banner



Home  ›  How Long Does It Take To Domesticate An Animal

How Long Does It Take To Domesticate An Animal

Written By Tuesday, May 24, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Overview of animal domestication

Dogs and sheep were among the start animals to exist domesticated.

The domestication of animals is the mutual relationship between animals and the humans who have influence on their intendance and reproduction.[i]

Charles Darwin recognized a pocket-sized number of traits that made domesticated species dissimilar from their wild ancestors. He was also the first to recognize the difference betwixt conscious selective breeding in which humans directly select for desirable traits, and unconscious selection where traits evolve equally a by-product of natural selection or from option on other traits.[2] [3] [4] There is a genetic difference betwixt domestic and wild populations. There is also a genetic deviation between 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] [half dozen] [seven] Domestication traits are generally fixed within all domesticates, and were selected during the initial episode of domestication of that animal or plant, whereas improvement traits are nowadays only in a proportion of domesticates, though they may be fixed in individual breeds or regional populations.[half dozen] [seven] [8]

Domestication should not be 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] Certain brute species, and certain individuals within those species, make better candidates for domestication than others because they exhibit certain behavioral characteristics: (1) the size and system of their social structure; (two) the availability and the degree of selectivity in their selection 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; (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 [thirteen] [14] [15]

It is proposed that there were three major pathways that most animal domesticates followed into domestication: (ane) commensals, adapted to a human niche (due east.1000., dogs, cats, fowl, possibly pigs); (2) prey animals sought for nutrient (e.one thousand., sheep, goats, cattle, h2o buffalo, yak, sus scrofa, reindeer, llama, alpaca, and turkey); and (3) targeted animals for draft and nonfood resources (eastward.g., horse, ass, camel).[seven] [12] [16] [17] [xviii] [19] [20] [21] [22] The domestic dog was the get-go to be domesticated,[23] [24] and was established across Eurasia before the cease of the Late Pleistocene era, well before cultivation 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 gene menses between wild and domestic stocks – including donkeys, horses, New and Old World camelids, goats, sheep, and pigs – was common.[vii] [17] One study has concluded that man selection for domestic traits likely counteracted the homogenizing effect of gene flow from wild boars into pigs and created domestication islands in the genome. The aforementioned process may too utilize to other domesticated animals.Some of the almost commonly domesticated animals are cats and dogs.[27] [28]

Definitions [edit]

Domestication [edit]

Domestication has been defined equally "a sustained multi-generational, mutualistic relationship in which i organism assumes a meaning caste of influence over the reproduction and care of another organism in order to secure a more than anticipated supply of a resources of involvement, 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] [30] [31] This definition recognizes both the biological and the cultural components of the domestication procedure and the furnishings on both humans and the domesticated animals and plants. All past definitions of domestication have included a relationship between humans with plants and animals, only their differences lay in who was considered as the lead partner in the human relationship. This new definition recognizes a mutualistic human 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 resource that they could more 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 just is well-documented in nonhuman species, especially among a number of social insect domesticators and their plant and animal domesticates, for example the pismire–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 oftentimes used to depict the suite of phenotypic traits arising during domestication that distinguish crops from their wild ancestors.[5] [33] The term is as well practical to animals and includes increased docility and tameness, glaze color changes, reductions in tooth size, changes in craniofacial morphology, alterations in ear and tail form (e.g., floppy ears), more frequent and nonseasonal oestrus cycles, alterations in adrenocorticotropic hormone levels, changed concentrations of several neurotransmitters, prolongations in juvenile behavior, and reductions in both total encephalon size and of particular brain regions.[34] The set up of traits used to define the animal domestication syndrome is inconsistent.[32]

Difference from taming [edit]

Domestication should not be confused with taming. Taming is the conditioned behavioral modification of a wild-born creature when its natural avoidance of humans is reduced and information technology accepts the presence of humans, but domestication is the permanent genetic modification of a bred lineage that leads to an inherited predisposition toward humans.[nine] [x] [xi] Human selection included tameness, only without a suitable evolutionary response then domestication was not achieved.[7] Domestic animals need non be tame in the behavioral sense, such as the Spanish fighting bull. Wild fauna tin be tame, such as a paw-raised cheetah. A domestic brute'south convenance is controlled by humans and its tameness and tolerance of humans is genetically determined. However, an animal merely bred in captivity is not necessarily domesticated. Tigers, gorillas, and polar bears breed readily in captivity but are non domesticated.[10] Asian elephants are wild animals that with taming manifest outward signs of domestication, yet their breeding is not human controlled and thus they are not true domesticates.[10] [35]

History, cause and timing [edit]

Development of temperatures in the postglacial menstruation, later on the Terminal Glacial Maximum, showing very low temperatures for the most part of the Younger Dryas, rapidly rising afterward 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 summit of the Last Glacial Maximum around 21,000 years ago and which continue to this nowadays day. These changes fabricated obtaining nutrient difficult. The first domesticate was the domestic canis familiaris (Canis lupus familiaris) from a wolf ancestor (Canis lupus) at least fifteen,000 years agone. The Younger Dryas that occurred 12,900 years ago was a period of intense common cold and aridity that put pressure level on humans to intensify their foraging strategies. By the beginning of the Holocene from eleven,700 years agone, favorable climatic atmospheric condition and increasing man populations led to small-scale beast and plant domestication, which allowed humans to broaden the nutrient that they were obtaining through hunter-gathering.[37]

The increased use of agriculture and continued domestication of species during the Neolithic transition marked the starting time of a rapid shift in the development, ecology, and demography of both humans and numerous species of animals and plants.[38] [7] Areas with increasing agriculture, underwent urbanisation,[38] [39] developing higher-density populations,[38] [40] expanded economies, and became centers of livestock and ingather domestication.[38] [41] [42] Such agricultural societies emerged beyond Eurasia, Northward Africa, and South and Cardinal America.

In the Fertile Crescent 10,000-xi,000 years ago, zooarchaeology indicates that goats, pigs, sheep, and taurine cattle were the starting time livestock to exist domesticated. Archaeologists working in Cyprus found an older burial footing, approximately 9500 years old, of an developed human with a feline skeleton.[43] Two thousand years later, humped zebu cattle were domesticated in what is today Baluchistan in Pakistan. In Eastern asia viii,000 years ago, pigs were domesticated from wild boar that were genetically dissimilar from those found in the Fertile Crescent. The horse was domesticated on the Central Asian steppe 5,500 years ago. The chicken in Southeast Asia was domesticated 4,000 years ago.[37]

Universal features [edit]

The biomass of wild vertebrates is now increasingly small compared to the biomass of domestic animals, with the calculated biomass of domestic cattle lone existence greater than that of all wild mammals.[44] Because the evolution of domestic animals is ongoing, the process of domestication has a beginning but not an end. Diverse criteria have been established to provide a definition of domestic animals, but all decisions nigh exactly when an animal tin be labelled "domesticated" in the zoological sense are arbitrary, although potentially useful.[45] Domestication is a fluid and nonlinear process that may start, end, reverse, or get down unexpected paths with no articulate or universal threshold that separates the wild from the domestic. However, in that location are universal features held in mutual by all domesticated animals.[12]

Behavioral preadaption [edit]

Certain animal species, and certain individuals within those species, brand amend candidates for domestication than others because they exhibit certain behavioral characteristics: (1) the size and system of their social structure; (ii) the availability and the caste 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 immature at birth; (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 ane [13] [14] [15] Reduced wariness to humans and low reactivity to both humans and other external stimuli are a central pre-accommodation for domestication, and these behaviors are also the master target of the selective pressures experienced by the beast undergoing domestication.[vii] [12] This implies that non all animals can be domesticated, e.grand. a wild member of the equus caballus family unit, the zebra.[7] [42]

Jared Diamond in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel enquired as to why, amid the earth'due south 148 large wild terrestrial herbivorous mammals, only 14 were domesticated, and proposed that their wild ancestors must have possessed 6 characteristics before they could exist considered for domestication:[3] : p168-174

Hereford cattle, domesticated for beefiness production.

  1. Efficient diet – Animals that can efficiently process what they swallow and live off plants are less expensive to keep in captivity. Carnivores feed on flesh, which would require the domesticators to raise boosted animals to feed the carnivores and therefore increase the consumption of plants further.
  2. Quick growth rate – Fast maturity charge per unit compared to the human being life span allows breeding intervention and makes the animal useful within an acceptable elapsing of caretaking. Some big animals require many years before they achieve a useful size.
  3. Power to breed in captivity – Animals that will non brood in captivity are limited to acquisition through capture in the wild.
  4. Pleasant disposition – Animals with nasty dispositions are unsafe to keep around humans.
  5. Trend not to panic – Some species are nervous, fast, and prone to flight when they perceive a threat.
  6. Social structure – All species of domesticated large mammals had wild ancestors that lived in herds with a authorisation hierarchy amidst the herd members, and the herds had overlapping home territories rather than mutually exclusive home territories. This arrangement allows humans to have control of the authority hierarchy.

Encephalon size and function [edit]

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

The sustained pick for lowered reactivity amongst mammal domesticates has resulted in profound changes in brain form and office. The larger the size of the brain to begin with and the greater its degree of folding, the greater the degree of brain-size reduction nether domestication.[12] [46] Foxes that had been selectively bred for tameness over 40 years had experienced a significant reduction in cranial acme and width and past 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 fauna domestication.[12] The most affected portion of the encephalon in domestic mammals is the limbic system, which in domestic dogs, pigs, and sheep prove a forty% 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 two or more than seemingly unrelated phenotypic traits. Certain physiological changes characterize domestic animals of many species. These changes include all-encompassing white markings (particularly on the head), floppy ears, and curly tails. These arise even when tameness is the only trait under selective pressure.[48] The genes involved in tameness are largely unknown, so information technology is non known how or to what extent pleiotropy contributes to domestication syndrome. Tameness may be caused by the down regulation of fearfulness and stress responses via reduction of the adrenal glands.[48] Based on this, the pleiotropy hypotheses can be separated into two theories. The Neural Crest Hypothesis relates adrenal gland part 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] [50]

Neural crest cells (NCC) are vertebrate embryonic stem cells that office direct and indirectly during early on embryogenesis to produce many tissue types.[49] Because the traits normally 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.[fifty] These deficits could cause changes nosotros run into to many domestic mammals, such equally lopped ears (seen in rabbit, dog, fox, pig, sheep, goat, cattle, and donkeys) as well as curly tails (pigs, foxes, and dogs). Although they do not bear on the development of the adrenal cortex directly, the neural crest cells may be involved in relevant upstream embryological interactions.[49] Furthermore, artificial choice targeting tameness may affect genes that control the concentration or movement of NCCs in the embryo, leading to a diverseness of phenotypes.[l]

The single genetic regulatory network hypothesis proposes that domestication syndrome results from mutations in genes that regulate the expression blueprint of more downstream genes.[48] For example piebald, or spotted coat coloration, may be caused by a linkage in the biochemical pathways of melanins involved in coat coloration and neurotransmitters such as dopamine that help shape behavior and cognition.[12] [51] These linked traits may arise from mutations in a few key regulatory genes.[12] A problem with this hypothesis is that it proposes that there are mutations in factor networks that cause dramatic effects that are not lethal, notwithstanding no currently known genetic regulatory networks cause such dramatic change in so many different traits.[49]

Limited reversion [edit]

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

Categories [edit]

Domestication tin be considered as the final phase of intensification in the relationship between creature or plant sub-populations and human societies, but it is divided into several grades of intensification.[55] For studies in fauna domestication, researchers have proposed five singled-out categories: wild, captive wild, domestic, cross-breeds and feral.[fifteen] [56] [57]

Wild animals
Field of study to natural selection, although the action of past demographic events and artificial choice induced past game management or habitat destruction cannot be excluded.[57]
Captive wild animals
Directly afflicted by a relaxation of natural selection associated with feeding, breeding and protection/solitude past humans, and an intensification of artificial 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 betwixt both parents, forms more than similar to one parent than the other, or unique forms distinct from both parents. Hybrids can exist intentionally bred for specific characteristics or tin can arise unintentionally as the outcome of contact with wild individuals.[57]
Feral animals
Domesticates that have returned to a wild state. As such, they experience relaxed artificial selection induced past the captive environment paired with intensified natural choice 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 mod pigs (genus Sus). The study showed clear differences between the dental phenotypes of wild, captive wild, domestic, and hybrid hog populations, which supported the proposed categories through physical testify. The study did not embrace feral pig populations simply chosen for further research 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 accepted by ii groups. The first group proposed that beast domestication proceeded along a continuum of stages from anthropophily, commensalism, control in the wild, control of captive animals, all-encompassing convenance, intensive convenance, and finally to pets in a ho-hum, gradually intensifying relationship between humans and animals.[45] [55]

The second grouping proposed that there were three major pathways that most animal domesticates followed into domestication: (1) commensals, adapted to a homo niche (e.one thousand., dogs, cats, fowl, possibly pigs); (two) casualty animals sought for nutrient (e.g., sheep, goats, cattle, water buffalo, yak, grunter, reindeer, llama and alpaca); and (3) targeted animals for draft and nonfood resources (eastward.grand., horse, donkey, camel).[7] [12] [16] [17] [eighteen] [19] [20] [21] [22] The beginnings of animal 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 not envision a domesticated brute resulting from, either the commensal or prey pathways. In both of these cases, humans became entangled with these species as the relationship between them, and the human office 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 accept identify over much longer time frames.[45]

Commensal pathway [edit]

The commensal pathway was traveled past 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 harm but little benefit. Those animals that were most capable of taking reward of the resources associated with human camps would have been the tamer, less aggressive individuals with shorter fight or flying distances.[58] [59] [lx] Afterward, these animals adult closer social or economic bonds with humans that led to a domestic relationship.[7] [12] [xvi] The leap from a synanthropic population to a domestic i could merely accept taken place after the animals had progressed from anthropophily to habituation, to commensalism and partnership, when the human relationship between animal and human would take laid the foundation for domestication, including captivity and human-controlled breeding. From this perspective, animal domestication is a coevolutionary procedure in which a population responds to selective force per unit area 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. It was not until 11,000 YBP that people living in the Near Due east entered into relationships with wild populations of aurochs, boar, sheep, and goats. A domestication process then began to develop. The grey wolf most probable followed the commensal pathway to domestication. When, where, and how many times wolves may accept been domesticated remains debated considering only a minor number of ancient specimens have been found, and both archaeology and genetics continue to provide conflicting evidence. The well-nigh widely accepted, primeval 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 every bit dogs or wolves remains debated. Recent studies indicate that a genetic deviation occurred between dogs and wolves 20,000–40,000 YBP, however 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 one of the most widespread domesticated species and one of the homo world's largest sources of protein. Although the chicken was domesticated in S-Eastward Asia, archaeological evidence suggests that it was not kept equally 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 erect-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 ago.[64]

Prey pathway [edit]

Domesticated dairy cows in North Republic of india

The prey pathway was the way in which nearly major livestock species entered into domestication as these were once 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 prey, perhaps as a response to localized force per unit area on the supply of the animal. 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' movement, feeding, and reproduction. As 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 found in the commensal domesticates.[7] [12] [16]

Casualty pathway animals include sheep, goats, cattle, water buffalo, yak, squealer, reindeer, llama and alpaca. The right conditions for the domestication for some of them appear to have been in place in the central and eastern Fertile Crescent at the stop of the Younger Dryas climatic downturn and the commencement of the Early Holocene well-nigh xi,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 society to produce more than offspring.[7] [12] By measuring the size, sexual activity ratios, and mortality profiles of zooarchaeological specimens, archeologists have been able to document 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 moo-cow and squealer 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.[vii] [16]

Directed pathway [edit]

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

The directed pathway was a more deliberate and directed procedure initiated past humans with the goal of domesticating a free-living animal. It probably merely came into existence 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 evidence before domestication. Therefore, the domestication of these animals requires more deliberate attempt by humans to piece of work effectually behaviors that do not assist domestication, with increased technological assistance needed.[7] [12] [sixteen]

Humans were already reliant on domestic plants and animals when they imagined the domestic versions of wild fauna. Although horses, donkeys, and Old Globe camels were sometimes hunted as casualty species, they were each deliberately brought into the human niche for sources of transport. Domestication was even so a multi-generational adaptation to man selection pressures, including tameness, only without a suitable evolutionary response then domestication was not achieved.[7] For example, despite the fact that hunters of the Almost Eastern gazelle in the Epipaleolithic avoided culling reproductive females to promote population balance, neither gazelles[7] [42] nor zebras[7] [65] possessed the necessary prerequisites and were never domesticated. At that place is no clear prove for the domestication of any herded prey animal in Africa,[7] with the notable exception of the donkey, which was domesticated in Northeast Africa quondam in the 4th millennium BCE.[66]

Multiple pathways [edit]

The pathways that animals may have followed are not mutually exclusive. Pigs, for case, may have been domesticated equally their populations became accustomed to the human niche, which would suggest a commensal pathway, or they may take been hunted and followed a prey pathway, or both.[seven] [12] [16]

Post-domestication factor menses [edit]

Equally agricultural societies migrated away from the domestication centers taking their domestic partners with them, they encountered populations of wild animals of the aforementioned or sister species. Because domestics frequently shared a recent common antecedent with the wild populations, they were capable of producing fertile offspring. Domestic populations were modest 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 engineering allow the nuclear genome to be accessed and analyzed in a population genetics framework. The increased resolution of nuclear sequences has demonstrated that gene flow is common, not merely between geographically diverse domestic populations of the aforementioned species but likewise between domestic populations and wild species that never gave rise to a domestic population.[7]

  • The yellowish leg trait possessed by numerous mod commercial chicken breeds was acquired via introgression from the grey junglefowl indigenous to 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.[seven] [69]
  • Numerous other bovid species, including bison, yak, banteng, and gaur also hybridize with ease.[7] [70]
  • 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 than variable than their original wild progenitors.[vii] [73]

The archaeological and genetic data suggests that long-term bidirectional gene flow betwixt wild and domestic stocks – including canids, donkeys, horses, New and Old World camelids, goats, sheep, and pigs – was common.[vii] [17] Bidirectional gene menstruum between domestic and wild reindeer continues today.[7]

The issue of this introgression is that modern domestic populations can often appear to have much greater genomic affinity to wild populations that were never involved in the original domestication procedure. Therefore, information technology is proposed that the term "domestication" should exist reserved solely for the initial procedure of domestication of a detached population in time and infinite. Subsequent admixture between introduced domestic populations and local wild populations that were never domesticated should be referred to as "introgressive capture". Conflating these 2 processes muddles our understanding of the original process and can atomic number 82 to an artificial inflation of the number of times domestication took place.[seven] [45] This introgression can, in some cases, exist regarded as adaptive introgression, as observed in domestic sheep due to gene flow with the wild European Mouflon.[74]

The sustained admixture between different domestic 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 modern wolf populations are related to the Pleistocene wolves that were first domesticated,[seven] [75] and the extinction of the wolves that were the direct ancestors of dogs has dingy efforts to pinpoint the time and identify of dog domestication.[7]

Positive selection [edit]

Charles Darwin recognized the small number of traits that made domestic species unlike from their wild ancestors. He was also the outset to recognize the difference between conscious selective convenance in which humans directly select for desirable traits, and unconscious selection where traits evolve as a by-product of natural selection or from option on other traits.[2] [3] [4]

Domestic animals have variations in coat color and craniofacial morphology, reduced brain size, floppy ears, and changes in the endocrine organization and their reproductive cycle. The domesticated silver fox experiment demonstrated that selection for tameness within a few generations 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 machinery to explain how the animal domestication process could have 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 coat colour, to produce domesticated dormant deer within a few generations.[45] [76] Like results for tameness and fearfulness accept been establish for mink[77] and Japanese quail.[78]

Pig herding in fog, Armenia. Homo selection for domestic traits is not afflicted past later gene flow from wild boar.[27] [28]

The genetic difference between domestic and wild populations tin be framed within 2 considerations. The first distinguishes between domestication traits that are presumed to take been essential at the early stages of domestication, and improvement traits that accept appeared since the split between wild and domestic populations.[5] [6] [7] Domestication traits are mostly fixed inside 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.[six] [7] [eight] A second event is whether traits associated with the domestication syndrome resulted from a relaxation of option as animals exited the wild surroundings or from positive pick resulting from intentional and unintentional man preference. Some recent genomic studies on the genetic basis of traits associated with the domestication syndrome have shed low-cal on both of these issues.[7]

Geneticists have identified more than than 300 genetic loci and 150 genes associated with coat 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] [eighty] Other studies take shown how homo-induced selection is responsible for the allelic variation in pigs.[45] [81] Together, these insights suggest that, although natural pick has kept variation to a minimum before domestication, humans have actively selected for novel glaze colors as soon as they appeared in managed populations.[45] [51]

In 2015, a study looked at over 100 hog genome sequences to define their process of domestication. The process of domestication was assumed to have been initiated by humans, involved few individuals and relied on reproductive isolation between wild and domestic forms, only the study establish that the assumption of reproductive isolation with population bottlenecks was not supported. The study indicated that pigs were domesticated separately in Western Asia and Prc, 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 study as well found that despite dorsum-crossing with wild pigs, the genomes of domestic pigs have strong signatures of choice at genetic loci that bear upon beliefs and morphology. The study ended that human selection for domestic traits likely counteracted the homogenizing result of gene period 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 production-related traits, dogs were initially selected for their behaviors.[25] [26] In 2016, a written report found that in that location were merely 11 fixed genes that showed variation between wolves and dogs. These gene variations were unlikely to have been the outcome of natural evolution, and point selection on both morphology and beliefs during canis familiaris domestication. These genes accept been shown to affect the catecholamine synthesis pathway, with the majority of the genes affecting the fight-or-flight response[26] [82] (i.east. selection for tameness), and emotional processing.[26] Dogs generally show reduced fearfulness and aggression compared to wolves.[26] [83] Some of these genes take been associated with assailment in some dog breeds, indicating their importance in both the initial domestication and so later in brood formation.[26]

See also [edit]

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

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b c Zeder, M. A. (2015). "Core questions in domestication Research". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the The states. 112 (11): 3191–3198. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112.3191Z. doi:ten.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, G.; Piperno, D. R.; Allaby, R. Yard.; Purugganan, M. D.; Andersson, L.; Approach-Kalin, 1000.; Barton, L.; Climer Vigueira, C.; Denham, T.; Dobney, Thou.; Doust, A. North.; Gepts, Paul; Gilbert, M. T. P.; Gremillion, Grand. J.; Lucas, L.; Lukens, L.; Marshall, F. B.; Olsen, One thousand. M.; Pires, J. C.; Richerson, P. J.; Rubio De Casas, R.; Sanjur, O. I.; Thomas, M. G.; Fuller, D. Q. (2014). "Current perspectives and the time to come of domestication studies". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (17): 6139–6146. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6139L. doi:10.1073/pnas.1323964111. PMC4035915. PMID 24757054.
  5. ^ a b c Olsen, One thousand. 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.
  6. ^ a b c d Doust, A. N.; Lukens, L.; Olsen, K. M.; Mauro-Herrera, One thousand.; Meyer, A.; Rogers, One thousand. (2014). "Beyond the unmarried gene: How epistasis and gene-by-surroundings effects influence ingather domestication". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences. 111 (17): 6178–6183. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6178D. doi:10.1073/pnas.1308940110. PMC4035984. PMID 24753598.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m northward o p q r southward t u v w x y z aa ab air conditioning advertizing ae af ag ah ai aj Larson, Chiliad. (2014). "The Evolution of Animal Domestication" (PDF). Almanac Review of Environmental, Evolution, and Systematics. 45: 115–36. doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135813.
  8. ^ a b Meyer, Rachel S.; Purugganan, Michael D. (2013). "Evolution of ingather species: Genetics of domestication and diversification". Nature Reviews Genetics. fourteen (12): 840–52. doi:ten.1038/nrg3605. PMID 24240513. S2CID 529535.
  9. ^ a b Toll, Edward O. (2008). Principles and Applications of Domestic Animal Behavior: An Introductory Text. Cambridge University Press. ISBN9781780640556 . Retrieved January 21, 2016.
  10. ^ 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:ten.1073/pnas.0901586106. PMC2702791. PMID 19528637.
  11. ^ a b Diamond, Jared (2012). "1". In Gepts, Paul (ed.). Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability. Cambridge University Press. p. 13.
  12. ^ a b c d e f m h i j m fifty m northward o p q r southward t u v Zeder, 1000. A. (2012). "The domestication of animals". Journal of Anthropological Research. 68 (2): 161–190. doi:ten.3998/jar.0521004.0068.201. S2CID 85348232.
  13. ^ a b Unhurt, East. B. (1969). "Domestication and the development of behavior". In Hafez, Eastward. S. E. (ed.). The Behavior of Domestic Animals (second ed.). London: Bailliere, Tindall, and Cassell. pp. 22–42.
  14. ^ a b Cost, Edward O. (1984). "Behavioral aspects of animal domestication". Quarterly Review of Biological science. 59 (1): i–32. doi:x.1086/413673. JSTOR 2827868. S2CID 83908518.
  15. ^ a b c Price, 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". Annual Review of Creature Biosciences. four: 61–85. doi:10.1146/annurev-animal-021815-111155. PMID 26526544.
  17. ^ a b c d Marshall, F. (2013). "Evaluating the roles of directed breeding and cistron catamenia in animal domestication". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Us 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 old assumptions". BioScience. 65 (one): 7–13. doi:x.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, One thousand. (2015). "Human species equally the master predator". The Political Economic system of Predation: Manhunting and the Economics of Escape. Cambridge Academy Press. p. 72. ISBN9781107133976.
  21. ^ a b Gepts, Paul, ed. (2012). "9". Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Development, and Sustainability. Cambridge University Printing. pp. 227–259.
  22. ^ a b Pontarotti, Pierre, ed. (2015). Evolutionary Biological science: Biodiversification from Genotype to Phenotype. Springer International. p. 397.
  23. ^ a b c d Larson, G. (2012). "Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archæology, and biogeography" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.s.a.. 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: 1–4. doi:10.1016/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 eastward f Cagan, Alex; Blass, Torsten (2016). "Identification of genomic variants putatively targeted by 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, L. (2015). "Evidence of long-term gene flow and selection during domestication from analyses of Eurasian wild and domestic hog 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 pig took some wild turns". Science. doi:10.1126/scientific discipline.aad1692.
  29. ^ Maggioni, Lorenzo (2015). "Domestication of Brassica oleracea L.". Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae: 38.
  30. ^ Zeder, M. (2014). "Domestication: Definition and Overview". In Smith, Claire (ed.). Encyclopedia of Global Archeology. New York: Springer Science & Concern Media. pp. 2184–2194. doi:10.1007/978-ane-4419-0465-2_71. ISBN978-i-4419-0426-3.
  31. ^ Sykes, Naomi (2014). "Animal Revolutions". Beastly Questions: Animal Answers to Archaeological Issues. Bloomsbury Bookish. pp. 25–26. ISBN9781472506245.
  32. ^ a b Lord KA, Larson G, Coppinger RP, Karlsson EK (February 2020). "The History of Farm Foxes Undermines the Creature Domestication Syndrome". Trends in Ecology & Development. 35 (two): 125–136. doi:x.1016/j.tree.2019.10.011. PMID 31810775.
  33. ^ Hammer, K. (1984). "Das Domestikationssyndrom". Kulturpflanze. 32: 11–34. doi:10.1007/bf02098682. S2CID 42389667.
  34. ^ Wilkins, Adam Southward.; Wrangham, Richard W.; Fitch, West. Tecumseh (July 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.
  35. ^ Lair, R. C. (1997). Gone Astray: The Care and Direction 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. 7: 40338. Bibcode:2017NatSR...740338P. doi:10.1038/srep40338. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC5216412. PMID 28059138.
  37. ^ a b McHugo, Gillian P.; Dover, Michael J.; Machugh, David Eastward. (2019). "Unlocking the origins and biological science of domestic animals using ancient DNA and paleogenomics". BMC Biology. 17 (1): 98. doi:ten.1186/s12915-019-0724-seven. PMC6889691. PMID 31791340.
  38. ^ a b c d e Machugh, David E.; Larson, Greger; Orlando, Ludovic (2016). "Taming the Past: Aboriginal Deoxyribonucleic acid and the Report of Beast Domestication". Annual Review of Animal Biosciences. 5: 329–351. doi:x.1146/annurev-animal-022516-022747. PMID 27813680.
  39. ^ Barker, Yard. (2006). The Agronomical Revolution in Prehistory: Why Did Foragers Get Farmers?. Oxford Academy Printing. [ folio needed ]
  40. ^ Bocquet-Appel, J. P. (2011). "When the world'south population took off: The springboard of the Neolithic Demographic Transition". Science. 333 (6042): 560–561. Bibcode:2011Sci...333..560B. doi:ten.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 agriculture in the Near East. 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. M.A. Zeder, D.G Bradley, Eastward 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 (vi): 68–75. Bibcode:2009SciAm.300f..68D. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0609-68. PMC5790555. PMID 19485091.
  44. ^ Valclav Smil, 2011, Harvesting the Biosphere:The Human Bear upon, Population and Development Review 37(iv): 613–636, Table 2)
  45. ^ a b c d e f g h i j grand l Larson, G. (2013). "A population genetics view of animal domestication" (PDF). Trends in Genetics. 29 (4): 197–205. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2013.01.003. PMID 23415592.
  46. ^ a b Kruska, D. 1988. "Mammalian domestication and its upshot on brain structure and beliefs," in Intelligence and evolutionary biological science. Edited by H. J. Jerison and I. Jerison, pp. 211–50. New York: Springer-Verlag
  47. ^ Trut, Lyudmila N. (1999). "Early Canid Domestication: The Farm-Play a joke on Experiment" (PDF). American Scientist. 87 (March–April): 160–169. Bibcode:1999AmSci..87.....T. doi:10.1511/1999.ii.160. Archived from the original (PDF) on February xv, 2010. Retrieved January 12, 2016.
  48. ^ a b c Trut, Lyudmila; Oskina, Irina; Kharlamova, Anastasiya (2009). "Animal 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 South.; Wrangham, Richard Due west.; Fitch, W. Tecumseh (2014). "The "Domestication Syndrome" in Mammals: A Unified Caption 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–twenty. doi:10.4137/bbi.s28902. PMC4603525. PMID 26512200.
  51. ^ a b Hemmer, H. (1990). Domestication: The Decline of Environmental Appreciation. Cambridge University Printing.
  52. ^ Birks, J. D. S., and A. C. Kitchener. 1999. The distribution and status of the polecat Mustela putorius in U.k. in the 1990s. London: Vincent Wildlife Trust.
  53. ^ Schultz, Westward. (1969). "Zur kenntnis des hallstromhundes (Canis hallstromi, Troughton 1957)". Zoologischer Anzeiger. 183: 42–72.
  54. ^ Boitani, L.; Ciucci, P. (1995). "Comparative social ecology of feral dogs and wolves" (PDF). Ethology Ecology & Evolution. 7 (one): 49–72. doi:x.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. 50. (1991). Wild Pigs in the United States: Their History, Comparative Morphology, and Current Status. Athens, Georgia, United states of america: University of Georgia Press.
  57. ^ a b c d e f one thousand Evin, Allowen; Dobney, Keith; Schafberg, Renate; Owen, Joseph; Vidarsdottir, Una; Larson, Greger; Cucchi, Thomas (2015). "Phenotype and animal domestication: A study of dental variation between domestic, wild, captive, hybrid and insular Hog" (PDF). BMC Evolutionary Biology. fifteen: vi. doi:10.1186/s12862-014-0269-ten. PMC4328033. PMID 25648385.
  58. ^ Crockford, S. J. (2000). "A commentary on 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.
  59. ^ Coppinger, Raymond; Coppinger, Laura (2001). Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior & Evolution . Scribner. ISBN978-0684855301. [ folio needed ]
  60. ^ Russell, N. (2012). Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and Animals in Prehistory. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-14311-0.
  61. ^ 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-iii-030-04752-8.
  62. ^ a b Perry-Gal, Lee; Erlich, Adi; Gilboa, Ayelet; Bar-Oz, Guy (2015). "Earliest economic exploitation of chicken exterior East 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 craven". Earth Archæology. 44: 158–169. doi:10.1080/00438243.2012.646104. S2CID 162265583.
  64. ^ Gibbons, Ann (2016). "How an ancient pope helped make chickens fatty". Science. doi:10.1126/scientific discipline.aah7308.
  65. ^ Diamond, Jared (2002). "Evolution, consequences and future of institute and animal 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). "Donkey Domestication". African Archaeological Review. 30 (i): 83–95. doi:10.1007/s10437-012-9126-viii. ISSN 1572-9842. S2CID 189903961.
  67. ^ Currat, Yard.; et al. (2008). "The hidden side of invasions: Massive introgression by local genes". Development. 62 (8): 1908–1920. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00413.10. PMID 18452573. S2CID 20999005.
  68. ^ Eriksson, Jonas (2008). "Identification of the Yellow Skin Factor Reveals a Hybrid Origin of the Domestic Craven". PLOS Genetics. iv (2): e1000010. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000010. PMC2265484. PMID 18454198.
  69. ^ Hanotte, O.; Bradley, D. G.; Ochieng, J. Due west.; Verjee, Y.; Hill, E. 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.
  70. ^ Verkaar, East. L. C.; Nijman, I. J.; Beeke, Thousand.; 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, One thousand.; Biro, Z. South.; Herrmann, Thou.; Hupe, K.; Fernandes, M.; et al. (2003). "Genetic distinction of wildcat (Felis silvestris) populations in Europe, and hybridization with domestic cats in Hungary". Molecular Ecology. 12 (ten): 2585–98. doi:ten.1046/j.1365-294x.2003.01939.10. PMID 12969463. S2CID 25491695.
  72. ^ Jordana, J.; Pares, P. M.; Sanchez, A. (1995). "Assay of genetic-relationships in horse breeds". Periodical of Equine Veterinary Science. 15 (seven): 320–328. doi:10.1016/s0737-0806(06)81738-7.
  73. ^ Harpur, B. A.; Minaei, S.; Kent, C. F.; Zayed, A. (2012). "Direction increases genetic diverseness of honey bees via admixture". Molecular Environmental. 21 (xviii): 4414–21. doi:10.1111/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 (1): 7623. Bibcode:2017NatSR...7.7623B. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-07382-seven. PMC5548776. PMID 28790322.
  75. ^ Freedman, A. (2014). "Genome sequencing highlights the dynamic early history of dogs". PLOS Genetics. 10 (1): e1004016. doi:10.1371/journal.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 Due south.; Hansen, Steffen West. (2002). "Generalization of fear in subcontract mink, Mustela vison, genetically selected for behaviour towards humans" (PDF). Beast 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 .
  78. ^ Jones, R. Bryan; Satterlee, Daniel 1000.; Marks, Henry L. (1997). "Fear-related behaviour in Japanese quail divergently selected for body weight". Applied Animal Behaviour Scientific discipline. 52 (1–2): 87–98. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01146-X.
  79. ^ Cieslak, Chiliad.; et al. (2011). "Colours of domestication". Biol. Rev. 86 (4): 885–899. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2011.00177.x. PMID 21443614. S2CID 24056549.
  80. ^ Ludwig, A.; et al. (2009). "Coat color variation at the first of horse domestication". Science. 324 (5926): 485. Bibcode:2009Sci...324..485L. doi:10.1126/science.1172750. PMC5102060. PMID 19390039.
  81. ^ Fang, G.; et al. (2009). "Contrasting manner of evolution at a coat color locus in wild and domestic pigs". PLOS Genet. v (1): e1000341. doi:10.1371/periodical.pgen.1000341. PMC2613536. PMID 19148282.
  82. ^ Almada RC, Coimbra NC. Recruitment of striatonigral disinhibitory and nigrotectal inhibitory GABAergic pathways during the system of defensive behavior by mice in a dangerous surround with the venomous snake Bothrops alternatus [ Reptilia, Viperidae ] Synapse 2015:n/a–n/a
  83. ^ Coppinger, R.; Schneider, R. (1995). "Development of working dogs". The Domestic Canis familiaris: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People. Cambridge University Printing. ISBN9780521425377.

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

Posted by: clarkgothis.blogspot.com

0 Response to "How Long Does It Take To Domesticate An Animal"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel