banner



Home  ›  Which Animal Was The First To Become Domesticated?

Which Animal Was The First To Become Domesticated?

Written By Tuesday, May 24, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Overview of animal domestication

Dogs and sheep were among the get-go animals to be domesticated.

The domestication of animals is the common relationship between animals and the humans who have influence on their care and reproduction.[ane]

Charles Darwin recognized a small number of traits that made domesticated species different from their wild ancestors. He was likewise the first to recognize the departure betwixt conscious selective breeding in which humans directly select for desirable traits, and unconscious selection where traits evolve as a by-production of natural option or from selection on other traits.[ii] [3] [4] There is a genetic difference between domestic and wild populations. There is also a genetic deviation betwixt the domestication traits that researchers believe to have been essential at the early on stages of domestication, and the comeback traits that have appeared since the split between wild and domestic populations.[5] [6] [7] Domestication traits are generally fixed within all domesticates, and were selected during the initial episode of domestication of that animate being or constitute, whereas improvement traits are present but in a proportion of domesticates, though they may be stock-still in individual breeds or regional populations.[6] [7] [8]

Domestication should not exist confused with taming. Taming is the conditioned behavioral modification of a wild-born fauna when its natural avoidance of humans is reduced and it accepts the presence of humans, but domestication is the permanent genetic modification of a bred lineage that leads to an inherited predisposition toward humans.[9] [ten] [11] Certain animal species, and sure individuals within those species, brand improve candidates for domestication than others because they showroom certain behavioral characteristics: (i) the size and arrangement of their social structure; (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 birth; (iv) the degree of flexibility in diet and habitat tolerance; and (5) responses to humans and new environments, including flying responses and reactivity to external stimuli.[12] : Fig 1 [thirteen] [xiv] [15]

It is proposed that there were three major pathways that near animal domesticates followed into domestication: (one) commensals, adjusted to a human niche (e.yard., dogs, cats, fowl, maybe pigs); (2) casualty animals sought for food (e.g., sheep, goats, cattle, water buffalo, yak, squealer, reindeer, llama, alpaca, and turkey); and (3) targeted animals for typhoon and nonfood resources (e.g., horse, donkey, camel).[7] [12] [16] [17] [18] [19] [twenty] [21] [22] The dog was the first to be domesticated,[23] [24] and was established across Eurasia before the terminate of the Belatedly Pleistocene era, well before cultivation and before the domestication of other animals.[23] Dissimilar 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 gene catamenia between wild and domestic stocks – including donkeys, horses, New and Old World camelids, goats, sheep, and pigs – was common.[7] [17] 1 study has concluded that human option for domestic traits likely counteracted the homogenizing effect of cistron flow from wild boars into pigs and created domestication islands in the genome. The aforementioned process may also utilise to other domesticated animals.Some of the virtually ordinarily domesticated animals are cats and dogs.[27] [28]

Definitions [edit]

Domestication [edit]

Domestication has been defined as "a sustained multi-generational, mutualistic relationship in which one organism assumes a significant caste of influence over the reproduction and care of another organism in order to secure a more than predictable supply of a resource of interest, and through which the partner organism gains advantage over individuals that remain outside this human relationship, thereby benefitting and oft increasing the fettle of both the domesticator and the target domesticate."[1] [12] [29] [30] [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 past definitions of domestication have included a relationship betwixt humans with plants and animals, but their differences lay in who was considered as the lead partner in the relationship. This new definition recognizes a mutualistic relationship in which both partners proceeds 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 predictably and securely command, motility, 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 case the pismire–mucus mutualism that exists between leafcutter ants and certain fungi.[ane]

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 color changes, reductions in tooth size, changes in craniofacial morphology, alterations in ear and tail form (east.g., floppy ears), more than frequent and nonseasonal estrus cycles, alterations in adrenocorticotropic hormone levels, changed concentrations of several neurotransmitters, prolongations in juvenile behavior, and reductions in both total encephalon size and of detail brain regions.[34] The set of traits used to define the animal domestication syndrome is inconsistent.[32]

Deviation from taming [edit]

Domestication should not exist confused with taming. Taming is the conditioned behavioral modification of a wild-built-in animal when its natural abstention of humans is reduced and it accepts the presence of humans, but domestication is the permanent genetic modification of a bred lineage that leads to an inherited predisposition toward humans.[9] [10] [11] Human selection included tameness, but without a suitable evolutionary response and then domestication was not achieved.[vii] Domestic animals need non be tame in the behavioral sense, such equally the Castilian fighting balderdash. Wild animals tin be tame, such equally a hand-raised cheetah. A domestic animal'due south breeding is controlled by humans and its tameness and tolerance of humans is genetically adamant. However, an animal merely bred in captivity is not necessarily domesticated. Tigers, gorillas, and polar bears breed readily in captivity but are non domesticated.[x] Asian elephants are wild animals that with taming manifest outward signs of domestication, yet their breeding is not human being controlled and thus they are not true domesticates.[10] [35]

History, cause and timing [edit]

Evolution of temperatures in the postglacial period, after the Last Glacial Maximum, showing very low temperatures for the nigh part of the Younger Dryas, apace ascent later to achieve 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 Last Glacial Maximum around 21,000 years agone and which go along to this present twenty-four hour period. These changes made obtaining food difficult. The starting time domesticate was the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) from a wolf ancestor (Canis lupus) at to the lowest degree 15,000 years ago. The Younger Dryas that occurred 12,900 years ago was a menses of intense cold and aridity that put pressure on humans to intensify their foraging strategies. By the get-go of the Holocene from 11,700 years ago, favorable climatic weather and increasing human being populations led to pocket-size-calibration animal and plant domestication, which allowed humans to augment the food that they were obtaining through hunter-gathering.[37]

The increased use of agriculture and connected domestication of species during the Neolithic transition marked the beginning 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, North Africa, and South and Central America.

In the Fertile Crescent 10,000-11,000 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 burying ground, approximately 9500 years old, of an adult homo with a feline skeleton.[43] Two yard years later, humped zebu cattle were domesticated in what is today Baluchistan in Pakistan. In Eastward Asia 8,000 years ago, pigs were domesticated from wild boar that were genetically different from those establish in the Fertile Crescent. The horse was domesticated on the Central Asian steppe five,500 years ago. The craven in Southeast Asia was domesticated 4,000 years ago.[37]

Universal features [edit]

The biomass of wild vertebrates is at present increasingly small 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 process of domestication has a beginning but non an end. Diverse criteria accept been established to provide a definition of domestic animals, but all decisions about exactly when an animate being tin can be labelled "domesticated" in the zoological sense are capricious, although potentially useful.[45] Domestication is a fluid and nonlinear procedure that may outset, end, contrary, or get down unexpected paths with no clear or universal threshold that separates the wild from the domestic. Even so, at that place are universal features held in common by all domesticated animals.[12]

Behavioral preadaption [edit]

Certain animal species, and certain individuals inside those species, make amend candidates for domestication than others considering they exhibit certain behavioral characteristics: (1) the size and arrangement of their social structure; (2) the availability and the degree of selectivity in their selection of mates; (iii) the ease and speed with which the parents bond with their young, and the maturity and mobility of the immature at birth; (4) the degree of flexibility in nutrition and habitat tolerance; and (five) responses to humans and new environments, including flight responses and reactivity to external stimuli.[12] : Fig 1 [thirteen] [14] [fifteen] 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 likewise the master target of the selective pressures experienced by the animal undergoing domestication.[vii] [12] This implies that not all animals can be domesticated, east.g. a wild member of the horse family unit, the zebra.[7] [42]

Jared Diamond in his volume Guns, Germs, and Steel enquired every bit to why, amidst the world's 148 large wild terrestrial herbivorous mammals, only fourteen were domesticated, and proposed that their wild ancestors must have possessed six characteristics before they could be considered for domestication:[3] : p168-174

Hereford cattle, domesticated for beef production.

  1. Efficient diet – Animals that can 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 heighten additional animals to feed the carnivores and therefore increase the consumption of plants further.
  2. Quick growth rate – Fast maturity rate compared to the human life bridge allows convenance intervention and makes the fauna useful within an acceptable duration of caretaking. Some large animals crave many years before they reach a useful size.
  3. Power to breed in captivity – Animals that will non breed in captivity are limited to acquisition through capture in the wild.
  4. Pleasant disposition – Animals with nasty dispositions are dangerous to go on effectually humans.
  5. Tendency non to panic – Some species are nervous, fast, and prone to flying when they perceive a threat.
  6. Social structure – All species of domesticated large mammals had wild ancestors that lived in herds with a say-so hierarchy amongst the herd members, and the herds had overlapping habitation territories rather than mutually exclusive home territories. This organisation allows humans to accept control of the potency hierarchy.

Encephalon size and function [edit]

Reduction in skull size with neoteny - grey wolf and chihuahua skulls

The sustained selection for lowered reactivity amongst mammal domesticates has resulted in profound changes in brain form and function. The larger the size of the encephalon to begin with and the greater its degree of folding, the greater the degree 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 height and width and by inference in encephalon size,[12] [47] which supports the hypothesis that brain-size reduction is an early response to the selective pressure for tameness and lowered reactivity that is the universal feature of animal domestication.[12] The about affected portion of the brain in domestic mammals is the limbic system, which in domestic dogs, pigs, and sheep show a 40% reduction in size compared with their wild species. This portion of the brain regulates endocrine part that influences behaviors such as assailment, wariness, and responses to environmentally induced stress, all attributes which are dramatically afflicted by domestication.[12] [46]

Pleiotropy [edit]

A putative crusade for the wide changes seen in domestication syndrome is pleiotropy. Pleiotropy occurs when i gene influences two or more seemingly unrelated phenotypic traits. Certain physiological changes characterize domestic animals of many species. These changes include all-encompassing white markings (especially on the head), floppy ears, and curly tails. These arise even when tameness is the but trait nether selective force per unit area.[48] The genes involved in tameness are largely unknown, so it is not known how or to what extent pleiotropy contributes to domestication syndrome. Tameness may be acquired by the down regulation of fear and stress responses via reduction of the adrenal glands.[48] Based on this, the pleiotropy hypotheses tin can be separated into two theories. The Neural Crest Hypothesis relates adrenal gland office to deficits in neural crest cells during development. The Unmarried Genetic Regulatory Network Hypothesis claims that genetic changes in upstream regulators affect downstream systems.[49] [l]

Neural crest cells (NCC) are vertebrate embryonic stalk cells that function straight and indirectly during early embryogenesis to produce many tissue types.[49] Considering the traits unremarkably affected past domestication syndrome are all derived from NCC in development, the neural crest hypothesis suggests that deficits in these cells cause the domain of phenotypes seen in domestication syndrome.[50] These deficits could cause changes we see to many domestic mammals, such as lopped ears (seen in rabbit, dog, play a joke on, squealer, sheep, caprine animal, cattle, and donkeys) likewise 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 selection targeting tameness may affect genes that command the concentration or movement of NCCs in the embryo, leading to a variety of phenotypes.[50]

The single genetic regulatory network hypothesis proposes that domestication syndrome results from mutations in genes that regulate the expression design of more downstream genes.[48] For instance piebald, or spotted coat coloration, may be acquired by a linkage in the biochemical pathways of melanins involved in coat coloration and neurotransmitters such as dopamine that assist shape behavior and cognition.[12] [51] These linked traits may ascend from mutations in a few key regulatory genes.[12] A problem with this hypothesis is that it 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 different traits.[49]

Limited reversion [edit]

Feral mammals such equally dogs, cats, goats, donkeys, pigs, and ferrets that have lived autonomously from humans for generations show no sign of regaining the brain mass of their wild progenitors.[12] [52] Dingos accept lived autonomously from humans for thousands of years but still have the same encephalon size equally that of a dog.[12] [53] Feral dogs that actively avoid human contact are still dependent on human waste material for survival and have not reverted to the self-sustaining behaviors of their wolf ancestors.[12] [54]

Categories [edit]

Domestication tin can be considered as the final stage of intensification in the relationship between animal or constitute sub-populations and homo societies, but 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 selection, although the activity of by demographic events and artificial selection induced by game management or habitat destruction cannot be excluded.[57]
Captive wild animals
Directly affected by a relaxation of natural selection associated with feeding, convenance and protection/solitude by humans, and an intensification of bogus selection 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 option associated with captivity and management.[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 distinct from both parents. Hybrids tin can be intentionally bred for specific characteristics or tin arise unintentionally equally the result of contact with wild individuals.[57]
Feral animals
Domesticates that accept returned to a wild country. As such, they experience relaxed artificial selection induced by the convict surround paired with intensified natural option induced by the wild habitat.[57]

In 2015, a written report compared the diversity of dental size, shape and allometry across the proposed domestication categories of modern pigs (genus Sus). The study showed clear differences between the dental phenotypes of wild, convict wild, domestic, and hybrid pig populations, which supported the proposed categories through concrete evidence. The report did non embrace feral sus scrofa populations but called for further enquiry to be undertaken on them, and on the genetic differences with hybrid pigs.[57]

Pathways [edit]

Since 2012, a multi-phase model of animate being domestication has been accepted by 2 groups. The commencement group proposed that animal domestication proceeded along a continuum of stages from anthropophily, commensalism, control in the wild, control of captive animals, extensive convenance, intensive breeding, and finally to pets in a wearisome, gradually intensifying human relationship betwixt humans and animals.[45] [55]

The second grouping proposed that there were three major pathways that most animal domesticates followed into domestication: (ane) commensals, adapted to a human niche (e.grand., dogs, cats, fowl, perchance pigs); (2) prey animals sought for food (e.g., sheep, goats, cattle, water buffalo, yak, sus scrofa, reindeer, llama and alpaca); and (iii) targeted animals for draft and nonfood resources (e.grand., equus caballus, ass, camel).[7] [12] [sixteen] [17] [18] [xix] [20] [21] [22] The beginnings of beast domestication involved a protracted coevolutionary process with multiple stages forth different pathways. Humans did non intend to domesticate animals from, or at least they did not envision a domesticated animal resulting from, either the commensal or prey pathways. In both of these cases, humans became entangled with these species equally the human relationship between them, and the human function in their survival and reproduction, intensified.[seven] Although the directed pathway proceeded from capture to taming, the other two pathways are not every bit goal-oriented and archaeological records propose 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 being 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 but little benefit. Those animals that were most capable of taking advantage of the resources associated with homo camps would have been the tamer, less ambitious individuals with shorter fight or flying distances.[58] [59] [sixty] Later, these animals developed closer social or economical bonds with humans that led to a domestic relationship.[7] [12] [xvi] The jump from a synanthropic population to a domestic 1 could only have taken place after the animals had progressed from anthropophily to habituation, to commensalism and partnership, when the relationship between animal and homo would have 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 some other species with evolving behaviors.[7] Commensal pathway animals include dogs, cats, fowl, and possibly pigs.[23]

The domestication of animals commenced over xv,000 years before present (YBP), beginning with the grey wolf (Canis lupus) by nomadic hunter-gatherers. Information technology was non until eleven,000 YBP that people living in the Near East entered into relationships with wild populations of aurochs, boar, sheep, and goats. A domestication process then began to develop. The grey wolf almost likely followed the commensal pathway to domestication. When, where, and how many times wolves may have been domesticated remains debated because only a small number of ancient specimens have been found, and both archeology and genetics go on to provide alien prove. The near widely accepted, earliest domestic dog remains date back 15,000 YBP to the Bonn–Oberkassel dog. Earlier remains dating back to xxx,000 YBP have been described as Paleolithic dogs, however their status equally dogs or wolves remains debated. Recent studies indicate that a genetic departure occurred betwixt dogs and wolves 20,000–40,000 YBP, nonetheless this is the upper time-limit for domestication because it represents the time of divergence and non the time of domestication.[61]

The chicken is 1 of the nearly widespread domesticated species and one of the human earth's largest sources of protein. Although the chicken was domesticated in Due south-East Asia, archaeological evidence suggests that it was not 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, and so they were non originally a prey species.[62] [63] The chicken was not a popular food in Europe until only one thousand years agone.[64]

Prey pathway [edit]

Domesticated dairy cows in Due north India

The prey pathway was the fashion in which nearly major livestock species entered into domestication as these were one time hunted by humans for their meat. Domestication was likely initiated when humans began to experiment with hunting strategies designed to increase the availability of these casualty, possibly as a response to localized pressure on the supply of the fauna. 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' motion, feeding, and reproduction. As human interference in the life-cycles of prey animals intensified, the evolutionary pressures for a lack of aggression would have led to an acquisition of the same domestication syndrome traits plant in the commensal domesticates.[7] [12] [sixteen]

Prey pathway animals include sheep, goats, cattle, h2o buffalo, yak, pig, reindeer, llama and alpaca. The right conditions for the domestication for some of them appear to take been in place in the central and eastern Fertile Crescent at the end of the Younger Dryas climatic downturn and the beginning of the Early Holocene about eleven,700 YBP, and by 10,000 YBP people were preferentially killing young males of a diversity of species and allowed the females to live in lodge to produce more offspring.[seven] [12] Past measuring the size, sex ratios, and mortality 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 report of cow and squealer remains at Sha'ar Hagolan, State of israel, demonstrated that both species were severely overhunted before 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 design of overhunting before domestication suggests that the prey pathway was as accidental and unintentional as the commensal pathway.[7] [16]

Directed pathway [edit]

Kazakh shepherd with horse and dogs. Their chore is to guard the sheep from predators.

The directed pathway was a more than deliberate and directed process initiated by humans with the goal of domesticating a free-living beast. It probably only came into being once people were familiar with either commensal or prey-pathway domesticated animals. These animals were likely not to possess many of the behavioral preadaptions some species bear witness earlier domestication. Therefore, the domestication of these animals requires more deliberate effort by humans to work around behaviors that do not assist domestication, with increased technological assist needed.[seven] [12] [16]

Humans were already reliant on domestic plants and animals when they imagined the domestic versions of wild fauna. Although horses, donkeys, and Old Earth camels were sometimes hunted as prey species, they were each deliberately brought into the human niche for sources of transport. Domestication was still a multi-generational accommodation to human selection pressures, including tameness, merely without a suitable evolutionary response and so domestication was not achieved.[vii] For example, despite the fact that hunters of the Near Eastern gazelle in the Epipaleolithic avoided culling reproductive females to promote population rest, neither gazelles[7] [42] nor zebras[vii] [65] possessed the necessary prerequisites and were never domesticated. There is no articulate evidence for the domestication of whatever herded prey beast in Africa,[7] with the notable exception of the ass, which was domesticated in Northeast Africa sometime in the 4th millennium BCE.[66]

Multiple pathways [edit]

The pathways that animals may take followed are not mutually sectional. Pigs, for example, may have been domesticated every bit their populations became accustomed to the homo niche, which would suggest a commensal pathway, or they may have been hunted and followed a prey pathway, or both.[7] [12] [xvi]

Mail-domestication gene period [edit]

As agricultural societies migrated away from the domestication centers taking their domestic partners with them, they encountered populations of wild animals of the same or sister species. Considering domestics often shared a recent common ancestor with the wild populations, they were capable of producing fertile offspring. Domestic populations were pocket-sized 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 applied science let 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 only between geographically diverse domestic populations of the same species but also betwixt domestic populations and wild species that never gave rise to a domestic population.[7]

  • The yellow leg trait possessed by numerous modern commercial chicken breeds was acquired via introgression from the grayness junglefowl indigenous to Due south Asia.[7] [68]
  • African cattle are hybrids that possess both a European Taurine cattle maternal mitochondrial signal and an Asian Indicine cattle paternal Y-chromosome signature.[7] [69]
  • Numerous other bovid species, including bison, yak, banteng, and gaur likewise hybridize with ease.[7] [lxx]
  • Cats[vii] [71] and horses[7] [72] have been shown to hybridize with many closely related species.
  • Domestic dear bees have mated with so many different species they at present 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.[7] [17] Bidirectional gene menstruum between domestic and wild reindeer continues today.[7]

The consequence of this introgression is that modern domestic populations can often appear to have much greater genomic analogousness 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 be referred to as "introgressive capture". Conflating these two processes muddles our agreement of the original process and can lead to an bogus inflation of the number of times domestication took identify.[7] [45] This introgression can, in some cases, be regarded equally adaptive introgression, equally observed in domestic sheep due to cistron flow with the wild European Mouflon.[74]

The sustained admixture between unlike dog and wolf populations across the Old and New Worlds over at to the lowest degree the last 10,000 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 kickoff domesticated,[7] [75] and the extinction of the wolves that were the straight ancestors of dogs has dingy 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 get-go to recognize the difference between conscious selective breeding in which humans directly select for desirable traits, and unconscious selection where traits evolve as a by-product of natural selection or from selection on other traits.[2] [3] [four]

Domestic animals have variations in coat color and craniofacial morphology, reduced encephalon size, floppy ears, and changes in the endocrine arrangement and their reproductive wheel. The domesticated silvery fox experiment demonstrated that choice for tameness inside a few generations tin can result in modified behavioral, morphological, and physiological traits.[38] [45] In improver to demonstrating that domestic phenotypic traits could ascend 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 explain how the animate being domestication process could take begun without deliberate human forethought and action.[45] In the 1980s, a researcher used a set of behavioral, cognitive, and visible phenotypic markers, such as glaze color, to produce domesticated dormant deer within 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. Homo selection for domestic traits is non afflicted by later gene flow from wild boar.[27] [28]

The genetic difference between domestic and wild populations tin exist framed within ii considerations. The kickoff distinguishes betwixt domestication traits that are presumed to have been essential at the early stages of domestication, and improvement traits that have appeared since the split between wild and domestic populations.[5] [6] [7] Domestication traits are mostly fixed within all domesticates and were selected during the initial episode of domestication, whereas improvement traits are present merely in a proportion of domesticates, though they may be fixed in individual breeds or regional populations.[half-dozen] [7] [8] A second issue is whether traits associated with the domestication syndrome resulted from a relaxation of selection equally animals exited the wild environment or from positive selection resulting from intentional and unintentional human preference. Some contempo genomic studies on the genetic basis of traits associated with the domestication syndrome have shed light on both of these issues.[7]

Geneticists accept identified more than 300 genetic loci and 150 genes associated with coat color variability.[45] [79] Knowing the mutations associated with unlike colors has immune 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 human being-induced selection is responsible for the allelic variation in pigs.[45] [81] Together, these insights advise that, although natural selection has kept variation to a minimum earlier domestication, humans have actively selected for novel coat colors as soon as they appeared in managed populations.[45] [51]

In 2015, a study looked at over 100 pig genome sequences to ascertain their procedure of domestication. The process of domestication was assumed to accept been initiated by humans, involved few individuals and relied on reproductive isolation between wild and domestic forms, but the study establish that the assumption of reproductive isolation with population bottlenecks was not supported. The written report indicated that pigs were domesticated separately in Western Asia and China, with Western Asian pigs introduced into Europe where they crossed with wild boar. A model that fitted the data included admixture with a at present extinct ghost population of wild pigs during the Pleistocene. The study also found that despite back-crossing with wild pigs, the genomes of domestic pigs have strong signatures of choice at genetic loci that bear upon behavior and morphology. The study concluded that human pick for domestic traits likely counteracted the homogenizing result of gene flow from wild boars and created domestication islands in the genome. The same process may also utilize to other domesticated animals.[27] [28]

Unlike other domestic species which were primarily selected for production-related traits, dogs were initially selected for their behaviors.[25] [26] In 2016, a study constitute that in that location were only 11 stock-still genes that showed variation between wolves and dogs. These gene variations were unlikely to have been the result of natural evolution, and indicate choice on both morphology and beliefs during dog domestication. These genes have been shown to affect the catecholamine synthesis pathway, with the majority of the genes affecting the fight-or-flight response[26] [82] (i.eastward. option for tameness), and emotional processing.[26] Dogs generally show reduced fear and aggression compared to wolves.[26] [83] Some of these genes have been associated with aggression in some dog breeds, indicating their importance in both the initial domestication then later in brood formation.[26]

See also [edit]

  • List of domesticated animals
  • Hybrid (biology)#Examples of hybrid animals and creature populations derived from hybrid
  • Landrace

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b c Zeder, Grand. A. (2015). "Core questions in domestication Research". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 112 (11): 3191–3198. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112.3191Z. doi:10.1073/pnas.1501711112. PMC4371924. PMID 25713127.
  2. ^ a b Darwin, Charles (1868). The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication. London: John Murray. OCLC 156100686.
  3. ^ a b c Diamond, Jared (1997). Guns, Germs, and Steel. London: Chatto and Windus. ISBN978-0-09-930278-0.
  4. ^ a b Larson, K.; Piperno, D. R.; Allaby, R. G.; Purugganan, Chiliad. D.; Andersson, 50.; Arroyo-Kalin, M.; Barton, L.; Climer Vigueira, C.; Denham, T.; Dobney, Thousand.; Doust, A. N.; Gepts, Paul; Gilbert, One thousand. T. P.; Gremillion, K. J.; Lucas, 50.; Lukens, L.; Marshall, F. B.; Olsen, Yard. Grand.; Pires, J. C.; Richerson, P. J.; Rubio De Casas, R.; Sanjur, O. I.; Thomas, M. G.; Fuller, D. Q. (2014). "Current perspectives and the future of domestication studies". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (17): 6139–6146. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6139L. doi:x.1073/pnas.1323964111. PMC4035915. PMID 24757054.
  5. ^ a b c Olsen, Yard. 1000.; Wendel, J. F. (2013). "A bountiful harvest: genomic insights into crop domestication phenotypes". Almanac Review of Plant Biology. 64: 47–seventy. doi:x.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120048. PMID 23451788.
  6. ^ a b c d Doust, A. N.; Lukens, L.; Olsen, One thousand. Chiliad.; Mauro-Herrera, M.; Meyer, A.; Rogers, One thousand. (2014). "Beyond the single factor: How epistasis and factor-by-environment effects 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.
  7. ^ a b c d east f chiliad h i j chiliad l thousand n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac advert ae af ag ah ai aj Larson, G. (2014). "The Evolution of Fauna Domestication" (PDF). Almanac Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 45: 115–36. doi:ten.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135813.
  8. ^ a b Meyer, Rachel S.; Purugganan, Michael D. (2013). "Development of crop species: Genetics of domestication and diversification". Nature Reviews Genetics. xiv (12): 840–52. doi:10.1038/nrg3605. PMID 24240513. S2CID 529535.
  9. ^ a b Cost, Edward O. (2008). Principles and Applications of Domestic Brute Behavior: An Introductory Text. Cambridge University Press. ISBN9781780640556 . Retrieved Jan 21, 2016.
  10. ^ a b c d Driscoll, C. A.; MacDonald, D. W.; O'Brien, Due south. J. (2009). "From wild fauna 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.
  11. ^ a b Diamond, Jared (2012). "one". In Gepts, Paul (ed.). Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability. Cambridge University Printing. p. 13.
  12. ^ a b c d e f thousand h i j m l m due north o p q r s t u v Zeder, One thousand. A. (2012). "The domestication of animals". Journal of Anthropological Research. 68 (2): 161–190. doi:10.3998/jar.0521004.0068.201. S2CID 85348232.
  13. ^ a b Hale, Eastward. B. (1969). "Domestication and the evolution of behavior". In Hafez, E. S. East. (ed.). The Behavior of Domestic Animals (2nd ed.). London: Bailliere, Tindall, and Cassell. pp. 22–42.
  14. ^ a b Price, Edward O. (1984). "Behavioral aspects of animal domestication". Quarterly Review of Biological science. 59 (ane): 1–32. doi:ten.1086/413673. JSTOR 2827868. S2CID 83908518.
  15. ^ a b c Toll, Edward O. (2002). Animal Domestication and Behavior (PDF). Wallingford, England: CABI Publishing. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-05-17. Retrieved 2016-02-26 .
  16. ^ a b c d due east f g Frantz, L. (2015). "The Evolution of Suidae". Almanac Review of Fauna Biosciences. four: 61–85. doi:x.1146/annurev-animal-021815-111155. PMID 26526544.
  17. ^ a b c d Marshall, F. (2013). "Evaluating the roles of directed breeding and cistron flow in beast domestication". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United states of america of America. 111 (17): 6153–6158. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6153M. doi:10.1073/pnas.1312984110. PMC4035985. PMID 24753599.
  18. ^ a b Blaustein, R. (2015). "Unraveling the Mysteries of Animal Domestication: Whole-genome sequencing challenges quondam assumptions". BioScience. 65 (i): vii–13. doi:10.1093/biosci/biu201.
  19. ^ a b Telechea, F. (2015). "Domestication and genetics". In Pontaroti, P. (ed.). Evolutionary Biology: Biodiversification from Genotype to Phenotype. Springer. p. 397.
  20. ^ a b Vahabi, Chiliad. (2015). "Man species as the chief predator". The Political Economy of Predation: Manhunting and the Economics of Escape. Cambridge University Press. p. 72. ISBN9781107133976.
  21. ^ a b Gepts, Paul, ed. (2012). "ix". Biodiversity in Agronomics: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability. Cambridge Academy Printing. pp. 227–259.
  22. ^ a b Pontarotti, Pierre, ed. (2015). Evolutionary Biology: Biodiversification from Genotype to Phenotype. Springer International. p. 397.
  23. ^ a b c d Larson, Thousand. (2012). "Rethinking canis familiaris domestication by integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography" (PDF). Proceedings of the National University of Sciences of the Usa. 109 (23): 8878–8883. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109.8878L. doi:10.1073/pnas.1203005109. PMC3384140. PMID 22615366.
  24. ^ Perri, Angela (2016). "A wolf in dog'south clothing: Initial dog domestication and Pleistocene wolf variation". Journal of Archaeological Science. 68: 1–four. doi:x.1016/j.jas.2016.02.003.
  25. ^ a b Serpell, J.; Duffy, D. (2014). "Dog Breeds and Their Behavior". Domestic Dog Cognition and Behavior. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer.
  26. ^ a b c d e f Cagan, Alex; Blass, Torsten (2016). "Identification of genomic variants putatively targeted past selection during canis familiaris domestication". BMC Evolutionary Biology. 16: 10. doi:10.1186/s12862-015-0579-7. PMC4710014. PMID 26754411.
  27. ^ a b c Frantz, Fifty. (2015). "Evidence of long-term gene menstruum and option during domestication from analyses of Eurasian wild and domestic squealer genomes". Nature Genetics. 47 (10): 1141–1148. doi:10.1038/ng.3394. PMID 26323058. S2CID 205350534.
  28. ^ a b c Pennisi, E. (2015). "The taming of the hog took some wild turns". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aad1692.
  29. ^ Maggioni, Lorenzo (2015). "Domestication of Brassica oleracea L.". Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae: 38.
  30. ^ Zeder, Grand. (2014). "Domestication: Definition and Overview". In Smith, Claire (ed.). Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. New York: Springer Science & Concern Media. pp. 2184–2194. doi:x.1007/978-one-4419-0465-2_71. ISBN978-1-4419-0426-3.
  31. ^ Sykes, Naomi (2014). "Creature Revolutions". Abominable Questions: Brute Answers to Archaeological Issues. Bloomsbury Bookish. pp. 25–26. ISBN9781472506245.
  32. ^ a b Lord KA, Larson G, Coppinger RP, Karlsson EK (Feb 2020). "The History of Farm Foxes Undermines the Creature Domestication Syndrome". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 35 (2): 125–136. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2019.10.011. PMID 31810775.
  33. ^ Hammer, One thousand. (1984). "Das Domestikationssyndrom". Kulturpflanze. 32: 11–34. doi:10.1007/bf02098682. S2CID 42389667.
  34. ^ Wilkins, Adam Due south.; Wrangham, Richard West.; Fitch, W. 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.
  35. ^ Lair, R. C. (1997). Gone Astray: The Care and Management of the Asian Elephant in Domesticity. Bangkok: Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.
  36. ^ Zalloua, Pierre A.; Matisoo-Smith, Elizabeth (6 January 2017). "Mapping Post-Glacial expansions: The Peopling of Western asia". Scientific Reports. vii: 40338. Bibcode:2017NatSR...740338P. doi:ten.1038/srep40338. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC5216412. PMID 28059138.
  37. ^ a b McHugo, Gillian P.; Dover, Michael J.; Machugh, David E. (2019). "Unlocking the origins and biology of domestic animals using ancient Dna and paleogenomics". BMC Biology. 17 (1): 98. doi:10.1186/s12915-019-0724-7. PMC6889691. PMID 31791340.
  38. ^ a b c d e Machugh, David E.; Larson, Greger; Orlando, Ludovic (2016). "Taming the Past: Ancient DNA and the Study of Animal Domestication". Annual Review of Animal Biosciences. 5: 329–351. doi:x.1146/annurev-animal-022516-022747. PMID 27813680.
  39. ^ Barker, G. (2006). The Agricultural Revolution in Prehistory: Why Did Foragers Get Farmers?. Oxford University Press. [ page needed ]
  40. ^ Bocquet-Appel, J. P. (2011). "When the world'south population took off: The springboard of the Neolithic Demographic Transition". Scientific discipline. 333 (6042): 560–561. Bibcode:2011Sci...333..560B. doi:10.1126/science.1208880. PMID 21798934. S2CID 29655920.
  41. ^ Fuller DQ, Willcox G, Allaby RG. 2011. Cultivation and domestication had multiple origins: arguments against the cadre area hypothesis for the origins of agronomics in the Most Eastward. World Archaeol. 43:628–52
  42. ^ a b c Melinda A. Zeder 2006. Archaeological approaches to documenting animal domestication. In Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms, ed. Thousand.A. Zeder, D.One thousand Bradley, East Emshwiller, B.D Smith, pp. 209–27. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  43. ^ Driscoll, Carlos; Clutton-Brock, Juliet; Kitchener, Andrew; O'Brien, Stephen (June 2009). "The Taming of the Cat". Sci Am. 300 (half dozen): 68–75. Bibcode:2009SciAm.300f..68D. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0609-68. PMC5790555. PMID 19485091.
  44. ^ Valclav Smil, 2011, Harvesting the Biosphere:The Man Touch on, Population and Development Review 37(4): 613–636, Table 2)
  45. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k 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.
  46. ^ a b Kruska, D. 1988. "Mammalian domestication and its effect on brain structure and behavior," in Intelligence and evolutionary biology. Edited by H. J. Jerison and I. Jerison, pp. 211–50. New York: Springer-Verlag
  47. ^ Trut, Lyudmila N. (1999). "Early on Canid Domestication: The Farm-Pull a fast one on Experiment" (PDF). American Scientist. 87 (March–April): 160–169. Bibcode:1999AmSci..87.....T. doi:10.1511/1999.2.160. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 15, 2010. Retrieved Jan 12, 2016.
  48. ^ a b c Trut, Lyudmila; Oskina, Irina; Kharlamova, Anastasiya (2009). "Animate being evolution during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model". BioEssays. 31 (3): 349–360. doi:10.1002/bies.200800070. PMC2763232. PMID 19260016.
  49. ^ a b c d Wilkins, Adam S.; Wrangham, Richard Westward.; Fitch, W. Tecumseh (2014). "The "Domestication Syndrome" in Mammals: A Unified Explanation Based on Neural Crest Cell Behavior and Genetics". Genetics. 197 (3): 795–808. doi:10.1534/genetics.114.165423. PMC4096361. PMID 25024034.
  50. ^ a b c Wright (2015). "The Genetic Compages of Domestication in Animals". Bioinformatics and Biological science Insights. 9S4 (Suppl four): 11–20. doi:10.4137/bbi.s28902. PMC4603525. PMID 26512200.
  51. ^ a b Hemmer, H. (1990). Domestication: The Decline of Environmental Appreciation. Cambridge University Press.
  52. ^ Birks, J. D. S., and A. C. Kitchener. 1999. The distribution and condition of the polecat Mustela putorius in U.k. in the 1990s. London: Vincent Wild animals Trust.
  53. ^ Schultz, W. (1969). "Zur kenntnis des hallstromhundes (Canis hallstromi, Troughton 1957)". Zoologischer Anzeiger. 183: 42–72.
  54. ^ Boitani, L.; Ciucci, P. (1995). "Comparative social environmental of feral dogs and wolves" (PDF). Ethology Ecology & Evolution. seven (ane): 49–72. doi:10.1080/08927014.1995.9522969.
  55. ^ 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 (three): 171–181. doi:10.1016/j.crvi.2010.12.009. PMID 21377611.
  56. ^ Mayer, J. J.; Brisbin, I. L. (1991). Wild Pigs in the U.s.: Their History, Comparative Morphology, and Current Condition. Athens, Georgia, United states of america: University of Georgia Printing.
  57. ^ a b c d e f 1000 Evin, Allowen; Dobney, Keith; Schafberg, Renate; Owen, Joseph; Vidarsdottir, Una; Larson, Greger; Cucchi, Thomas (2015). "Phenotype and animal domestication: A report of dental variation between domestic, wild, captive, hybrid and insular Sus scrofa" (PDF). BMC Evolutionary Biology. 15: 6. doi:10.1186/s12862-014-0269-10. PMC4328033. PMID 25648385.
  58. ^ Crockford, Southward. J. (2000). "A commentary on dog evolution: Regional variation, breed evolution and hybridization with wolves". In Crockford, S. (ed.). Dogs through Time: An Archaeological Perspective. BAR International Series 889. Oxford: Archaeopress. pp. xi–20. ISBN978-1841710891.
  59. ^ Coppinger, Raymond; Coppinger, Laura (2001). Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior & Development . Scribner. ISBN978-0684855301. [ page needed ]
  60. ^ Russell, N. (2012). Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and Animals in Prehistory. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-14311-0.
  61. ^ Irving-Pease, Evan Thousand.; 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-iii-030-04752-8.
  62. ^ a b Perry-Gal, Lee; Erlich, Adi; Gilboa, Ayelet; Bar-Oz, Guy (2015). "Earliest economic exploitation of chicken outside E Asia: Evidence 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.
  63. ^ 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.
  64. ^ Gibbons, Ann (2016). "How an ancient pope helped brand chickens fatty". Scientific discipline. doi:ten.1126/science.aah7308.
  65. ^ Diamond, Jared (2002). "Evolution, consequences and future of found and brute domestication" (PDF). Nature. 418 (6898): 700–707. Bibcode:2002Natur.418..700D. doi:x.1038/nature01019. PMID 12167878. S2CID 205209520.
  66. ^ Kimura, Birgitta; Marshall, Fiona; Beja-Pereira, Albano; Mulligan, Connie (2013-03-01). "Ass Domestication". African Archaeological Review. 30 (1): 83–95. doi:10.1007/s10437-012-9126-8. ISSN 1572-9842. S2CID 189903961.
  67. ^ Currat, One thousand.; et al. (2008). "The hidden side of invasions: Massive introgression by local genes". Evolution. 62 (8): 1908–1920. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00413.x. PMID 18452573. S2CID 20999005.
  68. ^ Eriksson, Jonas (2008). "Identification of the Yellow Pare Gene Reveals a Hybrid Origin of the Domestic Chicken". PLOS Genetics. 4 (2): e1000010. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000010. PMC2265484. PMID 18454198.
  69. ^ Hanotte, O.; Bradley, D. Chiliad.; Ochieng, J. W.; Verjee, Y.; Colina, E. W.; Rege, J. Due east. O. (2002). "African pastoralism: genetic imprints of origins and migrations". Scientific discipline. 296 (5566): 336–39. Bibcode:2002Sci...296..336H. doi:ten.1126/science.1069878. PMID 11951043. S2CID 30291909.
  70. ^ Verkaar, East. 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.
  71. ^ Pierpaoli, Chiliad.; Biro, Z. Due south.; Herrmann, M.; Hupe, One thousand.; Fernandes, M.; et al. (2003). "Genetic distinction of wildcat (Felis silvestris) populations in Europe, and hybridization with domestic cats in Hungary". Molecular Environmental. 12 (10): 2585–98. doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.2003.01939.ten. PMID 12969463. S2CID 25491695.
  72. ^ Jordana, J.; Pares, P. Thou.; Sanchez, A. (1995). "Assay of genetic-relationships in horse breeds". Journal of Equine Veterinarian Science. 15 (7): 320–328. doi:x.1016/s0737-0806(06)81738-7.
  73. ^ Harpur, B. A.; Minaei, S.; Kent, C. F.; Zayed, A. (2012). "Management increases genetic multifariousness of honey bees via admixture". Molecular Ecology. 21 (18): 4414–21. doi:x.1111/j.1365-294x.2012.05614.x. PMID 22564213.
  74. ^ 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 (ane): 7623. Bibcode:2017NatSR...7.7623B. doi:ten.1038/s41598-017-07382-7. PMC5548776. PMID 28790322.
  75. ^ Freedman, A. (2014). "Genome sequencing highlights the dynamic early history of dogs". PLOS Genetics. 10 (1): e1004016. doi:x.1371/periodical.pgen.1004016. PMC3894170. PMID 24453982.
  76. ^ Hemmer, H. (2005). "Neumuhle-Riswicker Hirsche: Erste planma¨ßige Zucht einer neuen Nutztierform". Naturwissenschaftliche Rundschau. 58: 255–261.
  77. ^ Malmkvist, Jen S.; Hansen, Steffen W. (2002). "Generalization of fright in subcontract mink, Mustela vison, genetically selected for behaviour towards humans" (PDF). Animal Behaviour. 64 (3): 487–501. doi:10.1006/anbe.2002.3058. S2CID 491466. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-05. Retrieved 2016-02-26 .
  78. ^ Jones, R. Bryan; Satterlee, Daniel Grand.; Marks, Henry Fifty. (1997). "Fear-related behaviour in Japanese quail divergently selected for body weight". Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 52 (ane–2): 87–98. doi:ten.1016/S0168-1591(96)01146-Ten.
  79. ^ Cieslak, Chiliad.; et al. (2011). "Colours of domestication". Biol. Rev. 86 (4): 885–899. doi:ten.1111/j.1469-185x.2011.00177.x. PMID 21443614. S2CID 24056549.
  80. ^ Ludwig, A.; et al. (2009). "Coat color variation at the beginning of equus caballus domestication". Science. 324 (5926): 485. Bibcode:2009Sci...324..485L. doi:10.1126/science.1172750. PMC5102060. PMID 19390039.
  81. ^ Fang, K.; et al. (2009). "Contrasting mode of evolution at a coat colour locus in wild and domestic pigs". PLOS Genet. 5 (1): e1000341. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000341. PMC2613536. PMID 19148282.
  82. ^ Almada RC, Coimbra NC. Recruitment of striatonigral disinhibitory and nigrotectal inhibitory GABAergic pathways during the organisation of defensive behavior by mice in a dangerous environment with the venomous serpent Bothrops alternatus [ Reptilia, Viperidae ] Synapse 2015:n/a–due north/a
  83. ^ Coppinger, R.; Schneider, R. (1995). "Development of working dogs". The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People. Cambridge Academy Press. ISBN9780521425377.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_animals

Posted by: galvanlaideard.blogspot.com

0 Response to "Which Animal Was The First To Become Domesticated?"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel