Dog fight over canine origins

We’ve pointed briefly to recent studies on the origins of the domestic dog, where two schools of thought hold sway. The conventional version offers east Asia — China, more or less — as the centre of dog diversity and, by implication, the place where dogs were first domesticated. An apostate view is that dogs were domesticated in Africa and perhaps in Europe too.

There’s no clear resolution in sight yet, but it looks as if the Chinese dog may be on top. A news report in Science gives details of (and links to) a new and more detailed study from Peter Savolainen and his team:

The data reaffirm a single site for domestication and pinpoint the origin of the domesticated dog to a region south of the Yangtze River, where wolf taming was quite common, Savolainen’s team reports today in Molecular Biology and Evolution. That’s where the largest number of similar groupings of DNA, called haplogroups, is found. As the researchers looked at dogs farther from this region, they saw fewer haplogroups; Europe had only four, for example. “The gene pool we are finding in Europe and Africa are a subset of the South Chinese gene pool,” says Savolainen.

But the African dogs aren’t rolling over yet.

Carles Vilà of the Biology Station of Doñana-CSIC in Seville, Spain … points out that other genetic studies suggest dogs date back at least 20,000 years and that archaeological remains of dogs in Europe are almost as old. … “I’m not convinced by the results,” he says, “and I do not think this is the last that we will hear about the time and place of the domestication of dogs.”

That seems certain. Back in the days before DNA a multiple-origins theory was all the rage, but then, it was for H. sapiens too.

One Reply to “Dog fight over canine origins”

  1. Hej,

    There is no potential African origin for dogs! Even the authors of the study (Boyko et al. 2009) clearly point out that they are not suggesting Africa as a potential origin of dogs.

    Further, Pang et al. (2009) clearly show that the assertions made by Boyko et al. (2009) are wrong.

    Regarding the canid fossils: There is considerable contention in the field about every single canid fossil and therefore, these findings should be met with considerable caution.

    Cheers,

    Francys

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *