Science

13017 readers

73 users here now

Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Space

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Our ancestors may have kept foxes as pets long before domestic dogs came on the scene (www.bbc.com)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archaeological evidence suggests ancient human societies in South America revered foxes to such an extent that they were buried next to them.

Scientists were surprised to find a fox buried in a human grave dating back 1,500 years in Patagonia, Argentina.

They think the most likely explanation is that the fox was a highly valued companion or pet.

DNA analysis shows the animal dined with prehistoric hunter gatherers and was part of the inner circle of the camp.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

After the arrival of Europeans, native American dogs almost completely disappeared, leaving a minimal genetic legacy in modern dog populations.

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7116273/

I did not do a very deep dive but it looks like there were "domesticated" dogs in the Americans prior to Europeans, but they were almost completely replaced by their European counterparts. This leads me to believe the European versions were far superior for the intended usage. If the American version was indeed significantly inferior for their intended purposes, they may have been at or below the effectiveness/usefulness levels of semi-domesticated animals, like foxes.

Edit: The_Sasswagon brings up a good point about the effects of potential European diseases on American dogs.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't think that is a safe conclusion at all, the colonial Europeans were pretty notorious for removing anything or anyone or anything they didn't see as civilized in the Americas. They also brought disease that wiped out an astounding number of the native people. From an also uninformed view it would be just as likely the native dogs suffered a similar fate, or simply disbanded and roamed free when their companions died.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

That's a good point about disease and I think it could be a potential cause of the low genetic prevalence.

I don't know about your roaming free option. I think if that were true, there would still be wild packs today or there would have been roving dog packs mentioned in historical text (possible but I don't recall any mention of them). Alternatively, they would have inter-breed with European varieties and had a more significant impact on genetics, but that's not seen.

While I agree that Europeans liked to remove/exterminate "uncivilized" things, that mostly applies to people. I suspect if the American dogs were significantly useful they would have made use of them.

This conversation allowed me to recall that the plains tribes utilized dogs as pack animals. Then once horses made their way onto the scene those tribes switched from dogs to horses for that role. I'm not sure what other "jobs" American dogs performed but I suspect if they were significantly utilized as pack animals they were probably breed for such and with that niche gone they may not have performed well in other "dog" tasks, compared to European varieties.

To conclude, for American dogs to be such a small percent of the current dog genome, I think, the European varieties had to significantly outlive their American counterparts. Whether because they were replaced by better performing European varieties/horses, because they died from European diseases, or a combination of those options.