banner



Home  ›  What Was The 1st Animal Domesticated By Humans

What Was The 1st Animal Domesticated By Humans

Written By Monday, June 27, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Overview of brute domestication

Dogs and sheep were among the first animals to be domesticated.

The domestication of animals is the mutual relationship between animals and the humans who have influence on their intendance and reproduction.[1]

Charles Darwin recognized a modest number of traits that made domesticated species dissimilar from their wild ancestors. He was also the kickoff to recognize the difference between witting selective breeding in which humans directly select for desirable traits, and unconscious selection where traits evolve as a by-product of natural selection or from selection on other traits.[2] [3] [four] There is a genetic deviation between domestic and wild populations. There is also a genetic difference between the domestication traits that researchers believe to have been essential at the early stages of domestication, and the improvement traits that have appeared since the split between wild and domestic populations.[five] [6] [vii] Domestication traits are generally fixed inside all domesticates, and were selected during the initial episode of domestication of that animal or plant, whereas improvement traits are present only in a proportion of domesticates, though they may be stock-still in individual breeds or regional populations.[six] [7] [eight]

Domestication should non be confused with taming. Taming is the conditioned behavioral modification of a wild-built-in animal when its natural avoidance of humans is reduced and it accepts the presence of humans, simply 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 improve candidates for domestication than others considering they exhibit sure behavioral characteristics: (1) the size and system of their social structure; (2) the availability and the degree of selectivity in their selection of mates; (3) the ease and speed with which the parents bond with their immature, and the maturity and mobility of the young at birth; (4) the caste of flexibility in diet and habitat tolerance; and (five) responses to humans and new environments, including flight responses and reactivity to external stimuli.[12] : Fig ane [13] [fourteen] [fifteen]

Information technology is proposed that there were 3 major pathways that nigh animal domesticates followed into domestication: (1) commensals, adapted to a man niche (e.yard., dogs, cats, fowl, perhaps pigs); (ii) prey animals sought for nutrient (due east.g., sheep, goats, cattle, water buffalo, yak, pig, reindeer, llama, alpaca, and turkey); and (3) targeted animals for typhoon and nonfood resource (due east.g., horse, donkey, camel).[7] [12] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] The dog was the first to be domesticated,[23] [24] and was established beyond Eurasia before the end of the Tardily Pleistocene era, well before cultivation and before the domestication of other animals.[23] Different 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 propose that long-term bidirectional gene flow between wild and domestic stocks – including donkeys, horses, New and Onetime Globe camelids, goats, sheep, and pigs – was common.[seven] [17] One report has concluded that human selection for domestic traits likely counteracted the homogenizing effect of factor flow from wild boars into pigs and created domestication islands in the genome. The aforementioned process may as well apply to other domesticated animals. Some of the most usually domesticated animals are cats and dogs.[27] [28]

Definitions [edit]

Domestication [edit]

Domestication has been defined as "a sustained multi-generational, mutualistic relationship in which one organism assumes a significant caste of influence over the reproduction and care of another organism in order to secure a more predictable supply of a resources of interest, and through which the partner organism gains advantage over individuals that remain exterior 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 effects on both humans and the domesticated animals and plants. All past definitions of domestication take included a relationship between humans with plants and animals, just their differences lay in who was considered as the atomic number 82 partner in the relationship. This new definition recognizes a mutualistic 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 deeply control, 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 non restricted to humans with domestic crops and livestock but is well-documented in nonhuman species, especially among a number of social insect domesticators and their plant and animal domesticates, for example the ant–fungus mutualism that exists between leafcutter ants and certain fungi.[one]

Domestication syndrome [edit]

Traits used to define the animal domestication syndrome[32]

Domestication syndrome is a term oft used to describe the suite of phenotypic traits arising during domestication that distinguish crops from their wild ancestors.[5] [33] The term is also applied to animals and includes increased docility and tameness, coat color changes, reductions in tooth size, changes in craniofacial morphology, alterations in ear and tail grade (e.thou., 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 encephalon size and of particular brain regions.[34] The set of traits used to define the beast 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-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] [eleven] Human being selection included tameness, only without a suitable evolutionary response then domestication was non achieved.[7] Domestic animals demand not exist tame in the behavioral sense, such as the Spanish fighting bull. Wild animals can be tame, such as a mitt-raised cheetah. A domestic animal's breeding is controlled past humans and its tameness and tolerance of humans is genetically determined. Withal, an animal merely bred in captivity is not necessarily domesticated. Tigers, gorillas, and polar bears brood readily in captivity but are non domesticated.[10] Asian elephants are wild animals that with taming manifest outward signs of domestication, all the same their convenance is non human controlled and thus they are non true domesticates.[10] [35]

History, cause and timing [edit]

Evolution of temperatures in the postglacial period, afterwards the Concluding Glacial Maximum, showing very low temperatures for the near part of the Younger Dryas, apace ascension after to attain 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 elevation of the Last Glacial Maximum around 21,000 years ago and which continue to this present day. These changes made obtaining food difficult. The first domesticate was the domestic domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) from a wolf ancestor (Canis lupus) at least xv,000 years ago. The Younger Dryas that occurred 12,900 years ago was a period of intense cold and aridity that put pressure level on humans to intensify their foraging strategies. Past the first of the Holocene from eleven,700 years ago, favorable climatic conditions and increasing human populations led to modest animal and constitute domestication, which allowed humans to augment the food that they were obtaining through hunter-gathering.[37]

The increased apply of agriculture and connected domestication of species during the Neolithic transition marked the get-go 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 agronomics, 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 South and Central America.

In the Fertile Crescent x,000-eleven,000 years ago, zooarchaeology indicates that goats, pigs, sheep, and taurine cattle were the first livestock to exist domesticated. Archaeologists working in Cyprus establish an older burial ground, approximately 9500 years old, of an adult homo with a feline skeleton.[43] Two chiliad years later on, humped zebu cattle were domesticated in what is today Baluchistan in Pakistan. In East asia 8,000 years ago, pigs were domesticated from wild boar that were genetically different from those found in the Fertile Crescent. The horse was domesticated on the Central Asian steppe v,500 years agone. The chicken in Southeast Asia was domesticated 4,000 years agone.[37]

Universal features [edit]

The biomass of wild vertebrates is at present increasingly small compared to the biomass of domestic animals, with the calculated biomass of domestic cattle solitary beingness greater than that of all wild mammals.[44] Because the development of domestic animals is ongoing, the process of domestication has a starting time only not an end. Various criteria have been established to provide a definition of domestic animals, merely all decisions about exactly when an animate being tin exist labelled "domesticated" in the zoological sense are arbitrary, although potentially useful.[45] Domestication is a fluid and nonlinear process that may outset, finish, opposite, or go down unexpected paths with no clear or universal threshold that separates the wild from the domestic. However, there are universal features held in common by all domesticated animals.[12]

Behavioral preadaption [edit]

Certain brute species, and certain individuals within those species, make better candidates for domestication than others because they exhibit sure behavioral characteristics: (1) the size and organization of their social construction; (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 immature, and the maturity and mobility of the young at nascence; (four) the caste of flexibility in nutrition and habitat tolerance; and (five) responses to humans and new environments, including flying responses and reactivity to external stimuli.[12] : Fig 1 [13] [14] [xv] 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 also the primary target of the selective pressures experienced by the animal undergoing domestication.[7] [12] This implies that not all animals tin be domesticated, eastward.g. a wild member of the horse family, the zebra.[vii] [42]

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

Hereford cattle, domesticated for beef production.

  1. Efficient diet – Animals that can efficiently process what they consume and alive off plants are less expensive to keep in captivity. Carnivores feed on flesh, which would crave the domesticators to raise additional animals to feed the carnivores and therefore increase the consumption of plants further.
  2. Quick growth rate – Fast maturity rate compared to the human life span allows breeding intervention and makes the creature useful inside an acceptable duration of caretaking. Some large animals require many years before they reach a useful size.
  3. Ability to breed in captivity – Animals that volition not breed in captivity are limited to acquisition through capture in the wild.
  4. Pleasant disposition – Animals with nasty dispositions are dangerous to proceed effectually humans.
  5. Tendency non to panic – Some species are nervous, fast, and decumbent 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 home territories rather than mutually exclusive abode territories. This organisation allows humans to take command of the authorisation hierarchy.

Brain size and role [edit]

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

The sustained selection for lowered reactivity amongst mammal domesticates has resulted in profound changes in brain form and function. The larger the size of the brain to brainstorm 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 height and width and by inference in encephalon size,[12] [47] which supports the hypothesis that encephalon-size reduction is an early on response to the selective pressure for tameness and lowered reactivity that is the universal feature of animal domestication.[12] The most affected portion of the encephalon in domestic mammals is the limbic organisation, which in domestic dogs, pigs, and sheep show a forty% reduction in size compared with their wild species. This portion of the brain regulates endocrine office 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 one gene influences ii or more seemingly unrelated phenotypic traits. Sure physiological changes narrate domestic animals of many species. These changes include extensive white markings (particularly on the caput), 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 fear and stress responses via reduction of the adrenal glands.[48] Based on this, the pleiotropy hypotheses tin be separated into ii theories. The Neural Crest Hypothesis relates adrenal gland role to deficits in neural crest cells during development. The Unmarried Genetic Regulatory Network Hypothesis claims that genetic changes in upstream regulators bear upon downstream systems.[49] [50]

Neural crest cells (NCC) are vertebrate embryonic stem cells that function directly and indirectly during early embryogenesis to produce many tissue types.[49] Considering the traits commonly afflicted by domestication syndrome are all derived from NCC in evolution, the neural crest hypothesis suggests that deficits in these cells crusade 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) as well equally curly tails (pigs, foxes, and dogs). Although they do not affect the development of the adrenal cortex directly, the neural crest cells may be involved in relevant upstream embryological interactions.[49] Furthermore, artificial selection targeting tameness may touch on genes that control the concentration or motion of NCCs in the embryo, leading to a diverseness of phenotypes.[fifty]

