What Is The Only Animal Known To Domesticate Another Animal?
Dogs and sheep were amongst the first animals to be domesticated.
The domestication of animals is the common relationship betwixt animals and the humans who have influence on their care and reproduction.[one]
Charles Darwin recognized a small number of traits that made domesticated species different from their wild ancestors. He was also the first to recognize the difference between witting selective breeding in which humans directly select for desirable traits, and unconscious option where traits evolve every bit a past-product of natural selection or from selection on other traits.[2] [3] [4] In that location is a genetic departure between domestic and wild populations. There is too a genetic deviation between the domestication traits that researchers believe to take been essential at the early stages of domestication, and the comeback traits that have appeared since the divide between wild and domestic populations.[five] [6] [7] Domestication traits are generally stock-still within all domesticates, and were selected during the initial episode of domestication of that animate being or establish, whereas improvement traits are nowadays only in a proportion of domesticates, though they may be fixed in individual breeds or regional populations.[six] [7] [8]
Domestication should not be dislocated with taming. Taming is the conditioned behavioral modification of a wild-born animal when its natural abstention of humans is reduced and information technology accepts the presence of humans, just domestication is the permanent genetic modification of a bred lineage that leads to an inherited predisposition toward humans.[9] [ten] [11] Sure fauna species, and certain individuals within those species, make better candidates for domestication than others because they exhibit certain behavioral characteristics: (1) the size and organization of their social structure; (2) the availability and the degree of selectivity in their pick of mates; (iii) the ease and speed with which the parents bail with their young, and the maturity and mobility of the immature at nativity; (4) the caste of flexibility in diet and habitat tolerance; and (5) responses to humans and new environments, including flight responses and reactivity to external stimuli.[12] : Fig 1 [13] [14] [15]
It is proposed that there were three major pathways that nigh animal domesticates followed into domestication: (1) commensals, adapted to a man niche (e.one thousand., dogs, cats, fowl, possibly pigs); (ii) prey animals sought for food (e.k., sheep, goats, cattle, water buffalo, yak, squealer, reindeer, llama, alpaca, and turkey); and (3) targeted animals for draft and nonfood resource (due east.one thousand., horse, donkey, camel).[vii] [12] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] The canis familiaris was the first to be domesticated,[23] [24] and was established beyond Eurasia before the end of the Late Pleistocene era, well before tillage and before the domestication of other animals.[23] Unlike other domestic species which were primarily selected for production-related traits, dogs were initially selected for their behaviors.[25] [26] The archaeological and genetic data suggest that long-term bidirectional cistron menstruation between wild and domestic stocks – including donkeys, horses, New and Former Globe camelids, goats, sheep, and pigs – was common.[seven] [17] 1 study has ended that human selection for domestic traits likely counteracted the homogenizing consequence of gene flow from wild boars into pigs and created domestication islands in the genome. The same procedure may besides utilise to other domesticated animals.Some of the most commonly domesticated animals are cats and dogs.[27] [28]
Definitions [edit]
Domestication [edit]
Domestication has been divers as "a sustained multi-generational, mutualistic relationship in which one organism assumes a significant degree of influence over the reproduction and care of another organism in order to secure a more predictable supply of a resource of interest, and through which the partner organism gains reward over individuals that remain outside this relationship, thereby benefitting and often increasing the fitness of both the domesticator and the target domesticate."[1] [12] [29] [thirty] [31] This definition recognizes both the biological and the cultural components of the domestication process and the effects on both humans and the domesticated animals and plants. All by definitions of domestication have included a relationship betwixt humans with plants and animals, but their differences lay in who was considered every bit the lead partner in the relationship. This new definition recognizes a mutualistic relationship in which both partners gain benefits. Domestication has vastly enhanced the reproductive output of crop plants, livestock, and pets far beyond that of their wild progenitors. Domesticates have provided humans with resources that they could more than predictably and securely command, move, and redistribute, which has been the advantage that had fueled a population explosion of the agro-pastoralists and their spread to all corners of the planet.[12]
This biological mutualism is not restricted to humans with domestic crops and livestock but is well-documented in nonhuman species, especially among a number of social insect domesticators and their plant and animal domesticates, for example the ant–fungus mutualism that exists betwixt leafcutter ants and certain fungi.[one]
Domestication syndrome [edit]
Traits used to define the animal domestication syndrome[32]
Domestication syndrome is a term often used to describe the suite of phenotypic traits arising during domestication that distinguish crops from their wild ancestors.[5] [33] The term is also applied to animals and includes increased docility and tameness, coat colour changes, reductions in molar size, changes in craniofacial morphology, alterations in ear and tail form (east.one thousand., floppy ears), more frequent and nonseasonal estrus cycles, alterations in adrenocorticotropic hormone levels, changed concentrations of several neurotransmitters, prolongations in juvenile behavior, and reductions in both total brain size and of detail encephalon regions.[34] The set of traits used to ascertain the brute domestication syndrome is inconsistent.[32]
Departure from taming [edit]
Domestication should not be confused with taming. Taming is the conditioned behavioral modification of a wild-born animal when its natural abstention of humans is reduced and information technology accepts the presence of humans, simply domestication is the permanent genetic modification of a bred lineage that leads to an inherited predisposition toward humans.[9] [10] [xi] Human selection included tameness, just without a suitable evolutionary response then domestication was not achieved.[7] Domestic animals need not be tame in the behavioral sense, such as the Spanish fighting balderdash. Wild animals tin be tame, such equally a hand-raised cheetah. A domestic beast's convenance is controlled by humans and its tameness and tolerance of humans is genetically determined. However, an animal simply bred in captivity is non necessarily domesticated. Tigers, gorillas, and polar bears breed readily in captivity merely are not domesticated.[10] Asian elephants are wild fauna that with taming manifest outward signs of domestication, notwithstanding their breeding is not homo controlled and thus they are not true domesticates.[10] [35]
History, cause and timing [edit]
Evolution of temperatures in the postglacial menses, after the Final Glacial Maximum, showing very low temperatures for the most role of the Younger Dryas, apace rising later on to reach the level of the warm Holocene, based on Greenland ice cores.[36]
The domestication of animals and plants was triggered by the climatic and environmental changes that occurred after the peak of the Terminal Glacial Maximum effectually 21,000 years agone and which go on to this nowadays twenty-four hours. These changes made obtaining food hard. The first domesticate was the domestic canis familiaris (Canis lupus familiaris) from a wolf ancestor (Canis lupus) at least 15,000 years ago. The Younger Dryas that occurred 12,900 years agone was a period of intense common cold and aridity that put pressure level on humans to intensify their foraging strategies. By the kickoff of the Holocene from 11,700 years agone, favorable climatic weather condition and increasing homo populations led to small-scale animal and plant domestication, which allowed humans to augment the food that they were obtaining through hunter-gathering.[37]
The increased utilise of agriculture and connected domestication of species during the Neolithic transition marked the start of a rapid shift in the evolution, ecology, and demography of both humans and numerous species of animals and plants.[38] [vii] Areas with increasing agriculture, underwent urbanisation,[38] [39] developing higher-density populations,[38] [40] expanded economies, and became centers of livestock and crop domestication.[38] [41] [42] Such agricultural societies emerged across Eurasia, Northward Africa, and South and Key America.
In the Fertile Crescent 10,000-eleven,000 years ago, zooarchaeology indicates that goats, pigs, sheep, and taurine cattle were the first livestock to be domesticated. Archaeologists working in Cyprus found an older burial ground, approximately 9500 years old, of an adult human with a feline skeleton.[43] Two grand years later, humped zebu cattle were domesticated in what is today Baluchistan in Pakistan. In East Asia 8,000 years agone, pigs were domesticated from wild boar that were genetically different from those found in the Fertile Crescent. The horse was domesticated on the Central Asian steppe five,500 years ago. The chicken in Southeast Asia was domesticated 4,000 years agone.[37]
Universal features [edit]
The biomass of wild vertebrates is now increasingly pocket-sized compared to the biomass of domestic animals, with the calculated biomass of domestic cattle alone being greater than that of all wild mammals.[44] Because the evolution of domestic animals is ongoing, the procedure of domestication has a beginning merely not an end. Various criteria take been established to provide a definition of domestic animals, simply all decisions about exactly when an animal can be labelled "domesticated" in the zoological sense are arbitrary, although potentially useful.[45] Domestication is a fluid and nonlinear process that may start, finish, reverse, or go downward unexpected paths with no clear or universal threshold that separates the wild from the domestic. However, in that location are universal features held in common past all domesticated animals.[12]
Behavioral preadaption [edit]
Certain animal species, and sure individuals within those species, brand ameliorate candidates for domestication than others because they exhibit sure behavioral characteristics: (1) the size and arrangement of their social construction; (2) the availability and the degree of selectivity in their choice of mates; (3) the ease and speed with which the parents bond with their young, and the maturity and mobility of the young at nascency; (4) the degree of flexibility in nutrition and habitat tolerance; and (v) responses to humans and new environments, including flight responses and reactivity to external stimuli.[12] : Fig 1 [13] [14] [15] Reduced wariness to humans and low reactivity to both humans and other external stimuli are a key pre-adaptation for domestication, and these behaviors are also the principal target of the selective pressures experienced by the creature undergoing domestication.[seven] [12] This implies that not all animals tin be domesticated, e.m. a wild member of the horse family unit, the zebra.[seven] [42]
Jared Diamond in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel enquired as to why, among the world's 148 large wild terrestrial herbivorous mammals, only fourteen were domesticated, and proposed that their wild ancestors must have possessed half-dozen characteristics earlier they could be considered for domestication:[3] : p168-174
Hereford cattle, domesticated for beef product.
- Efficient diet – Animals that tin efficiently procedure what they eat and live off plants are less expensive to keep in captivity. Carnivores feed on flesh, which would require the domesticators to raise additional animals to feed the carnivores and therefore increase the consumption of plants farther.
- Quick growth rate – Fast maturity rate compared to the human life span allows convenance intervention and makes the creature useful within an acceptable duration of caretaking. Some large animals require many years earlier they attain a useful size.
- Ability to brood in captivity – Animals that volition not breed in captivity are limited to acquisition through capture in the wild.
- Pleasant disposition – Animals with nasty dispositions are unsafe to keep effectually humans.
- Tendency not to panic – Some species are nervous, fast, and decumbent to flight when they perceive a threat.
- Social construction – All species of domesticated large mammals had wild ancestors that lived in herds with a dominance hierarchy amidst the herd members, and the herds had overlapping home territories rather than mutually exclusive home territories. This system allows humans to take control of the say-so hierarchy.
Encephalon size and role [edit]
Reduction in skull size with neoteny - grey wolf and chihuahua skulls
The sustained option for lowered reactivity among mammal domesticates has resulted in profound changes in brain form and function. The larger the size of the brain to begin with and the greater its degree of folding, the greater the caste of brain-size reduction under domestication.[12] [46] Foxes that had been selectively bred for tameness over 40 years had experienced a significant reduction in cranial summit and width and by inference in brain size,[12] [47] which supports the hypothesis that brain-size reduction is an early response to the selective force per unit area for tameness and lowered reactivity that is the universal feature of animal domestication.[12] The most affected portion of the brain in domestic mammals is the limbic system, which in domestic dogs, pigs, and sheep show a xl% reduction in size compared with their wild species. This portion of the brain regulates endocrine function that influences behaviors such as aggression, wariness, and responses to environmentally induced stress, all attributes which are dramatically affected by domestication.[12] [46]
Pleiotropy [edit]
A putative cause for the wide changes seen in domestication syndrome is pleiotropy. Pleiotropy occurs when i gene influences 2 or more seemingly unrelated phenotypic traits. Certain physiological changes narrate domestic animals of many species. These changes include extensive white markings (particularly on the caput), floppy ears, and curly tails. These ascend even when tameness is the only trait under selective force per unit area.[48] The genes involved in tameness are largely unknown, so it is non known how or to what extent pleiotropy contributes to domestication syndrome. Tameness may be caused by the downward regulation of fear and stress responses via reduction of the adrenal glands.[48] Based on this, the pleiotropy hypotheses tin can exist separated into two theories. The Neural Crest Hypothesis relates adrenal gland office to deficits in neural crest cells during development. The Single Genetic Regulatory Network Hypothesis claims that genetic changes in upstream regulators affect downstream systems.[49] [fifty]
Neural crest cells (NCC) are vertebrate embryonic stem cells that part directly and indirectly during early on embryogenesis to produce many tissue types.[49] Because the traits unremarkably affected by domestication syndrome are all derived from NCC in development, the neural crest hypothesis suggests that deficits in these cells crusade the domain of phenotypes seen in domestication syndrome.[fifty] These deficits could crusade changes nosotros come across to many domestic mammals, such as lopped ears (seen in rabbit, dog, fox, pig, sheep, caprine animal, cattle, and donkeys) as well as curly tails (pigs, foxes, and dogs). Although they do not affect the development of the adrenal cortex directly, the neural crest cells may be involved in relevant upstream embryological interactions.[49] Furthermore, artificial option targeting tameness may bear upon genes that command the concentration or movement of NCCs in the embryo, leading to a variety of phenotypes.[50]
The unmarried genetic regulatory network hypothesis proposes that domestication syndrome results from mutations in genes that regulate the expression pattern of more downstream genes.[48] For instance piebald, or spotted glaze coloration, may be caused by a linkage in the biochemical pathways of melanins involved in glaze coloration and neurotransmitters such every bit dopamine that help shape behavior and cognition.[12] [51] These linked traits may ascend from mutations in a few primal regulatory genes.[12] A problem with this hypothesis is that information technology proposes that there are mutations in gene networks that cause dramatic furnishings that are not lethal, however no currently known genetic regulatory networks cause such dramatic change in so many dissimilar traits.[49]
Limited reversion [edit]
Feral mammals such every bit dogs, cats, goats, donkeys, pigs, and ferrets that have lived apart from humans for generations show no sign of regaining the brain mass of their wild progenitors.[12] [52] Dingos have lived apart from humans for thousands of years but still have the same brain size as that of a domestic dog.[12] [53] Feral dogs that actively avoid human contact are all the same dependent on human waste for survival and have non reverted to the self-sustaining behaviors of their wolf ancestors.[12] [54]
Categories [edit]
Domestication can be considered as the final stage of intensification in the human relationship between brute or plant sub-populations and human societies, simply it is divided into several grades of intensification.[55] For studies in animal domestication, researchers have proposed v distinct categories: wild, captive wild, domestic, cantankerous-breeds and feral.[15] [56] [57]
- Wild animals
- Subject to natural pick, although the action of by demographic events and artificial selection induced by game management or habitat devastation cannot exist excluded.[57]
- Captive wild animals
- Directly affected by a relaxation of natural selection associated with feeding, breeding and protection/confinement by humans, and an intensification of artificial option through passive selection for animals that are more suited to captivity.[57]
- Domestic animals
- Subject to intensified artificial selection through husbandry practices with relaxation of natural selection associated with captivity and direction.[57]
- Cross-brood animals
- Genetic hybrids of wild and domestic parents. They may be forms intermediate between both parents, forms more similar to one parent than the other, or unique forms singled-out from both parents. Hybrids can be intentionally bred for specific characteristics or can arise unintentionally as the result of contact with wild individuals.[57]
- Feral animals
- Domesticates that take returned to a wild land. As such, they experience relaxed artificial selection induced past the captive environment paired with intensified natural pick induced past the wild habitat.[57]
In 2015, a study compared the diversity of dental size, shape and allometry across the proposed domestication categories of modern pigs (genus Sus). The study showed articulate differences betwixt the dental phenotypes of wild, captive wild, domestic, and hybrid pig populations, which supported the proposed categories through physical evidence. The study did non cover feral pig populations simply called for further inquiry to exist undertaken on them, and on the genetic differences with hybrid pigs.[57]
Pathways [edit]
Since 2012, a multi-stage model of animal domestication has been accustomed by two groups. The commencement group proposed that animal domestication proceeded along a continuum of stages from anthropophily, commensalism, command in the wild, control of captive animals, extensive breeding, intensive convenance, and finally to pets in a slow, gradually intensifying relationship between humans and animals.[45] [55]
The 2d group proposed that there were 3 major pathways that most animal domesticates followed into domestication: (one) commensals, adapted to a human niche (east.1000., dogs, cats, fowl, possibly pigs); (2) prey animals sought for food (e.g., sheep, goats, cattle, h2o buffalo, yak, sus scrofa, reindeer, llama and alpaca); and (three) targeted animals for draft and nonfood resources (e.g., horse, donkey, camel).[seven] [12] [xvi] [17] [eighteen] [19] [20] [21] [22] The ancestry of beast domestication involved a protracted coevolutionary process with multiple stages along different pathways. Humans did non intend to domesticate animals from, or at least they did non envision a domesticated beast resulting from, either the commensal or casualty pathways. In both of these cases, humans became entangled with these species as the relationship between them, and the human being role in their survival and reproduction, intensified.[7] Although the directed pathway proceeded from capture to taming, the other two pathways are non as goal-oriented and archaeological records suggest that they take place over much longer time frames.[45]
Commensal pathway [edit]
The commensal pathway was traveled by vertebrates that fed on refuse around human habitats or by animals that preyed on other animals drawn to human camps. Those animals established a commensal relationship with humans in which the animals benefited but the humans received no damage just piddling benefit. Those animals that were most capable of taking advantage of the resources associated with man camps would have been the tamer, less ambitious individuals with shorter fight or flight distances.[58] [59] [threescore] Afterwards, these animals developed closer social or economic bonds with humans that led to a domestic relationship.[7] [12] [16] The leap from a synanthropic population to a domestic one could only have taken place after the animals had progressed from anthropophily to habituation, to commensalism and partnership, when the relationship between animal and human would accept laid the foundation for domestication, including captivity and human-controlled breeding. From this perspective, animal domestication is a coevolutionary process in which a population responds to selective pressure while adapting to a novel niche that included another species with evolving behaviors.[7] Commensal pathway animals include dogs, cats, fowl, and maybe pigs.[23]
The domestication of animals commenced over 15,000 years before present (YBP), beginning with the grey wolf (Canis lupus) by nomadic hunter-gatherers. Information technology was not until 11,000 YBP that people living in the Virtually East entered into relationships with wild populations of aurochs, boar, sheep, and goats. A domestication procedure then began to develop. The grey wolf nigh likely followed the commensal pathway to domestication. When, where, and how many times wolves may accept been domesticated remains debated because only a modest number of ancient specimens have been found, and both archaeology and genetics continue to provide conflicting show. The most widely accepted, earliest domestic dog remains date back 15,000 YBP to the Bonn–Oberkassel dog. Earlier remains dating back to 30,000 YBP have been described as Paleolithic dogs, however their status as dogs or wolves remains debated. Contempo studies indicate that a genetic divergence occurred betwixt dogs and wolves 20,000–40,000 YBP, nevertheless this is the upper fourth dimension-limit for domestication because it represents the time of divergence and non the time of domestication.[61]
The chicken is one of the nearly widespread domesticated species and ane of the human earth's largest sources of protein. Although the chicken was domesticated in South-E Asia, archaeological bear witness suggests that information technology was non kept every bit a livestock species until 400 BCE in the Levant.[62] Prior to this, chickens had been associated with humans for thousands of years and kept for cock-fighting, rituals, and royal zoos, so they were not originally a prey species.[62] [63] The craven was not a popular food in Europe until only one yard years ago.[64]
Prey pathway [edit]
Domesticated dairy cows in North India
The prey pathway was the style in which virtually major livestock species entered into domestication every bit these were once hunted past humans for their meat. Domestication was likely initiated when humans began to experiment with hunting strategies designed to increase the availability of these prey, perhaps every bit a response to localized force per unit area on the supply of the animate being. Over time and with the more responsive species, these game-management strategies adult into herd-management strategies that included the sustained multi-generational control over the animals' motility, feeding, and reproduction. Every bit human interference in the life-cycles of casualty animals intensified, the evolutionary pressures for a lack of aggression would have led to an acquisition of the same domestication syndrome traits establish in the commensal domesticates.[7] [12] [16]
Prey pathway animals include sheep, goats, cattle, water buffalo, yak, pig, reindeer, llama and alpaca. The correct conditions for the domestication for some of them appear to have been in identify in the central and eastern Fertile Crescent at the stop of the Younger Dryas climatic downturn and the beginning of the Early Holocene nearly xi,700 YBP, and by 10,000 YBP people were preferentially killing young males of a diverseness of species and allowed the females to live in guild to produce more offspring.[7] [12] By measuring the size, sexual practice ratios, and bloodshed profiles of zooarchaeological specimens, archeologists have been able to certificate changes in the management strategies of hunted sheep, goats, pigs, and cows in the Fertile Crescent starting 11,700 YBP. A recent demographic and metrical study of cow and sus scrofa remains at Sha'ar Hagolan, Israel, demonstrated that both species were severely overhunted earlier domestication, suggesting that the intensive exploitation led to management strategies adopted throughout the region that ultimately led to the domestication of these populations following the prey pathway. This pattern of overhunting before domestication suggests that the prey pathway was as accidental and unintentional as the commensal pathway.[7] [xvi]
Directed pathway [edit]
Kazakh shepherd with equus caballus and dogs. Their job is to guard the sheep from predators.
The directed pathway was a more deliberate and directed procedure initiated by humans with the goal of domesticating a free-living brute. It probably just came into beingness once people were familiar with either commensal or casualty-pathway domesticated animals. These animals were likely not to possess many of the behavioral preadaptions some species show earlier domestication. Therefore, the domestication of these animals requires more deliberate effort past humans to work around behaviors that exercise not assist domestication, with increased technological assistance needed.[7] [12] [16]
Humans were already reliant on domestic plants and animals when they imagined the domestic versions of wild animals. Although horses, donkeys, and Old World camels were sometimes hunted every bit prey species, they were each deliberately brought into the human niche for sources of ship. Domestication was still a multi-generational accommodation to man selection pressures, including tameness, simply without a suitable evolutionary response then domestication was not achieved.[7] For example, despite the fact that hunters of the Near Eastern gazelle in the Epipaleolithic avoided alternative reproductive females to promote population rest, neither gazelles[seven] [42] nor zebras[seven] [65] possessed the necessary prerequisites and were never domesticated. In that location is no clear evidence for the domestication of any herded prey creature in Africa,[vii] with the notable exception of the ass, which was domesticated in Northeast Africa sometime in the fourth millennium BCE.[66]
Multiple pathways [edit]
The pathways that animals may have followed are not mutually exclusive. Pigs, for example, may have been domesticated as their populations became accustomed to the human niche, which would suggest a commensal pathway, or they may have been hunted and followed a prey pathway, or both.[vii] [12] [xvi]
Post-domestication gene flow [edit]
As agricultural societies migrated away from the domestication centers taking their domestic partners with them, they encountered populations of wild animals of the aforementioned or sis species. Because domestics often shared a contempo common ancestor with the wild populations, they were capable of producing fertile offspring. Domestic populations were minor relative to the surrounding wild populations, and repeated hybridizations between the two eventually led to the domestic population becoming more genetically divergent from its original domestic source population.[45] [67]
Advances in Dna sequencing technology allow the nuclear genome to be accessed and analyzed in a population genetics framework. The increased resolution of nuclear sequences has demonstrated that factor flow is common, not simply betwixt geographically diverse domestic populations of the aforementioned species but also between domestic populations and wild species that never gave rise to a domestic population.[7]
- The yellow leg trait possessed by numerous modern commercial craven breeds was acquired via introgression from the grey junglefowl indigenous to South asia.[seven] [68]
- African cattle are hybrids that possess both a European Taurine cattle maternal mitochondrial bespeak and an Asian Indicine cattle paternal Y-chromosome signature.[seven] [69]
- Numerous other bovid species, including bison, yak, banteng, and gaur as well hybridize with ease.[seven] [lxx]
- Cats[7] [71] and horses[7] [72] have been shown to hybridize with many closely related species.
- Domestic honey bees have mated with so many different species they now possess genomes more variable than their original wild progenitors.[7] [73]
The archaeological and genetic information suggests that long-term bidirectional gene flow between wild and domestic stocks – including canids, donkeys, horses, New and Old World camelids, goats, sheep, and pigs – was common.[seven] [17] Bidirectional gene menstruation between domestic and wild reindeer continues today.[7]
The event of this introgression is that modernistic domestic populations can often appear to have much greater genomic affinity to wild populations that were never involved in the original domestication process. Therefore, information technology is proposed that the term "domestication" should be reserved solely for the initial process of domestication of a detached population in time and space. Subsequent admixture between introduced domestic populations and local wild populations that were never domesticated should exist referred to equally "introgressive capture". Conflating these ii processes muddles our understanding of the original process and can lead to an artificial inflation of the number of times domestication took place.[7] [45] This introgression can, in some cases, be regarded as adaptive introgression, as observed in domestic sheep due to gene flow with the wild European Mouflon.[74]
The sustained admixture betwixt different dog and wolf populations across the Old and New Worlds over at least the last x,000 years has blurred the genetic signatures and confounded efforts of researchers at pinpointing the origins of dogs.[23] None of the modernistic wolf populations are related to the Pleistocene wolves that were beginning domesticated,[7] [75] and the extinction of the wolves that were the direct ancestors of dogs has muddied efforts to pinpoint the time and place of dog domestication.[7]
Positive selection [edit]
Charles Darwin recognized the small number of traits that made domestic species different from their wild ancestors. He was also the outset to recognize the difference betwixt conscious selective convenance in which humans directly select for desirable traits, and unconscious selection where traits evolve equally a by-product of natural selection or from selection on other traits.[2] [three] [four]
Domestic animals accept variations in coat colour and craniofacial morphology, reduced encephalon size, floppy ears, and changes in the endocrine organization and their reproductive cycle. The domesticated silver trick experiment demonstrated that selection for tameness within a few generations can issue in modified behavioral, morphological, and physiological traits.[38] [45] In add-on to demonstrating that domestic phenotypic traits could arise through selection for a behavioral trait, and domestic behavioral traits could arise through the selection for a phenotypic trait, these experiments provided a mechanism to explicate how the fauna domestication procedure could have begun without deliberate homo forethought and action.[45] In the 1980s, a researcher used a ready of behavioral, cognitive, and visible phenotypic markers, such as glaze colour, to produce domesticated fallow deer inside a few generations.[45] [76] Similar results for tameness and fear take been found for mink[77] and Japanese quail.[78]
Sus scrofa herding in fog, Armenia. Human selection for domestic traits is non affected by later gene flow from wild boar.[27] [28]
The genetic difference between domestic and wild populations can exist framed within ii considerations. The starting time distinguishes betwixt domestication traits that are presumed to have been essential at the early on stages of domestication, and improvement traits that have appeared since the divide between wild and domestic populations.[five] [half-dozen] [7] Domestication traits are by and large fixed inside all domesticates and were selected during the initial episode of domestication, whereas improvement traits are present just in a proportion of domesticates, though they may be fixed in individual breeds or regional populations.[6] [vii] [8] A 2nd issue is whether traits associated with the domestication syndrome resulted from a relaxation of selection as animals exited the wild environment or from positive selection resulting from intentional and unintentional human preference. Some recent genomic studies on the genetic ground of traits associated with the domestication syndrome have shed calorie-free on both of these bug.[seven]
Geneticists take identified more than 300 genetic loci and 150 genes associated with glaze color variability.[45] [79] Knowing the mutations associated with different colors has allowed some correlation betwixt the timing of the appearance of variable coat colors in horses with the timing of their domestication.[45] [80] Other studies have shown how man-induced pick is responsible for the allelic variation in pigs.[45] [81] Together, these insights suggest that, although natural selection has kept variation to a minimum before domestication, humans accept actively selected for novel glaze colors as soon as they appeared in managed populations.[45] [51]
In 2015, a report looked at over 100 grunter genome sequences to ascertain their process of domestication. The procedure of domestication was assumed to have been initiated by humans, involved few individuals and relied on reproductive isolation between wild and domestic forms, but the study found that the assumption of reproductive isolation with population bottlenecks was not supported. The written report indicated that pigs were domesticated separately in Southwest asia and Cathay, with Western Asian pigs introduced into Europe where they crossed with wild boar. A model that fitted the data included admixture with a now extinct ghost population of wild pigs during the Pleistocene. The report also found that despite back-crossing with wild pigs, the genomes of domestic pigs have strong signatures of selection at genetic loci that bear on beliefs and morphology. The study ended that human pick for domestic traits likely counteracted the homogenizing event of gene flow from wild boars and created domestication islands in the genome. The same process may also apply to other domesticated animals.[27] [28]
Unlike other domestic species which were primarily selected for product-related traits, dogs were initially selected for their behaviors.[25] [26] In 2016, a study found that there were simply 11 fixed genes that showed variation between wolves and dogs. These factor variations were unlikely to have been the effect of natural evolution, and point choice on both morphology and beliefs during dog domestication. These genes have been shown to touch on the catecholamine synthesis pathway, with the bulk of the genes affecting the fight-or-flying response[26] [82] (i.e. selection for tameness), and emotional processing.[26] Dogs generally prove reduced fearfulness and aggression compared to wolves.[26] [83] Some of these genes accept been associated with aggression in some dog breeds, indicating their importance in both the initial domestication so later in brood germination.[26]
See also [edit]
- List of domesticated animals
- Hybrid (biology)#Examples of hybrid animals and animal populations derived from hybrid
- Landrace
References [edit]
- ^ a b c Zeder, M. A. (2015). "Cadre questions in domestication Research". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences of the United states of america. 112 (xi): 3191–3198. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112.3191Z. doi:10.1073/pnas.1501711112. PMC4371924. PMID 25713127.
- ^ a b Darwin, Charles (1868). The Variation of Animals and Plants Nether Domestication. London: John Murray. OCLC 156100686.
- ^ a b c Diamond, Jared (1997). Guns, Germs, and Steel. London: Chatto and Windus. ISBN978-0-09-930278-0.
- ^ a b Larson, 1000.; Piperno, D. R.; Allaby, R. One thousand.; Purugganan, M. D.; Andersson, Fifty.; Arroyo-Kalin, One thousand.; Barton, L.; Climer Vigueira, C.; Denham, T.; Dobney, K.; Doust, A. N.; Gepts, Paul; Gilbert, M. T. P.; Gremillion, K. J.; Lucas, 50.; Lukens, 50.; Marshall, F. B.; Olsen, 1000. Thousand.; Pires, J. C.; Richerson, P. J.; Rubio De Casas, R.; Sanjur, O. I.; Thomas, Thou. Chiliad.; Fuller, D. Q. (2014). "Current perspectives and the futurity of domestication studies". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences. 111 (17): 6139–6146. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6139L. doi:10.1073/pnas.1323964111. PMC4035915. PMID 24757054.
- ^ a b c Olsen, K. M.; Wendel, J. F. (2013). "A bountiful harvest: genomic insights into crop domestication phenotypes". Annual Review of Institute Biology. 64: 47–70. doi:10.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120048. PMID 23451788.
- ^ a b c d Doust, A. Northward.; Lukens, Fifty.; Olsen, Chiliad. 1000.; Mauro-Herrera, M.; Meyer, A.; Rogers, K. (2014). "Beyond the single factor: How epistasis and gene-by-environment furnishings influence crop domestication". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (17): 6178–6183. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6178D. doi:10.1073/pnas.1308940110. PMC4035984. PMID 24753598.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac advertizing ae af ag ah ai aj Larson, G. (2014). "The Evolution of Animate being Domestication" (PDF). Almanac Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 45: 115–36. doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135813.
- ^ a b Meyer, Rachel S.; Purugganan, Michael D. (2013). "Evolution of crop species: Genetics of domestication and diversification". Nature Reviews Genetics. fourteen (12): 840–52. doi:10.1038/nrg3605. PMID 24240513. S2CID 529535.
- ^ a b Cost, Edward O. (2008). Principles and Applications of Domestic Creature Behavior: An Introductory Text. Cambridge University Press. ISBN9781780640556 . Retrieved January 21, 2016.
- ^ a b c d Driscoll, C. A.; MacDonald, D. W.; O'Brien, S. J. (2009). "From wild animals to domestic pets, an evolutionary view of domestication". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106: 9971–9978. Bibcode:2009PNAS..106.9971D. doi:10.1073/pnas.0901586106. PMC2702791. PMID 19528637.
- ^ a b Diamond, Jared (2012). "1". In Gepts, Paul (ed.). Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability. Cambridge University Press. p. thirteen.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l 1000 northward o p q r s t u v Zeder, G. A. (2012). "The domestication of animals". Journal of Anthropological Research. 68 (2): 161–190. doi:x.3998/jar.0521004.0068.201. S2CID 85348232.
- ^ a b Hale, East. B. (1969). "Domestication and the evolution of behavior". In Hafez, East. Southward. E. (ed.). The Beliefs of Domestic Animals (2nd ed.). London: Bailliere, Tindall, and Cassell. pp. 22–42.
- ^ a b Price, Edward O. (1984). "Behavioral aspects of fauna domestication". Quarterly Review of Biological science. 59 (1): i–32. doi:10.1086/413673. JSTOR 2827868. S2CID 83908518.
- ^ a b c Cost, Edward O. (2002). Animate being Domestication and Behavior (PDF). Wallingford, England: CABI Publishing. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-05-17. Retrieved 2016-02-26 .
- ^ a b c d eastward f thou Frantz, L. (2015). "The Evolution of Suidae". Annual Review of Fauna Biosciences. 4: 61–85. doi:10.1146/annurev-animal-021815-111155. PMID 26526544.
- ^ a b c d Marshall, F. (2013). "Evaluating the roles of directed breeding and gene flow in animal domestication". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Usa of America. 111 (17): 6153–6158. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6153M. doi:10.1073/pnas.1312984110. PMC4035985. PMID 24753599.
- ^ a b Blaustein, R. (2015). "Unraveling the Mysteries of Animal Domestication: Whole-genome sequencing challenges old assumptions". BioScience. 65 (1): 7–13. doi:10.1093/biosci/biu201.
- ^ a b Telechea, F. (2015). "Domestication and genetics". In Pontaroti, P. (ed.). Evolutionary Biology: Biodiversification from Genotype to Phenotype. Springer. p. 397.
- ^ a b Vahabi, Thousand. (2015). "Man species equally the master predator". The Political Economy of Predation: Manhunting and the Economics of Escape. Cambridge Academy Press. p. 72. ISBN9781107133976.
- ^ a b Gepts, Paul, ed. (2012). "9". Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability. Cambridge University Press. pp. 227–259.
- ^ a b Pontarotti, Pierre, ed. (2015). Evolutionary Biology: Biodiversification from Genotype to Phenotype. Springer International. p. 397.
- ^ a b c d Larson, K. (2012). "Rethinking dog domestication past integrating genetics, archaeology, and biogeography" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United states of america. 109 (23): 8878–8883. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109.8878L. doi:ten.1073/pnas.1203005109. PMC3384140. PMID 22615366.
- ^ Perri, Angela (2016). "A wolf in dog's wearable: Initial domestic dog domestication and Pleistocene wolf variation". Journal of Archaeological Science. 68: i–4. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2016.02.003.
- ^ a b Serpell, J.; Duffy, D. (2014). "Dog Breeds and Their Behavior". Domestic Dog Cognition and Behavior. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer.
- ^ a b c d e f Cagan, Alex; Blass, Torsten (2016). "Identification of genomic variants putatively targeted by choice during dog domestication". BMC Evolutionary Biology. 16: x. doi:10.1186/s12862-015-0579-vii. PMC4710014. PMID 26754411.
- ^ a b c Frantz, 50. (2015). "Evidence of long-term gene flow and selection during domestication from analyses of Eurasian wild and domestic pig genomes". Nature Genetics. 47 (10): 1141–1148. doi:10.1038/ng.3394. PMID 26323058. S2CID 205350534.
- ^ a b c Pennisi, E. (2015). "The taming of the hog took some wild turns". Scientific discipline. doi:10.1126/science.aad1692.
- ^ Maggioni, Lorenzo (2015). "Domestication of Brassica oleracea L.". Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae: 38.
- ^ Zeder, M. (2014). "Domestication: Definition and Overview". In Smith, Claire (ed.). Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. New York: Springer Scientific discipline & Business Media. pp. 2184–2194. doi:10.1007/978-i-4419-0465-2_71. ISBN978-1-4419-0426-iii.
- ^ Sykes, Naomi (2014). "Animal Revolutions". Beastly Questions: Animal Answers to Archaeological Problems. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 25–26. ISBN9781472506245.
- ^ a b Lord KA, Larson G, Coppinger RP, Karlsson EK (February 2020). "The History of Farm Foxes Undermines the Animal Domestication Syndrome". Trends in Ecology & Development. 35 (ii): 125–136. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2019.ten.011. PMID 31810775.
- ^ Hammer, 1000. (1984). "Das Domestikationssyndrom". Kulturpflanze. 32: 11–34. doi:10.1007/bf02098682. S2CID 42389667.
- ^ Wilkins, Adam South.; Wrangham, Richard W.; Fitch, Due west. Tecumseh (July 2014). "The 'Domestication Syndrome' in Mammals: A Unified Explanation Based on Neural Crest Cell Beliefs and Genetics". Genetics. 197 (3): 795–808. doi:10.1534/genetics.114.165423. PMC4096361. PMID 25024034.
- ^ Lair, R. C. (1997). Gone Astray: The Care and Direction of the Asian Elephant in Domesticity. Bangkok: Regional Role for Asia and the Pacific.
- ^ Zalloua, Pierre A.; Matisoo-Smith, Elizabeth (6 Jan 2017). "Mapping Post-Glacial expansions: The Peopling of Southwest Asia". Scientific Reports. 7: 40338. Bibcode:2017NatSR...740338P. doi:10.1038/srep40338. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC5216412. PMID 28059138.
- ^ a b McHugo, Gillian P.; Dover, Michael J.; Machugh, David E. (2019). "Unlocking the origins and biology of domestic animals using ancient Deoxyribonucleic acid and paleogenomics". BMC Biology. 17 (one): 98. doi:10.1186/s12915-019-0724-vii. PMC6889691. PMID 31791340.
- ^ a b c d eastward Machugh, David East.; Larson, Greger; Orlando, Ludovic (2016). "Taming the By: Aboriginal DNA and the Study of Animal Domestication". Annual Review of Beast Biosciences. 5: 329–351. doi:x.1146/annurev-animal-022516-022747. PMID 27813680.
- ^ Barker, Yard. (2006). The Agronomical Revolution in Prehistory: Why Did Foragers Become Farmers?. Oxford Academy Printing. [ page needed ]
- ^ Bocquet-Appel, J. P. (2011). "When the earth's population took off: The springboard of the Neolithic Demographic Transition". Science. 333 (6042): 560–561. Bibcode:2011Sci...333..560B. doi:ten.1126/scientific discipline.1208880. PMID 21798934. S2CID 29655920.
- ^ Fuller DQ, Willcox One thousand, Allaby RG. 2011. Cultivation and domestication had multiple origins: arguments against the cadre surface area hypothesis for the origins of agriculture in the Well-nigh East. World Archaeol. 43:628–52
- ^ a b c Melinda A. Zeder 2006. Archaeological approaches to documenting animal domestication. In Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms, ed. M.A. Zeder, D.G Bradley, E Emshwiller, B.D Smith, pp. 209–27. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
- ^ Driscoll, Carlos; Clutton-Brock, Juliet; Kitchener, Andrew; O'Brien, Stephen (June 2009). "The Taming of the True cat". Sci Am. 300 (6): 68–75. Bibcode:2009SciAm.300f..68D. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0609-68. PMC5790555. PMID 19485091.
- ^ Valclav Smil, 2011, Harvesting the Biosphere:The Human Impact, Population and Development Review 37(iv): 613–636, Tabular array ii)
- ^ a b c d e f k h i j chiliad l Larson, M. (2013). "A population genetics view of animal domestication" (PDF). Trends in Genetics. 29 (4): 197–205. doi:ten.1016/j.tig.2013.01.003. PMID 23415592.
- ^ a b Kruska, D. 1988. "Mammalian domestication and its consequence on brain construction and behavior," in Intelligence and evolutionary biology. Edited by H. J. Jerison and I. Jerison, pp. 211–l. New York: Springer-Verlag
- ^ Trut, Lyudmila N. (1999). "Early on Canid Domestication: The Farm-Pull a fast one on Experiment" (PDF). American Scientist. 87 (March–Apr): 160–169. Bibcode:1999AmSci..87.....T. doi:10.1511/1999.2.160. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 15, 2010. Retrieved January 12, 2016.
- ^ a b c Trut, Lyudmila; Oskina, Irina; Kharlamova, Anastasiya (2009). "Animate being development during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model". BioEssays. 31 (iii): 349–360. doi:10.1002/bies.200800070. PMC2763232. PMID 19260016.
- ^ a b c d Wilkins, Adam S.; Wrangham, Richard Westward.; Fitch, Due west. Tecumseh (2014). "The "Domestication Syndrome" in Mammals: A Unified Explanation Based on Neural Crest Cell Behavior and Genetics". Genetics. 197 (three): 795–808. doi:10.1534/genetics.114.165423. PMC4096361. PMID 25024034.
- ^ a b c Wright (2015). "The Genetic Architecture of Domestication in Animals". Bioinformatics and Biological science Insights. 9S4 (Suppl iv): 11–twenty. doi:x.4137/bbi.s28902. PMC4603525. PMID 26512200.
- ^ a b Hemmer, H. (1990). Domestication: The Pass up of Environmental Appreciation. Cambridge Academy Press.
- ^ Birks, J. D. S., and A. C. Kitchener. 1999. The distribution and status of the polecat Mustela putorius in Uk in the 1990s. London: Vincent Wild animals Trust.
- ^ Schultz, W. (1969). "Zur kenntnis des hallstromhundes (Canis hallstromi, Troughton 1957)". Zoologischer Anzeiger. 183: 42–72.
- ^ Boitani, L.; Ciucci, P. (1995). "Comparative social ecology of feral dogs and wolves" (PDF). Ethology Ecology & Development. 7 (1): 49–72. doi:x.1080/08927014.1995.9522969.
- ^ a b Vigne, J. D. (2011). "The origins of animal domestication and husbandry: a major change in the history of humanity and the biosphere". Comptes Rendus Biologies. 334 (3): 171–181. doi:10.1016/j.crvi.2010.12.009. PMID 21377611.
- ^ Mayer, J. J.; Brisbin, I. L. (1991). Wild Pigs in the United states of america: Their History, Comparative Morphology, and Current Status. Athens, Georgia, The states: University of Georgia Printing.
- ^ a b c d due east f g Evin, Allowen; Dobney, Keith; Schafberg, Renate; Owen, Joseph; Vidarsdottir, Una; Larson, Greger; Cucchi, Thomas (2015). "Phenotype and animal domestication: A written report of dental variation between domestic, wild, captive, hybrid and insular Pig" (PDF). BMC Evolutionary Biology. 15: 6. doi:10.1186/s12862-014-0269-x. PMC4328033. PMID 25648385.
- ^ Crockford, South. J. (2000). "A commentary on domestic dog evolution: Regional variation, brood development and hybridization with wolves". In Crockford, S. (ed.). Dogs through Time: An Archaeological Perspective. BAR International Serial 889. Oxford: Archaeopress. pp. 11–20. ISBN978-1841710891.
- ^ Coppinger, Raymond; Coppinger, Laura (2001). Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior & Evolution . Scribner. ISBN978-0684855301. [ page needed ]
- ^ Russell, N. (2012). Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and Animals in Prehistory. Cambridge Academy Press. ISBN978-0-521-14311-0.
- ^ Irving-Pease, Evan K.; Ryan, Hannah; Jamieson, Alexandra; Dimopoulos, Evangelos A.; Larson, Greger; Frantz, Laurent A. F. (2018). "Paleogenomics of Animal Domestication". Paleogenomics. Population Genomics. pp. 225–272. doi:10.1007/13836_2018_55. ISBN978-3-030-04752-8.
- ^ a b Perry-Gal, Lee; Erlich, Adi; Gilboa, Ayelet; Bar-Oz, Guy (2015). "Primeval economic exploitation of chicken exterior East Asia: Prove from the Hellenistic Southern Levant". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (32): 9849–9854. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112.9849P. doi:ten.1073/pnas.1504236112. PMC4538678. PMID 26195775.
- ^ Sykes, Naomi (2012). "A social perspective on the introduction of exotic animals: The case of the chicken". World Archaeology. 44: 158–169. doi:10.1080/00438243.2012.646104. S2CID 162265583.
- ^ Gibbons, Ann (2016). "How an aboriginal pope helped make chickens fat". Science. doi:ten.1126/science.aah7308.
- ^ Diamond, Jared (2002). "Evolution, consequences and future of institute and beast domestication" (PDF). Nature. 418 (6898): 700–707. Bibcode:2002Natur.418..700D. doi:10.1038/nature01019. PMID 12167878. S2CID 205209520.
- ^ Kimura, Birgitta; Marshall, Fiona; Beja-Pereira, Albano; Mulligan, Connie (2013-03-01). "Donkey Domestication". African Archaeological Review. thirty (ane): 83–95. doi:x.1007/s10437-012-9126-8. ISSN 1572-9842. S2CID 189903961.
- ^ Currat, M.; et al. (2008). "The hidden side of invasions: Massive introgression past local genes". Evolution. 62 (8): 1908–1920. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00413.ten. PMID 18452573. S2CID 20999005.
- ^ Eriksson, Jonas (2008). "Identification of the Yellow Skin Gene Reveals a Hybrid Origin of the Domestic Chicken". PLOS Genetics. four (ii): e1000010. doi:x.1371/journal.pgen.1000010. PMC2265484. PMID 18454198.
- ^ Hanotte, O.; Bradley, D. G.; Ochieng, J. W.; Verjee, Y.; Hill, Due east. W.; Rege, J. Due east. O. (2002). "African pastoralism: genetic imprints of origins and migrations". Science. 296 (5566): 336–39. Bibcode:2002Sci...296..336H. doi:10.1126/science.1069878. PMID 11951043. S2CID 30291909.
- ^ Verkaar, E. 50. C.; Nijman, I. J.; Beeke, M.; Hanekamp, E.; Lenstra, J. A. (2004). "Maternal and paternal lineages in crossbreeding bovine species. HasWisent a hybrid origin?". Mol. Biol. Evol. 21 (7): 1165–70. doi:10.1093/molbev/msh064. PMID 14739241.
- ^ Pierpaoli, M.; Biro, Z. S.; Herrmann, M.; Hupe, K.; Fernandes, Thou.; et al. (2003). "Genetic stardom of mutiny (Felis silvestris) populations in Europe, and hybridization with domestic cats in Hungary". Molecular Ecology. 12 (x): 2585–98. doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.2003.01939.x. PMID 12969463. S2CID 25491695.
- ^ Jordana, J.; Pares, P. M.; Sanchez, A. (1995). "Analysis of genetic-relationships in horse breeds". Journal of Equine Veterinary Science. 15 (7): 320–328. doi:ten.1016/s0737-0806(06)81738-7.
- ^ Harpur, B. A.; Minaei, S.; Kent, C. F.; Zayed, A. (2012). "Management increases genetic diverseness of love bees via admixture". Molecular Ecology. 21 (18): 4414–21. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2012.05614.x. PMID 22564213.
- ^ Barbato, Mario; Hailer, Frank; Orozco-terWengel, Pablo; Kijas, James; Mereu, Paolo; Cabras, Pierangela; Mazza, Raffaele; Pirastru, Monica; Bruford, Michael W. (2017). "Genomic signatures of adaptive introgression from European mouflon into domestic sheep". Scientific Reports. 7 (1): 7623. Bibcode:2017NatSR...7.7623B. doi:ten.1038/s41598-017-07382-7. PMC5548776. PMID 28790322.
- ^ Freedman, A. (2014). "Genome sequencing highlights the dynamic early history of dogs". PLOS Genetics. 10 (i): e1004016. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016. PMC3894170. PMID 24453982.
- ^ Hemmer, H. (2005). "Neumuhle-Riswicker Hirsche: Erste planma¨ßige Zucht einer neuen Nutztierform". Naturwissenschaftliche Rundschau. 58: 255–261.
- ^ Malmkvist, Jen S.; Hansen, Steffen W. (2002). "Generalization of fear in farm mink, Mustela vison, genetically selected for behaviour towards humans" (PDF). Fauna Behaviour. 64 (3): 487–501. doi:x.1006/anbe.2002.3058. S2CID 491466. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-05. Retrieved 2016-02-26 .
- ^ Jones, R. Bryan; Satterlee, Daniel G.; Marks, Henry L. (1997). "Fear-related behaviour in Japanese quail divergently selected for torso weight". Practical Animal Behaviour Science. 52 (ane–2): 87–98. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01146-X.
- ^ Cieslak, Grand.; et al. (2011). "Colours of domestication". Biol. Rev. 86 (four): 885–899. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2011.00177.x. PMID 21443614. S2CID 24056549.
- ^ Ludwig, A.; et al. (2009). "Glaze color variation at the beginning of equus caballus domestication". Scientific discipline. 324 (5926): 485. Bibcode:2009Sci...324..485L. doi:10.1126/scientific discipline.1172750. PMC5102060. PMID 19390039.
- ^ Fang, M.; et al. (2009). "Contrasting mode of evolution at a coat color locus in wild and domestic pigs". PLOS Genet. 5 (1): e1000341. doi:10.1371/periodical.pgen.1000341. PMC2613536. PMID 19148282.
- ^ Almada RC, Coimbra NC. Recruitment of striatonigral disinhibitory and nigrotectal inhibitory GABAergic pathways during the organization of defensive behavior by mice in a dangerous environment with the venomous snake Bothrops alternatus [ Reptilia, Viperidae ] Synapse 2015:north/a–northward/a
- ^ Coppinger, R.; Schneider, R. (1995). "Evolution of working dogs". The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People. Cambridge University Press. ISBN9780521425377.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_animals
Posted by: jinksthourning.blogspot.com
0 Response to "What Is The Only Animal Known To Domesticate Another Animal?"
Post a Comment