Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TA]

See also: Koalas.

[Pacobird]

Well, I guess it depends on how you define "cute".  Recent research suggests the first dogs were the most human-friendly of the wolves who congregated around human campsites, so if you consider sociability and disposition to be part of cuteness beyond simple looks, then yes, cuteness probably was a successful evolutionary strategy for the first dogs. 

[Mongrel]

Right, I get that. What I'm saying is that there's a margin. Sociability (or 'cuteness', or whatever you want to call it) was the key to the first contact, but usefulness was what allowed the relationship to go from being mostly parasitic* to symbiotic. As simple as it seems 15,000 years later, the bonding process was complex enough for multiple things to have been a factor, with each affecting the process in different ways.

*_{Technically, eating the dog after he's been mooching for a while is still a symbiotic exchange. But I'm makin' a point here.}

[Pacobird]

Ok, I'll buy that.  It moves us into the speculative realm of, "If dogs HADN'T been economically useful as hunters or whatever, would we still have kept them around on account of being great companions?"

Recognizing, of course, that early dogs were not the finely-tuned engines of WHOSAGOODBOYWHOSAGOODBOY we enjoy today.

[Royal☭]

We also didn't have the same sense of family and attachment that we have towards them that we do today.  Seems likely that it was kind of a mutual thing.  Humans didn't kill the ones that didn't bark at or try to maul them, they didn't try to bark at or maul the humans who didn't kill them.

[Brentai]

Pretty sure primeval canines didn't behave that much differently than the ones we have today: they attach themselves to anything that feeds them.

"Cuteness" probably isn't the survival trait that carried them into the modern age.  "Loyalty" is often the first word attached to dogs for a good reason.

...which was Paco's sort of awkwardly-worded point in the first place, I think.

[Mongrel]

Pretty sure primeval canines didn't behave that much differently than the ones we have today: they attach themselves to anything that feeds them.

That's not just a canine trait. That's pretty much the original basis for taming animals of any kind. 

Minor ramble:

First it begins on an individual level, where a single animal is tamed. With most creatures the process ends here as it is difficult to reliably duplicate and cannot be perpetuated long enough to supply a breeding pool. Prestige animals like tame lions etc come here (a surprising number of animals can be tamed).

The second 'tier' (for lack of a better word) concerns animals that can be somewhat reliably tamed, and who can be usefully trained to work with humans sometimes, but still retain some wild characteristics (often varying noticeably from individual to individual). These animals straddle the line between tame and domesticated, the most important thing being that these animals are not dependent on humans in any way. They might like us and get along with us, but their full naturally-occurring skill haven't been bred out yet. Elephants are a decent example here.

The final tier is full domestication (distinct from mere taming), where a species lives in symbiosis with humans (lopsided at times, but symbiosis nonetheless) and both species depend on each other or at least desire the benefits the other offers.

Food is a huge enabler. If a human becomes a reliable source of food and the animal is reasonably intelligent, the animal will recognise that it's stupid to kill the 'golden goose' - simple evolution, that. The animal may also place a human that gives it food in the same mental category as 'parent' or 'pack leader'. Food, especially tasty food that can be obtained reliably is something that speaks to animal brains at a very deep level. It is an extremely simple way of communicating, and one of the few common grounds that are both effective and nearly universal.

Second minor (unrelated) ramble:

One thing I've wondered about dogs is whether or not they started from a very small pool of particularly social wolves that spread (possibly even becoming a trade good), or if the wolf-becomes-dog phenomenon is common enough that it arose many times throughout history.

The question sounds stupid at first because dogs seemed to arise all over the world, but then, that was believed of humans too at one point. More importantly, domestic cats have actually been traced to an incredibly small number (possibly as small as six original animals) of highly social progenitors*.

*_{This genetic research brought to you by the fact that domesticated cats cannot taste sweet tastes. I shit you not.}

  : Food is massively important to interspecies communication, taming is distinct from domestication, and housecats are descended from a very, very small number of animals.

[Cthulhu-chan]

I recall mention of an attempt to selectively breed red foxes for domestication ended up with more amiable animals that lost their distinctive coats with each generation.

[Brentai]

*_{This genetic research brought to you by the fact that domesticated cats cannot taste sweet tastes. I shit you not.}

Fridge logic says that's not very surprising.  What's surprising is the fact that dogs apparently do.  I have no idea what business any carnivore has evolving taste receptors for simple carbohydrates, but there you go.

Of course that study wasn't for wild canines... would make for a fascinating case study on just what odd habits dogs have picked up after 15,000 years of cohabitation and eating table scraps.  Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure modern domesticated canines count as omnivores, which is pretty appropriate.

[Classic]

Brentai, I think you're reversing the order in which those things evolved. Tasting simple sugars, I think, emerged prior to the development of "strictly" carnivorous mammals.

While heterophagy doesn't require taste as we know it, the ability to choose foods that require less energy to metabolize is no doubt a bonus. If I recall correctly, one of the parent populations of dogs/wolves/badgers/cats/skunks/etc. had a skeletal structure similar to that of a shrew. Proper "research" will come tomorrow after my exam is done.


 
+The first mammals probably ate insects and plants.
+It makes sense that most mammals, even carnivorous ones, can taste simple sugars.

[Pacobird]

One thing I've wondered about dogs is whether or not they started from a very small pool of particularly social wolves that spread (possibly even becoming a trade good), or if the wolf-becomes-dog phenomenon is common enough that it arose many times throughout history.

I will have to research this as it is an interesting question!

My gut tells me no, and that dogs predate times when the peoples of the West and East were more than only dimly aware of one another and were common enough in both areas to be selectively bred, but I can't back that up.

EDIT: http://news.discovery.com/animals/history-of-dogs-determined-according-to-new-study.html Pretty recent discovery, actually.  DNA suggests earliest dogs were bred in the Yangtze delta for food.  Looking for full-text to see if they were spread to Europe from these dogs or if European dogs arose independently.

[Kashan]

One thing I've wondered about dogs is whether or not they started from a very small pool of particularly social wolves that spread (possibly even becoming a trade good), or if the wolf-becomes-dog phenomenon is common enough that it arose many times throughout history.

I will have to research this as it is an interesting question!

My gut tells me no, and that dogs predate times when the peoples of the West and East were more than only dimly aware of one another and were common enough in both areas to be selectively bred, but I can't back that up.

EDIT: http://news.discovery.com/animals/history-of-dogs-determined-according-to-new-study.html Pretty recent discovery, actually.  DNA suggests earliest dogs were bred in the Yangtze delta for food.  Looking for full-text to see if they were spread to Europe from these dogs or if European dogs arose independently.

I know that the first moves towards domestication of dogs occurred in Egypt where having a trained dog became a symbol of authority.

Edit: Or maybe not now that I read that article.

[Mongrel]

Well, the earliest forms of trade were very short-distance yes. but there's plenty of evidence of complex trading networks at even the neolithic level, both in Eurasia and in the Americas. It takes a while for stuff to get far, but unlike crops which were limited by latitude and rainfall, dogs would have been universally transferrable, so there's actually a point in their favour.

Or maybe trade only played a small part - once one tribe did it, the neghbours may have started copying them once they figured out the secret. It's always easier after the first guy does it, after all.

So I don't know... it's certainly possible.

Warning - while you were typing a new reply (and and edit) has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Hm! *Reads*