The single 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 be caused by a linkage in the biochemical pathways of melanins involved in coat coloration and neurotransmitters such every bit dopamine that assistance shape behavior and noesis.[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 gene networks that crusade dramatic effects that are not lethal, however no currently known genetic regulatory networks cause such dramatic change in then many different traits.[49]

Limited reversion [edit]

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

Categories [edit]

Domestication tin can be considered as the terminal phase of intensification in the relationship between animal or establish sub-populations and homo societies, only it is divided into several grades of intensification.[55] For studies in animal domestication, researchers take proposed five distinct categories: wild, convict wild, domestic, cross-breeds and feral.[fifteen] [56] [57]

Wild animals
Subject to natural selection, although the activeness of past demographic events and bogus pick induced by game management or habitat destruction cannot be excluded.[57]
Captive wild animals
Directly afflicted by a relaxation of natural selection associated with feeding, convenance and protection/solitude by humans, and an intensification of artificial pick 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 choice associated with captivity and management.[57]
Cross-breed animals
Genetic hybrids of wild and domestic parents. They may be forms intermediate between both parents, forms more than similar to i parent than the other, or unique forms distinct from both parents. Hybrids tin can exist intentionally bred for specific characteristics or tin can ascend unintentionally every bit the result of contact with wild individuals.[57]
Feral animals
Domesticates that have returned to a wild land. As such, they experience relaxed artificial selection induced by the captive environment paired with intensified natural selection induced by the wild habitat.[57]

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

Pathways [edit]

Since 2012, a multi-stage model of animal domestication has been accustomed past 2 groups. The first grouping proposed that animal domestication proceeded along a continuum of stages from anthropophily, commensalism, control in the wild, control of captive animals, extensive convenance, intensive breeding, and finally to pets in a deadening, gradually intensifying relationship between humans and animals.[45] [55]

The 2nd group proposed that there were three major pathways that well-nigh animal domesticates followed into domestication: (i) commensals, adapted to a human being niche (e.k., dogs, cats, fowl, perchance pigs); (two) prey animals sought for nutrient (e.m., sheep, goats, cattle, water buffalo, yak, pig, reindeer, llama and alpaca); and (three) targeted animals for typhoon and nonfood resources (e.g., horse, donkey, camel).[7] [12] [16] [17] [eighteen] [19] [20] [21] [22] The beginnings of beast domestication involved a protracted coevolutionary process with multiple stages forth different pathways. Humans did not intend to domesticate animals from, or at to the lowest degree they did not envision a domesticated animal resulting from, either the commensal or prey pathways. In both of these cases, humans became entangled with these species as the relationship between them, and the human role in their survival and reproduction, intensified.[seven] Although the directed pathway proceeded from capture to taming, the other two pathways are not equally goal-oriented and archaeological records advise that they take place over much longer fourth dimension frames.[45]

Commensal pathway [edit]

The commensal pathway was traveled by vertebrates that fed on refuse effectually human being habitats or past animals that preyed on other animals drawn to human camps. Those animals established a commensal relationship with humans in which the animals benefited merely the humans received no harm but little do good. Those animals that were most capable of taking advantage of the resources associated with human camps would have been the tamer, less aggressive individuals with shorter fight or flight distances.[58] [59] [60] Later, these animals adult closer social or economical bonds with humans that led to a domestic relationship.[seven] [12] [16] The spring from a synanthropic population to a domestic 1 could merely have taken place after the animals had progressed from anthropophily to habituation, to commensalism and partnership, when the relationship between brute and human would have laid the foundation for domestication, including captivity and human-controlled breeding. From this perspective, animal domestication is a coevolutionary process in which a population responds to selective pressure while adapting to a novel niche that included another species with evolving behaviors.[7] Commensal pathway animals include dogs, cats, fowl, and perhaps pigs.[23]

The domestication of animals commenced over 15,000 years before present (YBP), offset with the greyness wolf (Canis lupus) by nomadic hunter-gatherers. It was not until eleven,000 YBP that people living in the Most Eastward entered into relationships with wild populations of aurochs, boar, sheep, and goats. A domestication procedure so 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 because only a minor number of aboriginal specimens have been found, and both archaeology and genetics continue to provide conflicting show. The nigh widely accepted, earliest dog remains date back 15,000 YBP to the Bonn–Oberkassel dog. Earlier remains dating back to 30,000 YBP have been described as Paleolithic dogs, all the same their status every bit dogs or wolves remains debated. Contempo studies signal that a genetic divergence occurred between dogs and wolves 20,000–40,000 YBP, nonetheless this is the upper time-limit for domestication because it represents the time of divergence and non the time of domestication.[61]

The chicken is 1 of the most widespread domesticated species and one of the homo world's largest sources of protein. Although the chicken was domesticated in South-East Asia, archaeological testify 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 regal zoos, and so they were not originally a prey species.[62] [63] The chicken was non a pop food in Europe until only one thousand years ago.[64]

Casualty pathway [edit]

Domesticated dairy cows in North Bharat

The prey pathway was the manner in which most major livestock species entered into domestication as these were in one case hunted past humans for their meat. Domestication was likely initiated when humans began to experiment with hunting strategies designed to increase the availability of these casualty, perhaps every bit a response to localized force per unit area on the supply of the animate being. Over fourth dimension and with the more responsive species, these game-direction strategies developed into herd-management strategies that included the sustained multi-generational command over the animals' move, 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 aforementioned domestication syndrome traits institute in the commensal domesticates.[7] [12] [16]

Prey pathway animals include sheep, goats, cattle, water buffalo, yak, pig, reindeer, llama and alpaca. The right weather condition for the domestication for some of them announced to accept been in place in the central and eastern Fertile Crescent at the end of the Younger Dryas climatic downturn and the commencement of the Early Holocene virtually 11,700 YBP, and by x,000 YBP people were preferentially killing young males of a variety of species and allowed the females to live in order to produce more offspring.[7] [12] By measuring the size, sex ratios, and bloodshed 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 contempo demographic and metrical written report of cow and pig remains at Sha'ar Hagolan, Israel, demonstrated that both species were severely overhunted before domestication, suggesting that the intensive exploitation led to direction strategies adopted throughout the region that ultimately led to the domestication of these populations following the prey pathway. This pattern of overhunting earlier domestication suggests that the prey pathway was as accidental and unintentional as the commensal pathway.[7] [16]

Directed pathway [edit]

Kazakh shepherd with horse and dogs. Their task is to guard 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. Information technology probably only came into being once people were familiar with either commensal or prey-pathway domesticated animals. These animals were likely not to possess many of the behavioral preadaptions some species show before domestication. Therefore, the domestication of these animals requires more deliberate try by humans to work around behaviors that do non assist domestication, with increased technological aid 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 Old Earth camels were sometimes hunted every bit prey species, they were each deliberately brought into the human niche for sources of ship. Domestication was withal a multi-generational adaptation to human selection pressures, including tameness, but without a suitable evolutionary response then domestication was not achieved.[7] For case, despite the fact that hunters of the Near Eastern gazelle in the Epipaleolithic avoided alternative reproductive females to promote population residual, neither gazelles[vii] [42] nor zebras[7] [65] possessed the necessary prerequisites and were never domesticated. At that place is no clear evidence for the domestication of whatsoever herded prey animal in Africa,[7] with the notable exception of the donkey, which was domesticated in Northeast Africa erstwhile in the 4th millennium BCE.[66]

Multiple pathways [edit]

The pathways that animals may have followed are not mutually exclusive. Pigs, for instance, may take been domesticated as their populations became accustomed to the human niche, which would suggest a commensal pathway, or they may have been hunted and followed a prey pathway, or both.[7] [12] [sixteen]

Post-domestication factor period [edit]

As agricultural societies migrated away from the domestication centers taking their domestic partners with them, they encountered populations of wild animals of the same or sis species. Considering domestics often shared a contempo 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 between the two somewhen led to the domestic population becoming more genetically divergent from its original domestic source population.[45] [67]

Advances in DNA sequencing technology permit the nuclear genome to be accessed and analyzed in a population genetics framework. The increased resolution of nuclear sequences has demonstrated that gene period is common, not but between geographically various domestic populations of the same species but also between domestic populations and wild species that never gave ascension to a domestic population.[vii]

  • The xanthous leg trait possessed past numerous modern commercial craven breeds was acquired via introgression from the grayness junglefowl ethnic to South Asia.[vii] [68]
  • African cattle are hybrids that possess both a European Taurine cattle maternal mitochondrial point and an Asian Indicine cattle paternal Y-chromosome signature.[vii] [69]
  • Numerous other bovid species, including bison, yak, banteng, and gaur also hybridize with ease.[7] [70]
  • Cats[7] [71] and horses[seven] [72] have been shown to hybridize with many closely related species.
  • Domestic honey bees have mated with so many dissimilar species they now possess genomes more variable than their original wild progenitors.[7] [73]

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

The consequence of this introgression is that modernistic domestic populations can often appear to take much greater genomic affinity to wild populations that were never involved in the original domestication process. Therefore, information technology is proposed that the term "domestication" should be reserved solely for the initial process of domestication of a discrete population in time and space. Subsequent admixture between introduced domestic populations and local wild populations that were never domesticated should be referred to as "introgressive capture". Conflating these two processes muddles our understanding of the original process and tin lead to an artificial inflation of the number of times domestication took place.[7] [45] This introgression can, in some cases, exist regarded equally adaptive introgression, as observed in domestic sheep due to gene menstruum with the wild European Mouflon.[74]

The sustained admixture between different dog and wolf populations across the Old and New Worlds over at to the lowest degree the last 10,000 years has blurred the genetic signatures and confounded efforts of researchers at pinpointing the origins of dogs.[23] None of the modernistic wolf populations are related to the Pleistocene wolves that were first domesticated,[vii] [75] and the extinction of the wolves that were the direct ancestors of dogs has muddied efforts to pinpoint the time and place of dog domestication.[7]

Positive selection [edit]

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

Domestic animals have variations in coat color and craniofacial morphology, reduced encephalon size, floppy ears, and changes in the endocrine arrangement and their reproductive bicycle. The domesticated silverish fox experiment demonstrated that option 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 choice for a behavioral trait, and domestic behavioral traits could arise through the pick for a phenotypic trait, these experiments provided a mechanism to explicate how the animal domestication process could have begun without deliberate man forethought and activeness.[45] In the 1980s, a researcher used a set of behavioral, cognitive, and visible phenotypic markers, such as coat color, to produce domesticated dormant deer within a few generations.[45] [76] Similar results for tameness and fright accept been found for mink[77] and Japanese quail.[78]

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

The genetic difference betwixt domestic and wild populations tin can exist framed within two considerations. The showtime distinguishes between domestication traits that are presumed to accept been essential at the early stages of domestication, and improvement traits that have appeared since the dissever between wild and domestic populations.[5] [six] [vii] Domestication traits are generally stock-still inside 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 individual breeds or regional populations.[6] [7] [8] A second issue is whether traits associated with the domestication syndrome resulted from a relaxation of selection equally animals exited the wild surroundings or from positive selection resulting from intentional and unintentional human preference. Some contempo genomic studies on the genetic basis of traits associated with the domestication syndrome accept shed light on both of these issues.[7]

Geneticists have identified more than 300 genetic loci and 150 genes associated with coat colour variability.[45] [79] Knowing the mutations associated with unlike colors has allowed some correlation between the timing of the advent of variable coat colors in horses with the timing of their domestication.[45] [lxxx] Other studies have shown how human-induced selection is responsible for the allelic variation in pigs.[45] [81] Together, these insights suggest that, although natural choice has kept variation to a minimum before domestication, humans take actively selected for novel glaze colors as shortly equally they appeared in managed populations.[45] [51]

In 2015, a report looked at over 100 grunter 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 between wild and domestic forms, but the study found that the supposition of reproductive isolation with population bottlenecks was not supported. The written report indicated that pigs were domesticated separately in Western Asia and China, with Western Asian pigs introduced into Europe where they crossed with wild boar. A model that fitted the data included admixture with a now extinct ghost population of wild pigs during the Pleistocene. The written report likewise institute that despite back-crossing with wild pigs, the genomes of domestic pigs have strong signatures of pick at genetic loci that bear upon behavior and morphology. The study concluded that human being selection for domestic traits likely counteracted the homogenizing effect of factor flow from wild boars and created domestication islands in the genome. The aforementioned process may besides employ to other domesticated animals.[27] [28]

Different other domestic species which were primarily selected for product-related traits, dogs were initially selected for their behaviors.[25] [26] In 2016, a report found that there were only 11 fixed genes that showed variation between wolves and dogs. These cistron variations were unlikely to have been the result of natural development, and indicate pick on both morphology and behavior during canis familiaris domestication. These genes take been shown to affect the catecholamine synthesis pathway, with the majority of the genes affecting the fight-or-flying response[26] [82] (i.east. option for tameness), and emotional processing.[26] Dogs generally bear witness reduced fear and aggression compared to wolves.[26] [83] Some of these genes have been associated with aggression in some dog breeds, indicating their importance in both the initial domestication and and then afterwards in breed formation.[26]

Run into also [edit]

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

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b c Zeder, M. A. (2015). "Cadre questions in domestication Research". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.s.a. of America. 112 (11): 3191–3198. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112.3191Z. doi:10.1073/pnas.1501711112. PMC4371924. PMID 25713127.
  2. ^ a b Darwin, Charles (1868). The Variation of Animals and Plants Nether 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, Yard.; Piperno, D. R.; Allaby, R. Thou.; Purugganan, Chiliad. D.; Andersson, Fifty.; Arroyo-Kalin, M.; Barton, L.; Climer Vigueira, C.; Denham, T.; Dobney, K.; Doust, A. N.; Gepts, Paul; Gilbert, Thou. T. P.; Gremillion, K. J.; Lucas, L.; Lukens, L.; Marshall, F. B.; Olsen, K. M.; Pires, J. C.; Richerson, P. J.; Rubio De Casas, R.; Sanjur, O. I.; Thomas, M. G.; Fuller, D. Q. (2014). "Electric current perspectives and the future of domestication studies". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (17): 6139–6146. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.6139L. doi:ten.1073/pnas.1323964111. PMC4035915. PMID 24757054.
  5. ^ a b c Olsen, Thou. M.; Wendel, J. F. (2013). "A bountiful harvest: genomic insights into crop domestication phenotypes". Almanac Review of Found 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. Thou.; Mauro-Herrera, M.; Meyer, A.; Rogers, Chiliad. (2014). "Beyond the unmarried gene: How epistasis and cistron-by-surroundings furnishings 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 thousand 50 m n o p q r s t u v w ten y z aa ab air-conditioning advertising ae af ag ah ai aj Larson, G. (2014). "The Evolution of Animal Domestication" (PDF). Annual Review of Ecology, 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 crop species: Genetics of domestication and diversification". Nature Reviews Genetics. fourteen (12): 840–52. doi:10.1038/nrg3605. PMID 24240513. S2CID 529535.
  9. ^ a b Toll, Edward O. (2008). Principles and Applications of Domestic Fauna Beliefs: An Introductory Text. Cambridge Academy Press. ISBN9781780640556 . Retrieved January 21, 2016.
  10. ^ a b c d Driscoll, C. A.; MacDonald, D. West.; 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:10.1073/pnas.0901586106. PMC2702791. PMID 19528637.
  11. ^ a b Diamond, Jared (2012). "1". In Gepts, Paul (ed.). Biodiversity in Agronomics: Domestication, Development, and Sustainability. Cambridge University Press. p. xiii.
  12. ^ a b c d east f thousand h i j grand l m n o p q r southward t u v Zeder, M. A. (2012). "The domestication of animals". Journal of Anthropological Research. 68 (two): 161–190. doi:10.3998/jar.0521004.0068.201. S2CID 85348232.
  13. ^ a b Hale, East. B. (1969). "Domestication and the evolution of behavior". In Hafez, E. S. Eastward. (ed.). The Behavior of Domestic Animals (2nd ed.). London: Bailliere, Tindall, and Cassell. pp. 22–42.
  14. ^ a b Cost, Edward O. (1984). "Behavioral aspects of animal domestication". Quarterly Review of Biology. 59 (1): 1–32. doi:10.1086/413673. JSTOR 2827868. S2CID 83908518.
  15. ^ a b c Toll, Edward O. (2002). Animal Domestication and Behavior (PDF). Wallingford, England: CABI Publishing. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-05-17. Retrieved 2016-02-26 .
  16. ^ a b c d e f g Frantz, 50. (2015). "The Evolution of Suidae". Annual Review of Animal Biosciences. 4: 61–85. doi:ten.1146/annurev-animal-021815-111155. PMID 26526544.
  17. ^ a b c d Marshall, F. (2013). "Evaluating the roles of directed convenance 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 onetime assumptions". BioScience. 65 (1): 7–13. 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, G. (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). "9". Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability. Cambridge University Press. pp. 227–259.
  22. ^ a b Pontarotti, Pierre, ed. (2015). Evolutionary Biology: Biodiversification from Genotype to Phenotype. Springer International. p. 397.
  23. ^ a b c d Larson, Thousand. (2012). "Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United states. 109 (23): 8878–8883. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109.8878L. doi:10.1073/pnas.1203005109. PMC3384140. PMID 22615366.
  24. ^ Perri, Angela (2016). "A wolf in dog's wear: Initial canis familiaris domestication and Pleistocene wolf variation". Journal of Archaeological Scientific discipline. 68: one–4. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2016.02.003.
  25. ^ a b Serpell, J.; Duffy, D. (2014). "Domestic dog Breeds and Their Behavior". Domestic dog Knowledge and Behavior. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer.
  26. ^ a b c d east f Cagan, Alex; Blass, Torsten (2016). "Identification of genomic variants putatively targeted by choice during dog domestication". BMC Evolutionary Biological science. 16: ten. doi:10.1186/s12862-015-0579-7. PMC4710014. PMID 26754411.
  27. ^ a b c Frantz, Fifty. (2015). "Evidence of long-term gene flow and pick during domestication from analyses of Eurasian wild and domestic pig genomes". Nature Genetics. 47 (x): 1141–1148. doi:10.1038/ng.3394. PMID 26323058. S2CID 205350534.
