banner



Home  ›  When Was The First Domestication Of Animals

When Was The First Domestication Of Animals

Written By Sunday, July 3, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Overview of creature domestication

Dogs and sheep were among the starting time 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.[one]

Charles Darwin recognized a small number of traits that made domesticated species dissimilar from their wild ancestors. He was likewise the start to recognize the difference between conscious selective breeding in which humans directly select for desirable traits, and unconscious choice where traits evolve as a by-product of natural selection or from choice on other traits.[ii] [3] [four] There is a genetic difference between domestic and wild populations. At that place is also a genetic divergence between the domestication traits that researchers believe to have been essential at the early stages of domestication, and the comeback traits that have appeared since the split between wild and domestic populations.[5] [6] [7] Domestication traits are by and large fixed within all domesticates, and were selected during the initial episode of domestication of that animal or found, whereas comeback traits are present but in a proportion of domesticates, though they may be fixed in individual breeds or regional populations.[half-dozen] [7] [8]

Domestication should not be confused with taming. Taming is the conditioned behavioral modification of a wild-born animate being when its natural abstention of humans is reduced and it accepts the presence of humans, just domestication is the permanent genetic modification of a bred lineage that leads to an inherited predisposition toward humans.[9] [10] [11] Certain animal species, and certain individuals within those species, make better candidates for domestication than others considering they showroom sure behavioral characteristics: (1) the size and organization 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 bail with their young, and the maturity and mobility of the young at nativity; (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 iii major pathways that virtually animal domesticates followed into domestication: (ane) commensals, adapted to a human being niche (east.g., dogs, cats, fowl, possibly pigs); (2) prey animals sought for food (e.yard., sheep, goats, cattle, water buffalo, yak, hog, reindeer, llama, alpaca, and turkey); and (3) targeted animals for draft and nonfood resources (e.g., horse, donkey, camel).[7] [12] [16] [17] [18] [19] [twenty] [21] [22] The dog was the offset to be domesticated,[23] [24] and was established across Eurasia before the end of the Late Pleistocene era, well before tillage 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 information propose that long-term bidirectional factor flow between wild and domestic stocks – including donkeys, horses, New and Erstwhile World camelids, goats, sheep, and pigs – was common.[vii] [17] One study has ended that man selection for domestic traits likely counteracted the homogenizing effect of gene menstruation from wild boars into pigs and created domestication islands in the genome. The same process may as well apply to other domesticated animals. Some of the near commonly 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 some other organism in society to secure a more predictable supply of a resources of involvement, and through which the partner organism gains advantage 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 process and the effects on both humans and the domesticated animals and plants. All by definitions of domestication have included a relationship betwixt humans with plants and animals, simply 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 resources that they could more predictably and securely command, move, and redistribute, which has been the reward 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, particularly amongst a number of social insect domesticators and their establish and animal domesticates, for example the ant–fungus mutualism that exists between leafcutter ants and sure fungi.[1]

Domestication syndrome [edit]

Traits used to define the animate being domestication syndrome[32]

Domestication syndrome is a term oftentimes used to describe the suite of phenotypic traits arising during domestication that distinguish crops from their wild ancestors.[5] [33] The term is as well applied to animals and includes increased docility and tameness, coat colour changes, reductions in tooth size, changes in craniofacial morphology, alterations in ear and tail form (e.g., floppy ears), more frequent and nonseasonal estrus cycles, alterations in adrenocorticotropic hormone levels, changed concentrations of several neurotransmitters, prolongations in juvenile behavior, and reductions in both total brain size and of particular brain regions.[34] The set of traits used to define the fauna domestication syndrome is inconsistent.[32]

Difference from taming [edit]

Domestication should non be confused with taming. Taming is the conditioned behavioral modification of a wild-born animal 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.[9] [10] [11] Man selection included tameness, but without a suitable evolutionary response then domestication was not achieved.[7] Domestic animals need not be tame in the behavioral sense, such as the Castilian fighting balderdash. Wild animals can exist tame, such as a mitt-raised cheetah. A domestic animate being'due south breeding is controlled past humans and its tameness and tolerance of humans is genetically adamant. Even so, an animal merely bred in captivity is not necessarily domesticated. Tigers, gorillas, and polar bears breed readily in captivity just are not domesticated.[10] Asian elephants are wild animals that with taming manifest outward signs of domestication, yet their breeding is not man controlled and thus they are not true domesticates.[10] [35]

History, cause and timing [edit]

Evolution of temperatures in the postglacial menses, later on the Concluding Glacial Maximum, showing very low temperatures for the most part of the Younger Dryas, apace rising afterwards to achieve the level of the warm Holocene, based on Greenland water ice cores.[36]

The domestication of animals and plants was triggered by the climatic and environmental changes that occurred after the peak of the Final Glacial Maximum around 21,000 years agone and which go on to this present twenty-four hour period. These changes fabricated obtaining nutrient difficult. The kickoff domesticate was the domestic canis familiaris (Canis lupus familiaris) from a wolf ancestor (Canis lupus) at to the lowest degree xv,000 years agone. The Younger Dryas that occurred 12,900 years agone was a period of intense cold and dehydration that put pressure on humans to intensify their foraging strategies. Past the start of the Holocene from 11,700 years ago, favorable climatic conditions and increasing homo populations led to small-calibration animal and plant domestication, which allowed humans to augment 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 outset of a rapid shift in the evolution, 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] [forty] expanded economies, and became centers of livestock and crop domestication.[38] [41] [42] Such agricultural societies emerged across Eurasia, North Africa, and S and Central America.

In the Fertile Crescent 10,000-11,000 years agone, zooarchaeology indicates that goats, pigs, sheep, and taurine cattle were the first livestock to exist domesticated. Archaeologists working in Republic of cyprus establish an older burial ground, approximately 9500 years old, of an adult human being with a feline skeleton.[43] Two m years afterward, humped zebu cattle were domesticated in what is today Baluchistan in Islamic republic of pakistan. In East Asia 8,000 years agone, 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 agone. The chicken in Southeast Asia was domesticated four,000 years ago.[37]

Universal features [edit]

The biomass of wild vertebrates is now increasingly pocket-size compared to the biomass of domestic animals, with the calculated biomass of domestic cattle solitary beingness greater than that of all wild mammals.[44] Because the evolution of domestic animals is ongoing, the procedure of domestication has a beginning merely non an cease. Various criteria have been established to provide a definition of domestic animals, but all decisions about exactly when an brute can be labelled "domesticated" in the zoological sense are arbitrary, although potentially useful.[45] Domestication is a fluid and nonlinear procedure that may starting time, stop, contrary, or go down unexpected paths with no clear or universal threshold that separates the wild from the domestic. However, in that location are universal features held in common by all domesticated animals.[12]

Behavioral preadaption [edit]

Certain animal species, and certain individuals within those species, brand improve candidates for domestication than others because they showroom certain behavioral characteristics: (1) the size and organization of their social structure; (2) the availability and the degree of selectivity in their option of mates; (three) the ease and speed with which the parents bail with their immature, 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 [13] [14] [15] Reduced wariness to humans and low reactivity to both humans and other external stimuli are a fundamental pre-adaptation for domestication, and these behaviors are likewise the primary target of the selective pressures experienced by the animate being undergoing domestication.[7] [12] This implies that non all animals tin be domesticated, e.g. a wild member of the equus caballus family, the zebra.[seven] [42]

Jared Diamond in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel enquired every bit to why, among the earth's 148 large wild terrestrial herbivorous mammals, only 14 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 tin efficiently process what they eat and live off plants are less expensive to keep in captivity. Carnivores feed on flesh, which would require the domesticators to raise additional animals to feed the carnivores and therefore increment the consumption of plants further.
  2. Quick growth rate – Fast maturity rate compared to the human life span allows breeding intervention and makes the beast useful within an adequate duration of caretaking. Some big animals require many years earlier they reach a useful size.
  3. Ability to breed in captivity – Animals that will not breed in captivity are express to acquisition through capture in the wild.
  4. Pleasant disposition – Animals with nasty dispositions are dangerous to proceed 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 dominance hierarchy amongst the herd members, and the herds had overlapping abode territories rather than mutually exclusive home territories. This system allows humans to take control of the dominance hierarchy.

Encephalon size and function [edit]

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

The sustained choice for lowered reactivity amongst mammal domesticates has resulted in profound changes in brain class and function. 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 under domestication.[12] [46] Foxes that had been selectively bred for tameness over 40 years had experienced a meaning reduction in cranial pinnacle and width and by inference in brain 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 brain in domestic mammals is the limbic system, which in domestic dogs, pigs, and sheep evidence a 40% reduction in size compared with their wild species. This portion of the encephalon regulates endocrine part that influences behaviors such every bit 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 broad changes seen in domestication syndrome is pleiotropy. Pleiotropy occurs when i cistron influences two or more than seemingly unrelated phenotypic traits. Sure physiological changes characterize domestic animals of many species. These changes include extensive white markings (particularly on the head), floppy ears, and curly tails. These arise even when tameness is the simply trait under selective pressure level.[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 caused by the down regulation of fear 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 role to deficits in neural crest cells during evolution. The Single Genetic Regulatory Network Hypothesis claims that genetic changes in upstream regulators affect downstream systems.[49] [50]

