nor based on the genetic and morphological evidence. Instead we proffer the name C. familiaris for all free-ranging dogs, regardless of breed and location throughout the world, including the Australian Dingo. The suggested nomenclature also provides a framework for managing free-ranging dogs including Dingoes, under Australian legislation and policy. The broad principles of nomenclature we discuss here apply to all free-roaming dogs that coexist with their hybrids, including the New Guinea Singing Dog.

show abstract

Section: Morphologymentioning

confidence: 63%

The Wayward Dog: Is the Australian native dog or Dingo a distinct species?

Jackson

Groves

Flemming

et al. 2017

Zootaxa

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, an increasing number of empirical studies investigate patterns of modularity under the “high p : small N ” scenario ( p>>N ), where the number of variables greatly exceeds the number of specimens (e.g., Parr et al. ; Felice and Goswami ; Bardua et al. ; Goswami et al.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, an increasing number of empirical studies investigate patterns of modularity under the "high p: small N" scenario (p>>N), where the number of variables greatly exceeds the number of specimens (e.g., Parr et al 2016;Felice and Goswami 2018;Bardua et al 2019;Goswami et al 2019). Such situations pose particular problems for parametric statistical approaches, as the likelihood of the model, and many summary test measures based on them, cannot be computed, as the trait covariance matrix is singular (see Adams 2014; Adams and Collyer 2018b).…”

Section: Statistical Performance Ofẑ 12mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The past several decades have seen resurging interest in understanding the evolution of modularity, and numerous analytical approaches have been developed for quantifying patterns of modularity in phenotypic datasets (e.g., Magwene 2001;Mitteroecker and Bookstein 2007;Márquez 2008;Klingenberg 2009;Adams 2016;Goswami and Finarelli 2016). Concomitant with these advances is an increasing number of empirical studies that characterize patterns of modularity in distinct phenotypic traits, and across a wide variety of taxa (for recent examples, see Parsons et al 2012;Parr et al 2016;Felice and Goswami 2018;Larouche et al 2018; Bardua et al 2019). Likewise, evolutionary biologists have striven to decipher whether patterns of modularity are similar among taxa and traits, and across levels of biological organization (Drake and Klingenberg 2010;Renaud et al 2012;Sanger et al 2012;Felice and Goswami 2018;Bardua et al 2019;Marshall et al 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing the strength of modular signal, and evaluating alternative modular hypotheses, using covariance ratio effect sizes with morphometric data

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study of modularity is paramount for understanding trends of phenotypic evolution, and for determining the extent to which covariation patterns are conserved across taxa and levels of biological organization. However, biologists currently lack quantitative methods for statistically comparing the strength of modular signal across datasets, and a robust approach for evaluating alternative modular hypotheses for the same dataset. As a solution to these challenges, we propose an effect size measure (ZCR) derived from the covariance ratio, and develop hypothesis‐testing procedures for their comparison. Computer simulations demonstrate that ZCR displays appropriate statistical properties and low levels of mis‐specification, implying that it correctly identifies modular signal, when present. By contrast, alternative methods based on likelihood (EMMLi) and goodness of fit (MINT) suffer from high false positive rates and high model mis‐specification rates. An empirical example in sigmodontine rodent mandibles is provided to illustrate the utility of ZCR for comparing modular hypotheses. Overall, we find that covariance ratio effect sizes are useful for comparing patterns of modular signal across datasets or for evaluating alternative modular hypotheses for the same dataset. Finally, the statistical philosophy for pairwise model comparisons using effect sizes should accommodate any future analytical developments for characterizing modular signal.

show abstract

“…Secondly, the dingoes have been isolated from both their domestic and their wild ancestor during this feralization except the last 200 years, because of Australia's position outside the natural range of wolves and its isolation until the arrival of Europeans. Today, dingoes and European breeds hybridize, especially in the Southeast, but in most other regions hybridization is limited [26][27][28][29] . Therefore, unlike the feral chickens of Kauai island and weedy rice, the dingoes have not experienced hybridization with ancestral populations which may complicate the deciphering of the genomic mechanisms of feralization.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Genomic regions under selection in the feralization of the dingoes

Zhang

Wang

et al. 2020

Nat Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dingoes are wild canids living in Australia, originating from domestic dogs. They have lived isolated from both the wild and the domestic ancestor, making them a unique model for studying feralization. Here, we sequence the genomes of 10 dingoes and 2 New Guinea Singing Dogs. Phylogenetic and demographic analyses show that dingoes originate from dogs in southern East Asia, which migrated via Island Southeast Asia to reach Australia around 8300 years ago, and subsequently diverged into a genetically distinct population. Selection analysis identifies 50 positively selected genes enriched in digestion and metabolism, indicating a diet change during feralization of dingoes. Thirteen of these genes have shifted allele frequencies compared to dogs but not compared to wolves. Functional assays show that an A-to-G mutation in ARHGEF7 decreases the endogenous expression, suggesting behavioral adaptations related to the transitions in environment. Our results indicate that the feralization of the dingo induced positive selection on genomic regions correlated to neurodevelopment, metabolism and reproduction, in adaptation to a wild environment.

show abstract

Cranial Shape and the Modularity of Hybridization in Dingoes and Dogs; Hybridization Does Not Spell the End for Native Morphology

Cited by 50 publications

References 70 publications

The Wayward Dog: Is the Australian native dog or Dingo a distinct species?

The Wayward Dog: Is the Australian native dog or Dingo a distinct species?

Comparing the strength of modular signal, and evaluating alternative modular hypotheses, using covariance ratio effect sizes with morphometric data

Genomic regions under selection in the feralization of the dingoes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About