  28. ^ a b c Pennisi, E. (2015). "The taming of the grunter 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, Grand. (2014). "Domestication: Definition and Overview". In Smith, Claire (ed.). Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. New York: Springer Science & Business concern Media. pp. 2184–2194. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_71. ISBN978-1-4419-0426-3.
  31. ^ Sykes, Naomi (2014). "Animal Revolutions". Beastly Questions: Animate being Answers to Archaeological Problems. Bloomsbury Academic. 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 Environmental & Evolution. 35 (2): 125–136. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2019.10.011. PMID 31810775.
  33. ^ Hammer, One thousand. (1984). "Das Domestikationssyndrom". Kulturpflanze. 32: 11–34. doi:10.1007/bf02098682. S2CID 42389667.
  34. ^ Wilkins, Adam South.; Wrangham, Richard W.; Fitch, W. 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 Management of the Asian Elephant in Domesticity. Bangkok: Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.
  36. ^ Zalloua, Pierre A.; Matisoo-Smith, Elizabeth (6 January 2017). "Mapping Post-Glacial expansions: The Peopling of Western asia". Scientific Reports. 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 Deoxyribonucleic acid and paleogenomics". BMC Biology. 17 (1): 98. doi:10.1186/s12915-019-0724-vii. PMC6889691. PMID 31791340.
  38. ^ a b c d e Machugh, David E.; Larson, Greger; Orlando, Ludovic (2016). "Taming the Past: Ancient Deoxyribonucleic acid and the Study of Brute Domestication". Annual Review of Beast Biosciences. 5: 329–351. doi:ten.1146/annurev-brute-022516-022747. PMID 27813680.
  39. ^ Barker, Thousand. (2006). The Agricultural Revolution in Prehistory: Why Did Foragers Become Farmers?. Oxford University Press. [ folio needed ]
  40. ^ Bocquet-Appel, J. P. (2011). "When the world's population took off: The springboard of the Neolithic Demographic Transition". Scientific discipline. 333 (6042): 560–561. Bibcode:2011Sci...333..560B. doi:10.1126/science.1208880. PMID 21798934. S2CID 29655920.
  41. ^ Fuller DQ, Willcox G, Allaby RG. 2011. Cultivation and domestication had multiple origins: arguments confronting 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.Chiliad 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 (six): 68–75. Bibcode:2009SciAm.300f..68D. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0609-68. PMC5790555. PMID 19485091.
  44. ^ Valclav Smil, 2011, Harvesting the Biosphere:The Man Affect, Population and Development Review 37(4): 613–636, Table 2)
  45. ^ a b c d e f thousand h i j k l Larson, G. (2013). "A population genetics view of brute 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 result on brain structure and beliefs," in Intelligence and evolutionary biology. Edited by H. J. Jerison and I. Jerison, pp. 211–50. New York: Springer-Verlag
  47. ^ Trut, Lyudmila N. (1999). "Early on Canid Domestication: The Farm-Flim-flam 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 (iii): 349–360. doi:x.1002/bies.200800070. PMC2763232. PMID 19260016.
  49. ^ a b c d Wilkins, Adam S.; Wrangham, Richard W.; Fitch, Due west. Tecumseh (2014). "The "Domestication Syndrome" in Mammals: A Unified Explanation Based on Neural Crest Cell Behavior and Genetics". Genetics. 197 (iii): 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 Biological science Insights. 9S4 (Suppl 4): eleven–20. doi:10.4137/bbi.s28902. PMC4603525. PMID 26512200.
  51. ^ a b Hemmer, H. (1990). Domestication: The Decline of Environmental Appreciation. Cambridge University Press.
  52. ^ Birks, J. D. S., and A. C. Kitchener. 1999. The distribution and status of the polecat Mustela putorius in Britain 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, Fifty.; Ciucci, P. (1995). "Comparative social ecology of feral dogs and wolves" (PDF). Ethology Ecology & Development. seven (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 modify in the history of humanity and the biosphere". Comptes Rendus Biologies. 334 (3): 171–181. doi:ten.1016/j.crvi.2010.12.009. PMID 21377611.
  56. ^ Mayer, J. J.; Brisbin, I. L. (1991). Wild Pigs in the United states: Their History, Comparative Morphology, and Current Status. Athens, Georgia, Us: University of Georgia Press.
  57. ^ a b c d e f g Evin, Allowen; Dobney, Keith; Schafberg, Renate; Owen, Joseph; Vidarsdottir, Una; Larson, Greger; Cucchi, Thomas (2015). "Phenotype and animal domestication: A report of dental variation between domestic, wild, captive, hybrid and insular Sus scrofa" (PDF). BMC Evolutionary Biological science. 15: 6. doi:10.1186/s12862-014-0269-x. PMC4328033. PMID 25648385.
  58. ^ Crockford, S. J. (2000). "A commentary on dog development: Regional variation, breed development and hybridization with wolves". In Crockford, S. (ed.). Dogs through Time: An Archaeological Perspective. BAR International Series 889. Oxford: Archaeopress. pp. 11–20. ISBN978-1841710891.
  59. ^ Coppinger, Raymond; Coppinger, Laura (2001). Dogs: A Startling New Agreement of Canine Origin, Behavior & Evolution . Scribner. ISBN978-0684855301. [ page needed ]
