DNA supports the wolf ancestory.

Ancestory is something we have in common with many primates. Unless you can trace maternal DNA to a specific mother of a population this means crap in the discussion of the development of what we know as dogs in our cultures.

Lee,
You need to get a handle on sociobiology. The very arguments you have trying to support the tame wolf approach fall towards the wolf reject approach that Coppinger theorizes.
You want the relationship that produced the dog to be one of forced evolution by the human hand. All Coppinger is saying is that ancient man lacked the resources to do such a thing and that this was a coevolution that started the ball rolling.
I can see in what you write that it offends you to think that our noble dogs were little shit eaters to start out. But, that makes a ton of sense.
Interestingly enough this mornings paper summerized another researchers presentation at a syposium recently in the local newspaper (it was picked up from one of the wire services) today supporting the proto-dog as a camp scrounger some 100,000 years ago. The result of a very few small events producing such creatures in asia and the resultant migration of the dogs throughout the world with the human migrations that occured.
Until someone can find a maternal dna line that is common between a wolf population and a dog population the wolf become dog idea is pretty weak.
More likely ancient asian wolf produces a few rejects which a few find a living as camp scoungers and a few of them populate into the dogs as we know it.
These critters became enourmously successful (then the humans began to see the specialization or generalization that could be produced via selective breeding these vulger little poop munchers and put their hand to it). I guess it is good for the dog populations to allow the wolf selectively bred by man to become dog breeds fantasy to hold human interest so they can further their realtioship with humans and continue their success.

Kevin wrote: "Ancestory is something we have in common with many primates. Unless you can trace maternal DNA to a specific mother of a population this means crap in the discussion of the development of what we know as dogs in our cultures."


Thats exactly what I'm getting at Kevin. They did trace maternal DNA to one female gray wolf.


It was big news a little while back, someone in Sweden or other European country I think it was.

For the life of me, I can't find anything about it now on the internet.


I could be wrong. . .wouldn't be the first time.

You're not wrong...it was in Science magazine, Scientific American, Newsweek, Time, etc. Nov/02. It's part of what caused dogs to no longer be classified as the species Canis Familiaris - they are now Canis LUPUS Familiaris, a SUBSPECIES of the wolf.

Thanks Lee.