Neural crest cells (NCC) are vertebrate embryonic stalk cells that function directly and indirectly during early embryogenesis to produce many tissue types.[49] Because the traits commonly affected by 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 nosotros see to many domestic mammals, such as lopped ears (seen in rabbit, canis familiaris, fox, pig, sheep, goat, cattle, and donkeys) also every bit curly tails (pigs, foxes, and dogs). Although they do non 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.[fifty]

The unmarried genetic regulatory network hypothesis proposes that domestication syndrome results from mutations in genes that regulate the expression pattern of more downstream genes.[48] For case piebald, or spotted glaze coloration, may exist caused past a linkage in the biochemical pathways of melanins involved in coat coloration and neurotransmitters such every bit 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 information technology proposes that there are mutations in gene networks that cause dramatic effects that are not lethal, nonetheless no currently known genetic regulatory networks cause such dramatic alter in so many different traits.[49]

Limited reversion [edit]

Feral mammals such every bit dogs, cats, goats, donkeys, pigs, and ferrets that have lived apart from humans for generations testify no sign of regaining the encephalon mass of their wild progenitors.[12] [52] Dingos have lived apart from humans for thousands of years only still have the same brain size as that of a dog.[12] [53] Feral dogs that actively avert homo contact are nonetheless dependent on human waste for survival and accept non reverted to the self-sustaining behaviors of their wolf ancestors.[12] [54]

Categories [edit]

Domestication can be considered as the final phase of intensification in the relationship between animal or plant sub-populations and homo societies, but it is divided into several grades of intensification.[55] For studies in animate being domestication, researchers have proposed five singled-out categories: wild, convict wild, domestic, cross-breeds and feral.[15] [56] [57]

Wild animals
Bailiwick to natural pick, although the action of past 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, breeding and protection/confinement by humans, and an intensification of bogus choice 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 selection associated with captivity and management.[57]
Cross-breed animals
Genetic hybrids of wild and domestic parents. They may be forms intermediate betwixt both parents, forms more similar to i parent than the other, or unique forms distinct from both parents. Hybrids tin exist intentionally bred for specific characteristics or can arise unintentionally as the issue of contact with wild individuals.[57]
Feral animals
Domesticates that have returned to a wild state. As such, they experience relaxed bogus selection induced by the captive environment paired with intensified natural selection induced by the wild habitat.[57]

In 2015, a study compared the diversity of dental size, shape and allometry beyond 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 physical evidence. The study did non comprehend feral squealer populations but called for further research to be undertaken on them, and on the genetic differences with hybrid pigs.[57]

Pathways [edit]

Since 2012, a multi-stage model of creature domestication has been accepted by ii groups. The starting time group proposed that animal domestication proceeded forth a continuum of stages from anthropophily, commensalism, control in the wild, control of captive animals, extensive breeding, intensive breeding, and finally to pets in a slow, gradually intensifying relationship between humans and animals.[45] [55]

The second group proposed that there were 3 major pathways that most animal domesticates followed into domestication: (1) commensals, adjusted to a homo niche (eastward.g., dogs, cats, fowl, possibly pigs); (2) casualty animals sought for food (due east.g., sheep, goats, cattle, water buffalo, yak, sus scrofa, reindeer, llama and alpaca); and (3) targeted animals for draft and nonfood resources (e.g., horse, donkey, camel).[7] [12] [xvi] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] The ancestry of brute domestication involved a protracted coevolutionary process with multiple stages along different pathways. Humans did not intend to domesticate animals from, or at least they did not envision a domesticated fauna 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 homo part in their survival and reproduction, intensified.[7] Although the directed pathway proceeded from capture to taming, the other 2 pathways are non equally goal-oriented and archaeological records suggest that they accept place over much longer time frames.[45]

Commensal pathway [edit]

The commensal pathway was traveled by vertebrates that fed on refuse around homo habitats or past animals that preyed on other animals fatigued to human camps. Those animals established a commensal human relationship with humans in which the animals benefited only the humans received no damage but petty benefit. Those animals that were most capable of taking advantage of the resource associated with human camps would have been the tamer, less aggressive individuals with shorter fight or flight distances.[58] [59] [60] After, these animals developed closer social or economic bonds with humans that led to a domestic relationship.[7] [12] [16] The spring from a synanthropic population to a domestic i could only accept taken place afterward the animals had progressed from anthropophily to habituation, to commensalism and partnership, when the relationship betwixt animal and human would have laid the foundation for domestication, including captivity and human-controlled breeding. From this perspective, beast 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.[seven] Commensal pathway animals include dogs, cats, fowl, and possibly pigs.[23]

The domestication of animals commenced over 15,000 years before present (YBP), start with the grayness wolf (Canis lupus) by nomadic hunter-gatherers. It was non until 11,000 YBP that people living in the Near East entered into relationships with wild populations of aurochs, boar, sheep, and goats. A domestication process and then began to develop. The grey wolf most likely followed the commensal pathway to domestication. When, where, and how many times wolves may have been domesticated remains debated considering only a small number of ancient specimens have been found, and both archaeology and genetics continue to provide conflicting show. The most widely accepted, earliest dog remains appointment back 15,000 YBP to the Bonn–Oberkassel dog. Earlier remains dating back to xxx,000 YBP have been described as Paleolithic dogs, notwithstanding their status as dogs or wolves remains debated. Recent studies bespeak that a genetic deviation occurred betwixt dogs and wolves 20,000–xl,000 YBP, however this is the upper time-limit for domestication because it represents the time of deviation and not the time of domestication.[61]

The chicken is i of the most widespread domesticated species and ane of the human globe's largest sources of poly peptide. Although the chicken was domesticated in South-East Asia, archaeological prove suggests that it was not kept as 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 imperial zoos, so they were not originally a prey species.[62] [63] The chicken was not a pop nutrient in Europe until only one k years ago.[64]

Prey pathway [edit]

Domesticated dairy cows in N India

The prey pathway was the way in which most 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 casualty, perchance as a response to localized pressure 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' move, feeding, and reproduction. Every bit man interference in the life-cycles of prey animals intensified, the evolutionary pressures for a lack of aggression would have led to an conquering of the aforementioned domestication syndrome traits plant in the commensal domesticates.[vii] [12] [sixteen]

Prey pathway animals include sheep, goats, cattle, water buffalo, yak, pig, reindeer, llama and alpaca. The correct conditions for the domestication for some of them appear to have been in place in the primal and eastern Fertile Crescent at the end of the Younger Dryas climatic downturn and the commencement of the Early Holocene about 11,700 YBP, and by 10,000 YBP people were preferentially killing young males of a multifariousness of species and allowed the females to live in club to produce more offspring.[7] [12] Past measuring the size, sex ratios, and mortality profiles of zooarchaeological specimens, archeologists take been able to document changes in the direction strategies of hunted sheep, goats, pigs, and cows in the Fertile Crescent starting 11,700 YBP. A contempo demographic and metrical written report of cow and sus scrofa remains at Sha'ar Hagolan, 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 pattern of overhunting before domestication suggests that the prey pathway was every bit adventitious and unintentional as the commensal pathway.[7] [16]

Directed pathway [edit]

Kazakh shepherd with equus caballus and dogs. Their chore is to baby-sit the sheep from predators.

The directed pathway was a more deliberate and directed process initiated by humans with the goal of domesticating a free-living animal. It probably just came into existence once people were familiar with either commensal or casualty-pathway domesticated animals. These animals were probable not to possess many of the behavioral preadaptions some species bear witness before domestication. Therefore, the domestication of these animals requires more deliberate effort by humans to work effectually behaviors that exercise non assist domestication, with increased technological assistance needed.[7] [12] [16]

Humans were already reliant on domestic plants and animals when they imagined the domestic versions of wild animals. Although horses, donkeys, and Sometime Globe camels were sometimes hunted as prey species, they were each deliberately brought into the man niche for sources of transport. Domestication was still a multi-generational adaptation to human selection pressures, including tameness, but without a suitable evolutionary response and then domestication was not achieved.[7] For case, despite the fact that hunters of the Most Eastern gazelle in the Epipaleolithic avoided alternative reproductive females to promote population balance, neither gazelles[7] [42] nor zebras[seven] [65] possessed the necessary prerequisites and were never domesticated. At that place is no articulate show for the domestication of whatever herded prey animate being in Africa,[7] with the notable exception of the donkey, which was domesticated in Northeast Africa sometime in the 4th millennium BCE.[66]

Multiple pathways [edit]

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

Postal service-domestication gene flow [edit]

As agronomical societies migrated away from the domestication centers taking their domestic partners with them, they encountered populations of wildlife of the same or sister species. Because domestics oft shared a recent common antecedent with the wild populations, they were capable of producing fertile offspring. Domestic populations were small relative to the surrounding wild populations, and repeated hybridizations betwixt the two eventually led to the domestic population becoming more than genetically divergent from its original domestic source population.[45] [67]

Advances in DNA sequencing engineering science permit the nuclear genome to exist accessed and analyzed in a population genetics framework. The increased resolution of nuclear sequences has demonstrated that gene flow is mutual, not just between geographically diverse domestic populations of the same species just besides between domestic populations and wild species that never gave rise to a domestic population.[vii]

  • The yellow leg trait possessed by numerous modern commercial chicken breeds was acquired via introgression from the grey junglefowl indigenous to Southern asia.[7] [68]
  • African cattle are hybrids that possess both a European Taurine cattle maternal mitochondrial bespeak and an Asian Indicine cattle paternal Y-chromosome signature.[7] [69]
  • Numerous other bovid species, including bison, yak, banteng, and gaur besides hybridize with ease.[7] [70]
  • Cats[vii] [71] and horses[vii] [72] take been shown to hybridize with many closely related species.
  • Domestic honey bees accept mated with and then many different species they at present possess genomes more than variable than their original wild progenitors.[7] [73]

The archaeological and genetic information suggests that long-term bidirectional factor flow betwixt wild and domestic stocks – including canids, donkeys, horses, New and Erstwhile Earth camelids, goats, sheep, and pigs – was common.[7] [17] Bidirectional gene menstruation between domestic and wild reindeer continues today.[7]

The consequence of this introgression is that modernistic domestic populations tin often appear to have much greater genomic affinity to wild populations that were never involved in the original domestication process. Therefore, it is proposed that the term "domestication" should be reserved solely for the initial process 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 equally "introgressive capture". Conflating these two processes muddles our understanding of the original process and tin pb to an bogus inflation of the number of times domestication took place.[7] [45] This introgression tin can, in some cases, be regarded equally adaptive introgression, as observed in domestic sheep due to gene flow with the wild European Mouflon.[74]

The sustained admixture betwixt unlike dog and wolf populations across the Onetime and New Worlds over at least 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 modern wolf populations are related to the Pleistocene wolves that were kickoff domesticated,[vii] [75] and the extinction of the wolves that were the directly ancestors of dogs has muddied efforts to pinpoint the fourth dimension and place of domestic dog domestication.[seven]

Positive selection [edit]

Charles Darwin recognized the pocket-sized number of traits that made domestic species dissimilar from their wild ancestors. He was too the first to recognize the difference between witting selective breeding in which humans straight select for desirable traits, and unconscious choice where traits evolve as a past-production of natural option or from selection on other traits.[2] [iii] [4]

Domestic animals have variations in glaze color and craniofacial morphology, reduced brain size, floppy ears, and changes in the endocrine system and their reproductive wheel. The domesticated silver fox experiment demonstrated that selection for tameness within a few generations can upshot in modified behavioral, morphological, and physiological traits.[38] [45] In addition to demonstrating that domestic phenotypic traits could ascend through selection for a behavioral trait, and domestic behavioral traits could arise through the option for a phenotypic trait, these experiments provided a mechanism to explain how the beast domestication process could have begun without deliberate human forethought and action.[45] In the 1980s, a researcher used a set of behavioral, cerebral, and visible phenotypic markers, such as coat color, to produce domesticated fallow deer within a few generations.[45] [76] Similar results for tameness and fearfulness accept been constitute for mink[77] and Japanese quail.[78]

Pig herding in fog, Armenia. Human selection for domestic traits is non affected by after gene menstruation from wild boar.[27] [28]

The genetic deviation between domestic and wild populations can be framed within two considerations. The starting time distinguishes between domestication traits that are presumed to accept been essential at the early on stages of domestication, and improvement traits that take appeared since the dissever between wild and domestic populations.[5] [6] [7] Domestication traits are generally stock-still within all domesticates and were selected during the initial episode of domestication, whereas improvement traits are present only in a proportion of domesticates, though they may be fixed in private breeds or regional populations.[half dozen] [7] [viii] 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 recent genomic studies on the genetic basis of traits associated with the domestication syndrome accept shed light on both of these issues.[seven]

Geneticists have identified more than 300 genetic loci and 150 genes associated with glaze color variability.[45] [79] Knowing the mutations associated with different colors has immune some correlation between the timing of the appearance of variable coat colors in horses with the timing of their domestication.[45] [fourscore] Other studies have shown how human-induced selection is responsible for the allelic variation in pigs.[45] [81] Together, these insights propose that, although natural selection has kept variation to a minimum before domestication, humans have actively selected for novel glaze colors as soon every bit they appeared in managed populations.[45] [51]

In 2015, a written report looked at over 100 pig genome sequences to ascertain their procedure of domestication. The process of domestication was assumed to have been initiated by humans, involved few individuals and relied on reproductive isolation betwixt wild and domestic forms, simply the study plant that the assumption of reproductive isolation with population bottlenecks was non supported. The study 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 now extinct ghost population of wild pigs during the Pleistocene. The report too institute that despite dorsum-crossing with wild pigs, the genomes of domestic pigs take potent signatures of selection at genetic loci that affect beliefs and morphology. The report ended that human being selection for domestic traits probable counteracted the homogenizing effect of gene menses from wild boars and created domestication islands in the genome. The same process may also utilise to other domesticated animals.[27] [28]

Different other domestic species which were primarily selected for production-related traits, dogs were initially selected for their behaviors.[25] [26] In 2016, a study plant that in that location were only 11 fixed genes that showed variation betwixt wolves and dogs. These factor variations were unlikely to have been the upshot of natural development, and indicate option on both morphology and behavior during canis familiaris domestication. These genes have been shown to impact the catecholamine synthesis pathway, with the majority of the genes affecting the fight-or-flight response[26] [82] (i.due east. choice for tameness), and emotional processing.[26] Dogs generally show reduced fear and assailment compared to wolves.[26] [83] Some of these genes have been associated with assailment in some dog breeds, indicating their importance in both the initial domestication so later in brood formation.[26]

See also [edit]

  • Listing 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 (eleven): 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, Thou.; Piperno, D. R.; Allaby, R. G.; Purugganan, M. D.; Andersson, 50.; Arroyo-Kalin, M.; Barton, L.; Climer Vigueira, C.; Denham, T.; Dobney, K.; Doust, A. N.; Gepts, Paul; Gilbert, One thousand. T. P.; Gremillion, K. J.; Lucas, 50.; Lukens, L.; Marshall, F. B.; Olsen, K. M.; Pires, J. C.; Richerson, P. J.; Rubio De Casas, R.; Sanjur, O. I.; Thomas, Thousand. 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:10.1073/pnas.1323964111. PMC4035915. PMID 24757054.
  5. ^ a b c Olsen, Chiliad. M.; Wendel, J. F. (2013). "A bountiful harvest: genomic insights into crop domestication phenotypes". Annual Review of Plant Biology. 64: 47–seventy. doi:10.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120048. PMID 23451788.
  6. ^ a b c d Doust, A. N.; Lukens, L.; Olsen, K. M.; Mauro-Herrera, G.; Meyer, A.; Rogers, Thousand. (2014). "Beyond the single cistron: How epistasis and gene-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 e f g h i j k l m n o p q r south t u v due west 10 y z aa ab ac advertizing 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 Due south.; Purugganan, Michael D. (2013). "Development of crop species: Genetics of domestication and diversification". Nature Reviews Genetics. 14 (12): 840–52. doi:ten.1038/nrg3605. PMID 24240513. S2CID 529535.
  9. ^ a b Cost, Edward O. (2008). Principles and Applications of Domestic Animal 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, S. 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:ten.1073/pnas.0901586106. PMC2702791. PMID 19528637.
  11. ^ a b Diamond, Jared (2012). "one". In Gepts, Paul (ed.). Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Development, and Sustainability. Cambridge University Press. p. thirteen.
  12. ^ a b c d e f g h i j yard l m n o p q r s t u v Zeder, Thou. 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 Unhurt, Due east. B. (1969). "Domestication and the evolution of behavior". In Hafez, E. S. East. (ed.). The Behavior of Domestic Animals (2d ed.). London: Bailliere, Tindall, and Cassell. pp. 22–42.
  14. ^ a b Price, Edward O. (1984). "Behavioral aspects of animal domestication". Quarterly Review of Biology. 59 (one): ane–32. doi:x.1086/413673. JSTOR 2827868. S2CID 83908518.
  15. ^ a b c Toll, Edward O. (2002). Brute 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 eastward f g Frantz, L. (2015). "The Development of Suidae". Annual Review of Creature Biosciences. iv: 61–85. doi:10.1146/annurev-brute-021815-111155. PMID 26526544.
  17. ^ a b c d Marshall, F. (2013). "Evaluating the roles of directed breeding and gene flow in animal domestication". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences of the United States 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 Beast Domestication: Whole-genome sequencing challenges old assumptions". BioScience. 65 (1): seven–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, M. (2015). "Man species as the primary predator". The Political Economy of Predation: Manhunting and the Economics of Escape. Cambridge Academy Press. p. 72. ISBN9781107133976.
  21. ^ a b Gepts, Paul, ed. (2012). "ix". Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Development, 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, G. (2012). "Rethinking canis familiaris domestication by integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.s.. 109 (23): 8878–8883. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109.8878L. doi:10.1073/pnas.1203005109. PMC3384140. PMID 22615366.