  60. ^ Russell, N. (2012). Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and Animals in Prehistory. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-14311-0.
  61. ^ Irving-Pease, Evan M.; Ryan, Hannah; Jamieson, Alexandra; Dimopoulos, Evangelos A.; Larson, Greger; Frantz, Laurent A. F. (2018). "Paleogenomics of Fauna Domestication". Paleogenomics. Population Genomics. pp. 225–272. doi:10.1007/13836_2018_55. ISBN978-3-030-04752-viii.
  62. ^ a b Perry-Gal, Lee; Erlich, Adi; Gilboa, Ayelet; Bar-Oz, Guy (2015). "Primeval economic exploitation of chicken outside Eastern asia: Evidence from the Hellenistic Southern Levant". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences. 112 (32): 9849–9854. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112.9849P. doi:10.1073/pnas.1504236112. PMC4538678. PMID 26195775.
  63. ^ Sykes, Naomi (2012). "A social perspective on the introduction of exotic animals: The case of the chicken". World Archaeology. 44: 158–169. doi:10.1080/00438243.2012.646104. S2CID 162265583.
  64. ^ Gibbons, Ann (2016). "How an ancient pope helped make chickens fat". Science. doi:10.1126/scientific discipline.aah7308.
  65. ^ Diamond, Jared (2002). "Evolution, consequences and future of plant and animal domestication" (PDF). Nature. 418 (6898): 700–707. Bibcode:2002Natur.418..700D. doi:10.1038/nature01019. PMID 12167878. S2CID 205209520.
  66. ^ Kimura, Birgitta; Marshall, Fiona; Beja-Pereira, Albano; Mulligan, Connie (2013-03-01). "Donkey Domestication". African Archaeological Review. 30 (1): 83–95. doi:x.1007/s10437-012-9126-viii. ISSN 1572-9842. S2CID 189903961.
  67. ^ Currat, M.; et al. (2008). "The hidden side of invasions: Massive introgression by local genes". Development. 62 (8): 1908–1920. doi:x.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00413.x. PMID 18452573. S2CID 20999005.
  68. ^ Eriksson, Jonas (2008). "Identification of the Xanthous Peel Gene Reveals a Hybrid Origin of the Domestic Chicken". PLOS Genetics. 4 (two): e1000010. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000010. PMC2265484. PMID 18454198.
  69. ^ Hanotte, O.; Bradley, D. G.; Ochieng, J. Westward.; Verjee, Y.; Hill, Due east. W.; Rege, J. Eastward. O. (2002). "African pastoralism: genetic imprints of origins and migrations". Science. 296 (5566): 336–39. Bibcode:2002Sci...296..336H. doi:x.1126/science.1069878. PMID 11951043. S2CID 30291909.
  70. ^ Verkaar, East. 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, M.; Biro, Z. S.; Herrmann, M.; Hupe, K.; Fernandes, M.; et al. (2003). "Genetic distinction of mutiny (Felis silvestris) populations in Europe, and hybridization with domestic cats in Republic of hungary". Molecular Ecology. 12 (10): 2585–98. doi:ten.1046/j.1365-294x.2003.01939.ten. PMID 12969463. S2CID 25491695.
  72. ^ Jordana, J.; Pares, P. 1000.; Sanchez, A. (1995). "Analysis of genetic-relationships in horse breeds". Journal of Equine Veterinary Scientific discipline. 15 (7): 320–328. doi:10.1016/s0737-0806(06)81738-7.
  73. ^ Harpur, B. A.; Minaei, S.; Kent, C. F.; Zayed, A. (2012). "Management increases genetic diverseness of honey bees via admixture". Molecular Environmental. 21 (xviii): 4414–21. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2012.05614.10. PMID 22564213.
  74. ^ Barbato, Mario; Hailer, Frank; Orozco-terWengel, Pablo; Kijas, James; Mereu, Paolo; Cabras, Pierangela; Mazza, Raffaele; Pirastru, Monica; Bruford, Michael Westward. (2017). "Genomic signatures of adaptive introgression from European mouflon into domestic sheep". Scientific Reports. 7 (1): 7623. Bibcode:2017NatSR...7.7623B. doi:ten.1038/s41598-017-07382-7. PMC5548776. PMID 28790322.
  75. ^ Freedman, A. (2014). "Genome sequencing highlights the dynamic early history of dogs". PLOS Genetics. x (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 S.; Hansen, Steffen W. (2002). "Generalization of fright in subcontract mink, Mustela vison, genetically selected for behaviour towards humans" (PDF). Animate being 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). "Fear-related behaviour in Japanese quail divergently selected for trunk 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 (four): 885–899. doi:ten.1111/j.1469-185x.2011.00177.ten. PMID 21443614. S2CID 24056549.
  80. ^ Ludwig, A.; et al. (2009). "Glaze color variation at the beginning of horse domestication". Science. 324 (5926): 485. Bibcode:2009Sci...324..485L. doi:10.1126/science.1172750. PMC5102060. PMID 19390039.
  81. ^ Fang, Yard.; et al. (2009). "Contrasting way of evolution at a glaze color locus in wild and domestic pigs". PLOS Genet. 5 (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 organization of defensive beliefs by mice in a dangerous environment with the venomous snake Bothrops alternatus [ Reptilia, Viperidae ] Synapse 2015:n/a–north/a
  83. ^ Coppinger, R.; Schneider, R. (1995). "Evolution of working dogs". The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People. Cambridge University Printing. ISBN9780521425377.

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

Posted by: castillejaevembee1956.blogspot.com

0 Response to "What Was The 1st Animal Domesticated By Humans"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel