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

Abstract

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.

Genomes of Pleistocene Siberian Wolves Uncover Multiple Extinct Wolf Lineages

“…The third group (Pleistocene wolf morpho-population) consisted of seven specimens, most of which date to the Pleniglacial and were discovered in Belgium (Trou des Nutons), France (Maldidier), the Czech Republic (Předmostí), Ukraine (Mezin) and Russia (Yakutia and Russian Plain). Finally, the fourth group (the Palaeolithic dog morpho-population) consisted of eight skulls from a number of major Upper Palaeolithic sites in three European regions: Western-Europe dating to the Aurignacian (n = 1; Goyet, Belgium, calibrated age: c. 35,500 years BP), Central-Europe from the Czech Předmostí site dating to the Gravettian (n = 3; calibrated age: c. 28,500 years BP), and Eastern-Europe from the Epigravettian sites located in the Russian Plain (n = 4; Mezherich and Mezin, Ukraine, estimated calibrated age: 18,000 years BP, and Eliseevichi, Russia, calibrated age: c. 16,500 years BP) 7 50 . Several of these Palaeolithic dog skulls from the fourth reference group were handled postmortem by prehistoric people and exhibit cultural modifications 6 51 52 .…”

“… 6 7 50 51 According to Germonpré et al. 7 52 and Galeta et al., 50 the most parsimonious way to describe the members of this Palaeolithic dog morpho-population is as domestic canids, which could be related or unrelated to the ancestors of the extant domestic dogs; nevertheless, they likely played specific roles in some European Upper Palaeolithic societies. It is worth noting that the Siberian Ulakhan Sular and Tirekhtyakh skulls were discovered in natural, fluvial deposits in the Sakha Republic.…”

Morphology‐based diagnostics of “protodogs.” A commentary to Galeta et al., 2021, Anatomical Record, 304, 42–62, doi: 10.1002/ar.24500

“…In this study, we also question whether the morphological variation between the two groups depicted by Galeta et al (2021) is related to domestication process. Next, we question the value of the metrics used in Galeta et al (2021) find evidence for early signs of domestication. Last, we focus on the small group size examined, already reported as problematic, by the authors themselves.…”

“…In a recent Anatomical Record article "Morphological evidence for early dog domestication in the European Pleistocene: New evidence from a randomization approach to group differences" by Galeta, L aznicˇkov a-Galetov a, Sablin, and Germonpré (2021), the authors report on eight "protodogs" and seven Pleistocene wolves from previous publications (Germonpré et al, 2009(Germonpré et al, , 2017Germonpré, Laznickova-Galetova, & Sablin, 2012;Sablin & Khlopachev, 2002). They applied complicated statistics and the data were analyzed-after size-adjustment and log transformation-using cluster analysis that was followed by linear discriminant analysis.…”

Preliminary accuracy of COVID-19 odor detection by canines and HS-SPME-GC-MS using exhaled breath samples

“…Dogs ( Canis familiaris ) are one of the earliest domesticated animals, and their use as working animals date back to early foragers and hunters between 14,000–36,000 years ago [ 23 ]. Today, working dogs are used in a number of applications but most relevant to this discussion is odor detection and discrimination.…”