  24. ^ Perri, Angela (2016). "A wolf in domestic dog's clothing: Initial canis familiaris domestication and Pleistocene wolf variation". Journal of Archaeological Science. 68: 1–iv. 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 due east f Cagan, Alex; Blass, Torsten (2016). "Identification of genomic variants putatively targeted by selection during dog domestication". BMC Evolutionary Biology. 16: x. doi:10.1186/s12862-015-0579-vii. PMC4710014. PMID 26754411.
  27. ^ a b c Frantz, L. (2015). "Evidence of long-term gene period and selection during domestication from analyses of Eurasian wild and domestic pig genomes". Nature Genetics. 47 (10): 1141–1148. doi:10.1038/ng.3394. PMID 26323058. S2CID 205350534.
  28. ^ a b c Pennisi, Eastward. (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, Yard. (2014). "Domestication: Definition and Overview". In Smith, Claire (ed.). Encyclopedia of Global Archæology. New York: Springer Science & Business organisation Media. pp. 2184–2194. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_71. ISBN978-1-4419-0426-3.
  31. ^ Sykes, Naomi (2014). "Creature Revolutions". Beastly Questions: Creature 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 Subcontract Foxes Undermines the Animal Domestication Syndrome". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 35 (2): 125–136. doi:x.1016/j.tree.2019.ten.011. PMID 31810775.
  33. ^ Hammer, 1000. (1984). "Das Domestikationssyndrom". Kulturpflanze. 32: 11–34. doi:ten.1007/bf02098682. S2CID 42389667.
  34. ^ Wilkins, Adam S.; 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 Direction of the Asian Elephant in Domesticity. Bangkok: Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.
  36. ^ Zalloua, Pierre A.; Matisoo-Smith, Elizabeth (vi January 2017). "Mapping Post-Glacial expansions: The Peopling of Southwest 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 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 eastward Machugh, David Eastward.; Larson, Greger; Orlando, Ludovic (2016). "Taming the Past: Ancient Dna and the Study of Fauna Domestication". Annual Review of Animal Biosciences. five: 329–351. doi:x.1146/annurev-animal-022516-022747. PMID 27813680.
  39. ^ Barker, K. (2006). The Agronomical Revolution in Prehistory: Why Did Foragers Go Farmers?. Oxford University Printing. [ folio needed ]
  40. ^ Bocquet-Appel, J. P. (2011). "When the world's population took off: The springboard of the Neolithic Demographic Transition". Science. 333 (6042): 560–561. Bibcode:2011Sci...333..560B. doi:10.1126/scientific discipline.1208880. PMID 21798934. S2CID 29655920.
  41. ^ Fuller DQ, Willcox G, Allaby RG. 2011. Tillage and domestication had multiple origins: arguments against the core expanse hypothesis for the origins of agriculture in the Most East. World Archaeol. 43:628–52
  42. ^ a b c Melinda A. Zeder 2006. Archaeological approaches to documenting brute domestication. In Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms, ed. M.A. Zeder, D.1000 Bradley, E 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 (6): 68–75. Bibcode:2009SciAm.300f..68D. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0609-68. PMC5790555. PMID 19485091.
  44. ^ Valclav Smil, 2011, Harvesting the Biosphere:The Human Affect, Population and Development Review 37(4): 613–636, Table two)
  45. ^ a b c d e f yard h i j k fifty Larson, G. (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 consequence on encephalon construction and behavior," in Intelligence and evolutionary biological science. Edited by H. J. Jerison and I. Jerison, pp. 211–50. New York: Springer-Verlag
  47. ^ Trut, Lyudmila Northward. (1999). "Early Canid Domestication: The Farm-Fox Experiment" (PDF). American Scientist. 87 (March–Apr): 160–169. Bibcode:1999AmSci..87.....T. doi:ten.1511/1999.2.160. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 15, 2010. Retrieved January 12, 2016.
  48. ^ a b c Trut, Lyudmila; Oskina, Irina; Kharlamova, Anastasiya (2009). "Animal development during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model". BioEssays. 31 (3): 349–360. doi:x.1002/bies.200800070. PMC2763232. PMID 19260016.
  49. ^ a b c d Wilkins, Adam S.; Wrangham, Richard W.; Fitch, Westward. Tecumseh (2014). "The "Domestication Syndrome" in Mammals: A Unified Caption Based on Neural Crest Jail cell Behavior and Genetics". Genetics. 197 (3): 795–808. doi:x.1534/genetics.114.165423. PMC4096361. PMID 25024034.
  50. ^ a b c Wright (2015). "The Genetic Compages of Domestication in Animals". Bioinformatics and Biology Insights. 9S4 (Suppl iv): xi–20. doi:10.4137/bbi.s28902. PMC4603525. PMID 26512200.
  51. ^ a b Hemmer, H. (1990). Domestication: The Reject of Ecology Appreciation. Cambridge University Press.
  52. ^ Birks, J. D. S., and A. C. Kitchener. 1999. The distribution and status of the polecat Mustela putorius in Britain 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 ecology of feral dogs and wolves" (PDF). Ethology Ecology & Development. vii (1): 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:x.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 Status. Athens, Georgia, US: University of Georgia Printing.
  57. ^ a b c d due east f g Evin, Allowen; Dobney, Keith; Schafberg, Renate; Owen, Joseph; Vidarsdottir, Una; Larson, Greger; Cucchi, Thomas (2015). "Phenotype and fauna domestication: A study of dental variation betwixt domestic, wild, captive, hybrid and insular Pig" (PDF). BMC Evolutionary Biology. 15: half-dozen. doi:10.1186/s12862-014-0269-x. PMC4328033. PMID 25648385.
  58. ^ Crockford, S. J. (2000). "A commentary on dog evolution: Regional variation, breed development and hybridization with wolves". In Crockford, South. (ed.). Dogs through Time: An Archaeological Perspective. BAR International Serial 889. Oxford: Archaeopress. pp. 11–twenty. 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, North. (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 Beast Domestication". Paleogenomics. Population Genomics. pp. 225–272. doi:ten.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: Prove 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 example of the chicken". Earth Archaeology. 44: 158–169. doi:ten.1080/00438243.2012.646104. S2CID 162265583.
  64. ^ Gibbons, Ann (2016). "How an ancient pope helped make chickens fat". Science. doi:10.1126/scientific discipline.aah7308.
  65. ^ Diamond, Jared (2002). "Evolution, consequences and future of plant and beast domestication" (PDF). Nature. 418 (6898): 700–707. Bibcode:2002Natur.418..700D. doi:ten.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 (ane): 83–95. doi:ten.1007/s10437-012-9126-8. ISSN 1572-9842. S2CID 189903961.
  67. ^ Currat, M.; et al. (2008). "The subconscious side of invasions: Massive introgression past local genes". Evolution. 62 (8): 1908–1920. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00413.ten. PMID 18452573. S2CID 20999005.
  68. ^ Eriksson, Jonas (2008). "Identification of the Xanthous Skin Cistron Reveals a Hybrid Origin of the Domestic Chicken". PLOS Genetics. 4 (2): e1000010. doi:x.1371/journal.pgen.1000010. PMC2265484. PMID 18454198.
  69. ^ Hanotte, O.; Bradley, D. G.; Ochieng, J. Due west.; Verjee, Y.; Hill, E. W.; Rege, J. Eastward. 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, Eastward. L. 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. S.; Herrmann, One thousand.; Hupe, K.; Fernandes, M.; et al. (2003). "Genetic stardom of wildcat (Felis silvestris) populations in Europe, and hybridization with domestic cats in Hungary". Molecular Ecology. 12 (x): 2585–98. doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.2003.01939.x. PMID 12969463. S2CID 25491695.
  72. ^ Jordana, J.; Pares, P. Thou.; Sanchez, A. (1995). "Analysis of genetic-relationships in horse breeds". Journal of Equine Veterinary Scientific discipline. 15 (seven): 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 diversity of honey bees via admixture". Molecular Ecology. 21 (18): 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. seven (1): 7623. Bibcode:2017NatSR...7.7623B. doi:ten.1038/s41598-017-07382-vii. PMC5548776. PMID 28790322.
  75. ^ Freedman, A. (2014). "Genome sequencing highlights the dynamic early history of dogs". PLOS Genetics. ten (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 South.; Hansen, Steffen West. (2002). "Generalization of fear in farm 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 K.; Marks, Henry L. (1997). "Fright-related behaviour in Japanese quail divergently selected for body weight". Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 52 (1–2): 87–98. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01146-X.
  79. ^ Cieslak, M.; 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 showtime of horse domestication". Science. 324 (5926): 485. Bibcode:2009Sci...324..485L. doi:10.1126/science.1172750. PMC5102060. PMID 19390039.
  81. ^ Fang, M.; et al. (2009). "Contrasting mode of evolution at a glaze color locus in wild and domestic pigs". PLOS Genet. 5 (i): 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 organization of defensive beliefs by mice in a dangerous environment with the venomous snake Bothrops alternatus [ Reptilia, Viperidae ] Synapse 2015:north/a–north/a
  83. ^ Coppinger, R.; Schneider, R. (1995). "Evolution of working dogs". The Domestic dog: Its Development, Behaviour and Interactions with People. Cambridge University Press. ISBN9780521425377.

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

Posted by: alemanmility.blogspot.com

0 Response to "When Was The First Domestication Of Animals"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel