Search

Janssens et al. (2021, doi: 10.1002/ar.24624) recently commented on our article (Galeta et al., 2021, doi: 10.1002/ar.24500) regarding the morphological differences between putative Paleolithic dog and Pleistocene wolf crania. The authors argued that these differences reflect the normal population variation of wolves, that some of the cranial measurements used do not reflect morphological changes during domestication, and that our canid dataset was small because we inexplicably omitted several specimens we analyzed in our previous publications. In this commentary, we briefly address the issue of within and between morpho-population variability. The results based on our canid sample suggest that the magnitude of morphological differences between distinct morpho-populations (i.e., recent northern dogs and wolves) is at least twice as large as that observed within morpho-populations (between two groups of recent northern wolves segregated by cluster analysis). The morphological differences between putative Paleolithic dogs and Pleistocene wolves are relatively large, which may indicate that they did not likely represent a single Late Pleistocene morpho-population. Finally, we clarified the rationale behind the composition of our 2021 dataset to show that we did not adjust the list of the analyzed specimens. Although the sample size was small, the randomization analysis published in 2021 confirmed that the unbalanced composition of the reference sample did not affect the reliability of the morphological segregation of putative Paleolithic dogs and Pleistocene wolves., (© 2022 American Association for Anatomy.)

Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are the most variable-sized mammalian species on Earth, displaying a 40-fold size difference between breeds. 1 Although dogs of variable size are found in the archeological record, 2-4 the most dramatic shifts in body size are the result of selection over the last two centuries, as dog breeders selected and propagated phenotypic extremes within closed breeding populations. 5 Analyses of over 200 domestic breeds have identified approximately 20 body size genes regulating insulin processing, fatty acid metabolism, TGFβ signaling, and skeletal formation. 6-10 Of these, insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1) predominates, controlling approximately 15% of body size variation between breeds. 8 The identification of a functional mutation associated with IGF1 has thus far proven elusive. 6 , 10 , 11 Here, to identify and elucidate the role of an ancestral IGF1 allele in the propagation of modern canids, we analyzed 1,431 genome sequences from 13 species, including both ancient and modern canids, thus allowing us to define the evolutionary history of both ancestral and derived alleles at this locus. We identified a single variant in an antisense long non-coding RNA (IGF1-AS) that interacts with the IGF1 gene, creating a duplex. While the derived mutation predominates in both modern gray wolves and large domestic breeds, the ancestral allele, which predisposes to small size, was common in small-sized breeds and smaller wild canids. Our analyses demonstrate that this major regulator of canid body size nearly vanished in Pleistocene wolves, before its recent resurgence resulting from human-imposed selection for small-sized breed dogs., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The authors declare no competing interests., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Spondylosis deformans is a common degenerative condition of the spinal column, especially in modern domestic dogs. The presence and severity of lesions are related to age and physical activity, but they can be influenced by genetics, with some modern breeds being particularly predisposed. Spondylosis deformans also has been reported in prehistoric dogs. Here, we describe three affected vertebrae, likely from three individuals, in a large canid assemblage from the Gravettian Předmostí site, Czech Republic. We compare the proportion of affected individuals from the Předmostí assemblage with that of affected individuals among recent wild Northern wolves, inbred wolves, captive wolves, and recent Northern dogs. The proportion of affected individuals among the captive wolves differs significantly from the other wolf groups. The proportion in the Předmostí assemblage does not differ significantly from that of the wild wolf groups., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Using multivariate techniques, several skulls of fossil large canids from sites in Belgium, Ukraine and Russia were examined to look for possible evidence of the presence of Palaeolithic dogs. Reference groups constituted of prehistoric dogs, and recent wolves and dogs. The fossil large canid from Goyet (Belgium), dated at c. 31,700 BP is clearly different from the recent wolves, resembling most closely the prehistoric dogs. Thus it is identified as a Palaeolithic dog, suggesting that dog domestication had already started during the Aurignacian. The Epigravettian Mezin 5490 (Ukraine) and Mezhirich (Ukraine) skulls are also identified as being Palaeolithic dogs. Selected Belgian specimens were analyzed for mtDNA and stable isotopes. All fossil samples yielded unique DNA sequences, indicating that the ancient Belgian large canids carried a substantial amount of genetic diversity. Furthermore, there is little evidence for phylogeographic structure in the Pleistocene large canids, as they do not form a homogenous genetic group. Although considerable variation occurs in the fossil canid isotope signatures between sites, the Belgian fossil large canids preyed in general on horse and large bovids. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• There is an error in the caption of Fig. 1 in the paper of Wilczyński et al. (2020). • The canid hemimandibles in this figure are not from Dolní Vĕstonice II and Pavlov ISE. • These jaws were found at the Gravettian Předmostí site (Czech Republic) • We address further issues with the methodology and conclusion of this paper. Two canid morphotypes have been proposed for the middle Upper Palaeolithic site of Předmostí (Moravia, Czech Republic): Pleistocene wolf and Palaeolithic dog (Germonpré et al., 2012, 2015; Galeta et al., 2020). In Wilczyński et al. (2020), faunal assemblages from other Upper Palaeolithic Moravian sites were analyzed and those results used to project a similar, which we interpret as flawed, result for Předmostí: that only wild canids were present. We address issues with their methodology and argue that their conclusion, that dogs were not present at any of those studied sites, is based on cursory taphonomic analysis. Further, their projection of these results to Předmostí, an assemblage they did not study, is unsubstantiated, but does highlight the current dearth of taphonomic information that could aid the study of dog domestication. We also point out an important error in their Fig. 1, where the hemimandibles intended to show the natural variability in large canids from Dolní Vĕstonice II and Pavlov I SE, are in fact canid specimens from Předmostí. Since several of these canid specimens have been published by Germonpré et al. (2015), we find it imperative to address this error to ensure these data are correctly referenced in future works. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Four isolated canid skulls from four sites (Badyarikha River, Tirekhtyakh River, Ulakhan Sular, Malyi Lyakhovsky Island) in the Sakha Republic of northern Siberia are here described. Three specimens date from the Pleistocene and range in age from more than 50,000 years to about 17,200 years old, the fourth specimen is about 950 years old. The Yakutian canid skulls are compared with Palaeolithic dogs, recent Northern dogs, Pleistocene wolves and recent Northern wolves by multivariate analyses of standardised cranial measurements in order to determine with which reference group they have the closest affinity. These analyses permitted to identify the Tirekhtyakh River specimen as a Pleistocene wolf. The Ulakhan Sular specimen resembles the Palaeolithic dogs and the Malyi Lyakhvosky specimen the recent Northern dogs. The Badyarikha River skull falls in between groups. The archaeological implications of the presence of ancient canid specimens resembling Palaeolithic and early dogs in arctic northeast Asia are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Efforts to identify Paleolithic dogs or incipient dogs have been based mainly on examination of complete or nearly complete crania. Complete skulls are, however, very rare in the archaeological record. Because canid mandible are far more frequently found in Pleistocene assemblages, the objective of this study is to investigate whether it is possible to differentiate these jaws by metric and osteomorphological methods in two morphotypes: Paleolithic dogs and Pleistocene wolves. This paper is mainly based on the very rich canid assemblage from the Gravettian Předmostí site in the Czech Republic, but also includes a few mandible from several other European Paleolithic sites. This study provides additional evidence of the existence at Předmostí of the two canid morphotypes. The metric data indicate that the mandible of the Paleolithic dogs are shorter than those from Pleistocene wolves in all tested measurements of length, and the carnassial crown length is shorter in Paleolithic dogs compared with the length of this tooth in Pleistocene wolves. Furthermore, in eight of nine indexes, the Paleolithic dogs differ significantly from the Pleistocene wolves. The mandible of Paleolithic dogs differ also in non-metric features from the Pleistocene wolves: they present a high frequency of crowded premolars and backwards-oriented apex of the coronoid. This paper furthermore confirms that Paleolithic dogs occur at two late Upper Paleolithic sites (Eliseevichi, Verholenskaya) where previous studies had indicated their presence. In addition, we document the presence of Paleolithic dogs at another Gravettian site, Kostenki-8. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Interpretations of dog burials made by ancient foraging groups have tended to be based upon our own relationships with such animals and modern western cosmological and ontological concepts. Osteological studies of early dogs often focus only on issues of taxonomy, and as a result very little is known about these animals’ life histories. Eastern Siberia has produced many Holocene dog burials, but these are typically not well described and the explanatory frameworks provided for them are very underdeveloped. Here we examine in detail two Cis-Baikal canid burials, one of a wolf and the other a dog, both in large Middle Holocene hunter-gatherer cemeteries. We link the mortuary treatment of these animals to other cultural practices, particularly the treatment of the human dead, and broader patterns in Northern human-animal relationships. This interpretive model is combined with detailed osteobiographies for the canids and contextual information for these and other dogs and wolves from Middle Holocene Cis-Baikal. It is argued that canids here were understood and treated in a variety of ways. We suggest that some animals with unique histories were known as distinct persons with ‘souls’ and because of this at death required mortuary rites similar to those of their human counterparts. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]