I’m often asked to explain my personal breeding project. Sometimes it’s people who are against crossing dog breeds asking, and other times it’s people who are open minded and interested in what I’m doing.
Recently there has been some misinformation floating around the interwebz about it, so I figured it was time to write down what I’m working to create. This blog post will act as a temporary place to share my thoughts on my program until I have completed my website.
My name is Brad Anderson, I am a dog lover and breeder. I have worked with many different breeds, but the breeds I have focused the most attention on is the Kai Ken (Yamabushi Kennel), Kishu Ken (Hakuzan Kennel), Central Asian Ovcharka, Caucasian Ovcharka, and the West Siberian Laika. My efforts in these breeds has always been focused on increasing diversity in the North American populations via introgression with dogs from their country of origin.
About The Project
First, I want to be clear about something – I’m not working to create a new dog breed. I never plan to give a name to this cross or work to get it registered in any type of club. This project is a personal project – I’m working to create the type of dog I want.
Also, I am not trying to “fix” things I don’t like in other dog breeds. I am not trying to improve on any of the dog breeds I use in the cross. That’s not the point of this project.
What I’m working to create is a weather tolerant spitz-type backcountry companion, with natural predator aggression, that’s biddable and easy to hike off-leash, quiet, and clean. Size is not very important to me, however I would like the dog to be large enough to pack, but small enough to be carried out of the backcountry if injured. It’s my goal to minimize dog aggression and reactivity, and breed for solid nerves and health.
I want this cross to be efficient (not requiring large amounts of food or water) and able to spend weeks in the bush with their companion without the need for much gear – comfortable in hot and cold, rain or snow.
While some of the pups produced will likely make good hunting dogs, I am not actually trying to create a hunting dog cross.
I’ve owned and loved many dogs of many breeds, some of which, on paper, one would think would fulfill the role I am looking to fill with this cross. However, in my experience that is not the case. Dog aggression, quarrelsome behavior, weak nerves (fearful behavior) and hypervigilance, poor health, no “off” switch, and obsessive barking are just a few of the things I have seen in dog breeds I’ve owned in hopes of fulfilling this role. Sure, one could find a dog that could fill this role, but I would like to be able to produce dogs where the majority consistently fit this role.
Dog aggression is a particularly difficult thing to deal with in a dog meant to be a backcountry companion and/or a hunting dog. Hiking along a trail, or even off trail, there’s always a chance you’ll run into a fellow hiker/camper/hunter with a dog. Often this happens when you are least expecting it and not prepared for the encounter. Having a companion dog who acts indifferent toward the random dogs you run into is a huge advantage.
People in dogdom tend to obsess over what breed is used in a cross. I’m not one of those people. The dogs I have selected to be used in my project have less to do with their breed and more to do with the individual dog. If I have a dog that I feel will add some traits I am looking for, without compromising other traits, then I will use it in my program – breed doesn’t matter that much to me.
With that said, because I know people still want to know the breeds used in the cross, here is a list of the breedings I have done so far. Please keep in mind I am in the very early stages of creating the foundation for my project so all the crosses so far have been using Smokey as a base for the foundation. I’m looking forward to reaching the point where I can start crossing my foundation dogs while adding some new dogs to the cross. My hope is to keep a COI of below 5% – so I will be working to minimize inbreeding.
Tentative future litters… Riki (Yushoku Kishu Ken) x Smokey Flash (Juko x Smokey) x Vega (Dogo x Kangal x Dane x Tosa) Picasso (Ibizan Hound) x Aurora (Kaiju x Smokey)
“On the problem of the origin of the domesticated dog and the incipient (aboriginal) formation of breeds”
By Alexander Vlasenko (Moscow, Russia)
Translation By Vladimir Beregovoy [ www.laikabreeds.com ]
In search for an answer to the question about the ancestors of the domesticated dog and where and when it originated, it is not enough to use an approach from the standpoint of one branch of biological science, such as genetics, morphology, comparative anatomy or ethology. Controversial results of genetic investigations and paleontological findings require the use of a complex analysis of obtained data.
Manwell and Baker (1983) wrote that the investigation of the origin of the dog is hampered by “disciplinary dogmatism” and that the origin of the dog out of the wolf is still a hypothesis. Coler-Matznick (2002) thinks that dogs originated from small Pleistocene wolf similar to the Dingo. Not sharing completely the traditional or the innovative point of view, I will try to explain and substantiate my position. To start with, I will discuss aspects of the biology of the wolf (Canis lupus) as a primary candidate to be an ancestor of the domesticated dog, which is supported by phenotypical (including behavior) similarities, the results of investigations of DNA and the fact that easy interbreeding between dog and wolf results in fertile offspring.
The contemporary species of wolf is subdivided into 25 subspecies, one of which, the Indian wolf, is separated by some researchers as a different species, based on DNA studies. All subspecies of wolf are capable of breeding with dogs and, moreover, different data indicated that from 5% to 40% of wolves of European populations actually are wolf/dog hybrids. There are breeds of dogs obtained by deliberate interbreeding with wolves: Czech Vlach, Saarloss Wolf-dog, Italian Lupo and currently developing in Russia the Volkosob. Certain wolf subspecies of North America have certainly resulted from interbreeding with dogs. Besides, based on DNA analysis, it is well known that the American Red Wolf (Canis rufus) is a result of the natural interbreeding of gray wolf with coyote, which took place during the last 12,500 years (most likely during the last 2,500 years). In captivity, jackal/wolf, jackal/dog and even coyote/jackal hybrids were obtained, although the natural ranges of jackal and coyote do not overlap. Thus, the fertility of mixed offspring alone cannot be considered as evidence of the origin of dog from wolf.
Furthermore, we should take into account that the contemporary gray wolf evolved under powerful anthropogenic pressure. The wolf became a permanent foe of humans and was subject to extermination since the emergence of livestock. This pressure influenced the wolf’s behavior. We know from publications by I. A. Arshavsky (1982) and G. Kh. Shaposhnikov (1966) that the environment with intensive functional stress results in changes of both phenotype and genotype. In other words, environmental stress is a driving force of evolution. Another side of the environmental pressure is the systematic extermination not only of the most bold and trusting wolves in the population, but also whole subspecies and, possibly, species. Besides, a considerable decline of wolf populations often results in the appearance of feral wolf/dog mixes, which become absorbed by the rebounding wolf population. Therefore, it is highly probable that the contemporary wolf is different in many qualities from that wolf, which existed at the time of the origin of the domesticated dog and the results of DNA analysis of their affinity should be treated with caution.
During recent years, international group of researchers led by P. Savolainen has shown that all dogs originated during a short time period between 5,400 and 16,300 years ago in the southern part of eastern Asia (south of the Yangtze River) out of small group of a few hundreds of individuals of small Chinese wolves. Based on archeological data this time range is between 11,500 and 16, 300 years. The idea of the east Asian origin of the dog out of an extinct Asian subspecies of wolf, Canis lupus variabilis Pei, 1934, is shared by other researchers (Olsen and Olsen, 1977) based on studies of morphology of skulls of wolves and dogs of different populations. However, Tsuda and co-authors (1997) came to conclusion that the dog was domesticated multiple times in different geographic regions.
This point of view is corroborated by the fact that mt- DNA extracted out of skeletal remains of pre-Columbian dogs revealed sequences not detected in samples taken from more then 350 contemporary dogs (Leonard et al. 2002).
Parker et al. (2004) distinguished four groups of dog breeds with definitely different fragments of mt-DNA. They described the process of the evolution of dogs of east Asian origin like the sequential divergence from a primordial wolflike ancestor, first, the Australian Dingo, then the Basenji and, finally, Laika-like northern dogs. They consider Asian sighthounds the last group diverged from the dog’s ancestral species.
Lindblad-Toh with co-authors (2005) determines the age of the domesticated dog within range of 15,000 to 100, 000 years and proposed multiple domestications. Finally, the group of researchers of R. Wain (2010) published their results suggesting that the haplotypes of dogs are the closest to haplotypes of the Middle Eastern wolf and that wolves of the Middle East were the source of the genetic diversity of the domesticated dog. How can we understand these controversial results, if it is well known that the radiocarbon method determined the age of the oldest fossil skulls of domesticated dogs as 26,000 years (Cauvet Cave, France), 33,000 years (Razboinichya Cave, Altay) and Predmosti (Czech Republic) and even 36,000 years (Goye Cave, Belgium)?
There is no clear answer to this question so far. One possible and most likely cause of the discrepancy in the data is the extinction of several ancient populations of dogs caused by epidemics, such as distemper. In the past century, in the vast territories of the Russian north and in the Far East distemper almost wiped out nearly all dogs. If dogs originated in southern Asia and then they were first to pass selection for resistance to a virus caused disease, then these dogs migrated to other countries, where their chances of survival would be considerably higher than those of local dogs. It is also possible that the mechanism of “the molecular clock” works not quite as well as modern geneticists believe and the process of domestication and evolution of the dog in different regions of the Earth might be accompanied by a parallel channeled process of recombination of DNA, and likewise the recombination of DNA might take place in the wolf. As a result, the comparative analysis of DNA produced an error.
The results of the Russian-Vietnamese Tropical Center expedition, 2006-2009, the purpose of which was to run a survey of the variation of the aboriginal dogs of Vietnam, allowed the analysis of the origins and evolution of the domesticated dog from a different perspective.
In 2008, in the Ma River Valley (Khanh Hoa Province) I discovered a very small population of wolf-like dogs, extremely similar to Indian and Arabian subspecies of wolves. The distribution of this variety of dog is limited in a small territory populated by Man people, one of the tribes of Miao (Hmong). According to available data, these people are one of the first ethnic groups to have settled in contemporary Vietnam, which took place about 1000 years ago, near the once large principality of Champa. A high percentage of the people of this principality originally came from India. If 150 years ago Ch. Darwin had reliable information, one of his sources reported that in the upper Gung River the local people had similar dogs. We can believe that this was one hypothetical way of populating Indochina with wolf-like dogs. According to paleontological data, the gray wolf never existed here. However, Dinesh K. Sharma, Jesus E. Maldonado, Yadrendradev V. Jhala and Robert C. Fleischner (2003) are sure that the Indian wolf (from India and Pakistan), which they consider a separate species and part of Himalayan wolves, did not leave a trace in the mt-DNA of the dogs of Vietnam and, therefore, could not originate from their populations. This does not matter. The fact of the survival of an aboriginal population of dogs with considerably greater similarity to wolves than to the breeds of wolf hybrids created by breeders, who were trying to maximize their similarity to wolf by selection, is most interesting. This indicates that the presence of morphological characteristics of domestication is not a necessary feature of domesticated dogs. The very fact of the existence of relic wolflike dogs tells us that at the first stages of the domestication of the wolf morphological (phenotypical) changes did not exist. It was simply a socialization of wolf to life with humans. This is done by Australian aborigines with the Dingo until present time. Probably in the past, the behavioral makeup of the wolf allowed this to be done without many difficulties. Thus, a wolf could become a dog and at the same time remain a wolf and even continue interbreeding with free feral wolves.
Based on the description above, I can say that some variety of wolf was one of ancestors of dog, but it was not enough to claim that only one wolf subspecies was the dog’s ancestor. Fossil remains of wolves cannot be considered a priori as belonging to the same species, because identical skeletons could belong to animals with different soft parts, systems and behavior, including way of life in general.
The development of morphological characteristics typical of domesticated dogs could appear at a considerably later time, after the wolf became domesticated. Perhaps, the traits of domestication in skeleton appeared last. Comparative morphology shows that in domesticated dogs of different breeds the same muscles can be attached not only to bone, but also with an expanding area of attachment, involving other muscles, tendons and skin and differ in the degree of differentiation and integration without changes in the shape of the bone.
Analyzing incipient breed formation (performed by the methods of primitive peoples’ selection), general trends in changes of dogs’ phenotype should be taken into account. Such markers of domestication as piebald color, lop ears, changes in shape of tail and structure of coat, etc. appear spontaneously as a result of systematic selection for behavior. These changes cause a shift in the chain reactions of regulatory mechanisms of homeostasis (D. K. Belyaev and L. N. Trut, 1989). The emergence of these characters in the offspring is not necessarily accompanied by their fixation in the subsequent generations, unless they are deliberately selected for breeding. The direction of selection depends primarily on the practical needs of life and economic activity of a particular ethnic group. Therefore, I see two basic types of selection for visible phenotype, deliberately or not, used in the process of breed formation, depending on the purpose of keeping dogs.
The first type includes cases, when dogs were needed for guarding or hunting. These dogs should retain a body size for optimal performance and have new conspicuous characteristics of the appearance, allowing them to be quickly distinguished from other animals. In this instance, the choice of traits for selection is determined by the benefits for working qualities and survival.
The second type of selection includes cases, when dogs are considered as food. Then, the best result is achieved by selecting for juvenile traits. Infantile behavior is displayed as dependence on a higher ranking individual in a social group, in this case on the human owner, and a reduction in the size of the territory in which it roams. In physiology this selection favors neoteny, the acceleration of development and the ability to breed at a younger age. In the body structure, preferential traits are a shorter head with a dish face, a stronger pronounced stop, a domed skull and a smaller body size. A smaller dog requires a smaller amount of valuable protein rich food and it shortens the period of susceptibility to diseases caused by malnutrition. Besides, a small dog can be eaten by the family at one meal time, which is also important in an environment with a hot climate and without refrigerators. Such dogs become better adapted to survive on poor quality food, refuse and even coprophagy (Coppinger, R, and L. Coppinger, 2001).
Because the ancestor of domesticated dogs with its characteristic “wild type” met the requirements of humans, it means that at that time there was no need to distinguish domesticated dog from its wild relatives. This is because they did not present any danger and did not cause any harm to humans. Therefore, the most likely reason for breeding dogs with a different appearance emerged with the appearance of livestock and poultry, subjects to depredation by wild Canidae. At the same time, there was an additional reason for selecting in favor of different dogs. Under conditions of a shortage of hunting grounds and conflicts between adjacent tribes, it was important that hunters could tell apart their own dogs from dogs of neighbors and conspicuous variation in dogs became beneficial. However, in either case, the cause-effect link is traced between population increase, transition to a settled way of life, deficit of food resources obtained by hunting and gathering and the establishment of certain complexes of domestication traits in local populations of dogs.
This is well illustrated by comparing the pattern of the distribution of dogs of certain aboriginal breeds with the dispersion of different peoples in North Vietnam. The aboriginal dogs of Vietnam represent a unique model for study of microevolution, the mechanisms of domestication and the primitive formation of breeds.
In general, the dogs of North Vietnam are represented by a population with very diverse composition, in which all morphological markers of domestication are present. Persistently inherited morphological types are characterized by their own peculiar and limited complexes of characters. Many of Vietnamese breeds are absolutely identical to some old well known breeds, or their original types, of the world in their appearance and body structure. The regions of the world, where these breeds are traditionally bred, are separated by thousands of kilometers from the region of our study. The majority of the breeds we found in North Vietnam can be united in groups of close origin, in which transitional types and ancestral forms can be clearly observed, and they are represented by a series of forming variation.
The dogs I named “Viet Dingo” are smallish dogs with infantile traits. These dogs are associated with the culture of rice paddies and typological traits of local populations allowing the tracing of directions of development of land for this form of agriculture. Thus, the maximal number of typological variants of Viet-Dingo is found in the eastern provinces of Lang Son and Tainguen, where Tai people live. Dogs of Viet-Dingo type are most numerous in North Vietnam, but their share in the local population declines from east to west and to north-west. The frequency of Viet-Dingo is highest mainly in the fertile valleys cultivated for rice production, but also in other regions with conditions unfavorable for agriculture, where people are poor and do not keep big dogs, because of food shortages. Moving along the river valleys to the west and north-west, the typological diversity of Viet-Dingo dogs declines and local populations are represented only by one-two types instead of the six types found in the eastern provinces. Judging by the variation series, this group of dogs originated as a result of the interbreeding of small Dingo-like dogs with Laika-like dogs either in north-eastern Vietnam or in the border territories with China.
A large type of aboriginal dog is bred mainly by the Hmong, who until recently made a living by hunting, and the distribution of these dogs is clearly associated with the distribution of the Hmong people.
It is possible to say that most probably the bobtail dogs of the Hmong, which are very similar to the now lost bobtail type of Karelian Bear Dog, called Shong were distributed from the Northern Province of Ha Gyang along the Shonglo River and further to the south into the province of Son La. Dogs that are phenotypicaly similar to Siberian Laikas and Arctic sled dogs (Figs. 1-5) are distributed in the form of a semicircle from the northern part of Lao Cai province, along the Shongda River, across northern part of Yen Bai, Tuyen Quang and Bac Can provinces to the center of Cao Bang province, in other words, from northwest to southeast and further to the east. These dogs are most typical in Lao Cai province and are rather common, but they decline numerically to the east. In Lao Cai, we found the best looking representatives of this breed, very similar to big Japanese Laika-like dogs, and populations of ancestral Chau-Chau (Bakha Dog) are concentrated here. Smallish Laika-like dogs similar to Karelo-Finnish Laikas and Spitzes are most likely the product of mixing with small Dingo-like dogs (Fig. 6).
The series of variation is best represented in the group of hound-like dogs, starting from a primitive type identical to the hounds of Tibet, West China, known in Russian literature as Mahugou (Fig. 7), to a primitive sighthound type (Fig. 8) and to various variants of analogs of ancient Russian scent hounds (Fig. 9) and dogs similar to the modern Foxhound (Fig. 10), Labrador Retriever ( Fig. 11) and to dogs very similar to herding dogs of Scotland (Fig. 12) and also to types of livestock guarding dogs of Tajikistan and Tibet (Figs. 13), Caucasian and Karakachan Dogs, but relatively smaller in size (Figs. 14-16).
Different forms of dogs I included in the scent hound type dogs group are distributed mainly in provinces of Lao Cai, Yen Bai and Tuyen Quang. They were most diverse in Lao Cai province. The uniqueness of this series of variation is in the fact that there is nowhere else in the world a continual transition between types of dogs considered by cynologists as breeds of absolutely different origin and purpose. The theoretical projection of the series of variation in both groups in the direction of diminishing specialization of the appearance brings us to a prototype (archetype) common to both Laika-like and hound-like dogs. I was lucky to find a type of dog that combined in its appearance basic traits of both groups. I think that the pictures alone show that this prototype is one step different from the wolf. However, if we consider the variation series of the scent hound group, selecting only light and medium built dogs, their hypothetical ancestor would be very different. In this case, the variation series will be ascending to dogs that I tentatively named the Big Chinese Dingo.
The North Vietnamese type of Big Dingo (Figs. 17-18) has differences from the South Vietnamese Dingo, which were probably caused by interbreeding with Laika-like and scent hound-like dogs. I can say that this type is closer to the wolf, especially to the Tibetan wolf. The big Indochinese Dingo is not numerous in Vietnam, although it occurs in most of the regions surveyed by the expedition.
Its southern morphological type (Fig. 20) is very similar in the appearance to the basic, not mixed, type of Australian Dingo. However, the Australian Dingo often has domestication markers and pedomorphic traits characteristic of the North Vietnamese “Viet-Dingo”. According to the results of molecular genetic studies, the time of divergence of the Australian Dingo from Dingo-like dogs of Southern China, Taiwan and Polynesia, belonging to the same form as the “Viet- Dingo”, was determined as 5,000 years (Savolainen, 2002). The Big Indo-Chinese Dingo is probably considerably older than the age of populations in the regions surveyed.
The Australian Dingo had been secondarily changed to running wild during several thousands of years until recent times, when a considerable part of its population became mixed with stray dogs of European and American breeds. Nevertheless, it retained and possibly even obtained new, stabile morphological traits identical to the Big Indo-Chinese Dingo. Under conditions of genetic isolation and feral life, the Australian Dingo did not develop traits similar to the wolf or jackal, surpassing those in variation of the Big Indo-Chinese Dingo.
On the other hand, it is even more surprising that in the territory of Indochina a form of the Big Indochina Dingo survived. In the best representatives of it, “wild” traits are even more pronounced than in the Australian Dingo. While being selected for behavior under conditions of domesticated life, the Big Indochinese Dingo should be subject to destabilizing selection and, living among Dingo-like, Laika-like and houndlike dogs, it should be genetically influenced by interbreeding with them. However, for some reason, some of the Big Dingos, living in different corners of Indochina, remain absolutely identical to type and have the same measurements, body structure and appearance. Such stability of morpho-type most likely tells us that other morpho-types, occurring around these dogs, are its descendants.
Based on these observations and considering the origin of dogs diligently, it would be reasonable to suppose that the Big Indochinese Dingo retains an unchanged complex of morphological characters of its ancestor, just as the wolf-like dog of the province of Thanh Hoa retains the traits of the wolf.
Unfortunately, the program of studies of the aboriginal dogs of Indochina was cut short at half way and we did not have enough time to the complete survey of dogs of Southern Vietnam. Now, using fragmentary and scarce data we can restore the general pattern of typological diversity of the dogs of the southern center of formation of breeds in Vietnam. Probably, its center was near the shores of the Siam Gulf or Andaman Sea. If the Australian Dingo carries intermediate traits of southern and northern Vietnamese dogs, then New Guinea Singing Dogs belong to the southern center of breed formation, to which dogs of Southern and Western Indochina also belong, as well as the dogs of the eastern shores of India (Figs. 21).
The result of the comparison of morpho-typical traits of dogs of the southern center of breed formation compels us to accept that the northern morpho-type of Big Indochinese Dingo was primary in relation to the southern one. The northern morpho-type was almost certainly ancestral to the variation series of big Dingo-like dogs. However, with small Dingo-like dogs of the southern center, the picture is not that simple. Among small southern Dingoes, there is one type, which represents the regular result of the reduction of body size, but it is relatively rare. The majority of small dingoes are represented by the variation with too big a hiatus, separating them from the Big Dingo, and, according to known regularities of changes in body structure caused by diminishing size; they cannot be drawn directly out of the Big Dingo.
In the example of the longhaired variation of small Dingo-like dogs of the southern center of breed formation , it seems that the ancestral form of this group had much in common with the morpho-type of red wolf.
The southern morpho-type of Big Indochinese Dingo could be the result of interbreeding the northern morpho-type with an ancestral form of small southern dingoe. Because nothing is known about the existence of hybrids of the Dhole with dogs and nobody ever checked the possibility of such crossing, we can propose that at some time in the past either a sibling species of Dhole was domesticated or the evolution of big and small Dingo-like dogs of the southern center of breed formation was going on independently at a different time and in different regions.
The origin of small Dingo-like dogs out of wild ancestors is corroborated by the unusual physical peculiarities of the New Guinea Singing Dog that are poorly specialized in running but are well adapted to climbing and agility. Dissection of a small Dingo-like dog killed by an accident, purchased during the work of the expedition, showed that the amplitude of rotation movement of the forearm was about 1.5 times that of an ordinary dog. This dog was very similar to the New Guinea Singing Dog. Study of the proximal radius-ulna joint allowed us to discover the presence of a sesamoid bone, which protects the joint on the lateral side. Unfortunately, I could not confirm the presence of this trait in other representatives of this morpho-type, because of the premature closure of the research program. A similar and not constantly present structure in about the same part of body, the sesamoid bone in the tendon of musculus supinator, is found in the coydog (coyote and wolf hybrid, “Miller’s Anatomy of Dog”).
While discussing topics of comparative anatomy, I will make clear the following: we are interested in the possible inheritance of anatomical peculiarities from wolf to dogs of different breeds, because we have chosen the wolf as the “gold standard” of a healthy anatomy. The goals of my work are rather practical, they are usually considered as topics of veterinary medicine. First, until now, I had in my possession corpses of wolves sampled from populations of Tver, Rostov and Voronezh provinces, all territories known as places where in recent times wolves and dogs have interbred. In two cases I found characteristics of possible crossing with dogs. Second, these territories are very close geographically, and, therefore, I cannot extend the obtained results to all subspecies of wolf across its vast geographic range.
Evaluating the direction of morphological changes, I assume that specialization to running (both wolf and dog are specialized runners) always results in the reduction of the complexity of the locomotion apparatus numerically, for example, the structural consolidation of originally separate muscles with the enhancement of their integration.
Anatomically, dogs of different breeds conspicuously differ from each other. It is not quite a joke, when we say that the anatomy of dog does not exist; there is only morphology, because the range of variation is too big for one species. When we compare dog with wolf, supposedly dog’s ancestor, sometimes we find a mismatch. Some of the traits may be inherited and some may be lost. There are known cases of the loss of muscles as a result of dwarfism or specialization and some muscles can become hypertrophic. Finally, a new trait can emerge, not existing in the ancestral form. However, if we find an archaic trait in some breed of dog, which is absent in the supposedly ancestral form, but is typical of a higher taxonomical rank, then there is reason to doubt whether the modern wolf was ancestor of the dog.
Speaking of hereditary succession, not all found discrepancies can be easily explained. Thus, in sighthounds, whose locomotion apparatus is more similar to that of the wolf than that of other dogs, peculiarities of the integration and differentiation of the muscle-tendon system could be inherited from the wolf or obtained independently in the process of specialization. Therefore, comparing wolf and dog anatomically, I offer only one example, which in my opinion is vulnerable to criticism.
As I mentioned above, some scientists draw a line between wolf and dog based on craniological indexes. I paid more attention to the structure of the frontal bone. As a result of research of skeletal material in our collection, I found the following:
– The posterior chamber of the frontal cavity of the wolf (Figs. 22-23) has a complex architecture, which is relatively low at the medial margin, curved and higher positioned at the entrance and opening into the anterior chamber, which is connected with the dorsal nasal passage.
– In dogs (except the Hortaya, German Shepherd Dog and East European Shepherd Dog, which are similar in these features to the wolf) the posterior chamber of the frontal cavity (Figs. 24-26) is large and high, with a simpler architecture and has a wide, straight and low positioned entrance opening immediately into the nasal passage.-In the wolf, the area of the perforated plate is approximately 1.5-2 times as large as that in the dog, proportionally to body size.
The differences described above are easy to explain by functional anatomy. Frontal cavities, besides their function of a protective cushioning of the frontal bone, serve as an important part of the thermo-regulation of the body. One major problem of marathon runners is the disposal of excess heat generated in the muscles (Coppinger, L&R. Coppinger, 2002). In the process, maintaining the optimal temperature of the brain is most important (Schmidt-Nielsen, 1972). The main way of cooling the body of the dog and the wolf is by evaporation from the surfaces of the tongue, mouth and nose. However, the perforated plate, bordering the hard wall of the brain and with the rostral epidural net, serves as an effective radiator of heat as well. This way of cooling the brain is important to such an extent that in puppies, from birth to about one month, when heat loss is dangerously high, the perforated plate is separated from the brain wall with pads of fat (Fig. 27). Under conditions when the air temperature is significantly lower than body temperature, the role of the frontal cavities is to protect the brain from hypothermia.
A thin layer of warm air with its low circulation becomes beneficial and this is what we observe in the wolf. However, in the tropics, when high air temperature is combined with high humidity, conditioning the body temperature with this mechanism does not work. In the thermo-regulation of the aboriginal dogs of Vietnam, compared with breeds of European origin, perspiration from the abdominal skin and the reduction of heat generation in the body become very important. In the tropical environment, there is a high danger of overheating shock caused by strong insulation even when weather is cloudy and foggy. Short hair on the forehead of the dog cannot protect the brain from overheating. The surface of the body exposed to the sun can heat up to 10-20° C higher than the ambient air temperature. In such a case, to prevent the transmission of heat from the surface of the forehead to the brain, the frontal large cavities with fast air circulation coming from the nasal passages through a wide entrance opening is very helpful. Thus, the analysis of the structure of the frontal cavities in dogs and wolves shows their original adaptation to different environments, which required different mechanisms of thermoregulation. In my view, this is a strong argument in favor of J. Koler-Matznik’s view that Dingo-like dogs did not originate from the wolf.
Summarizing the results of our work, I think that most likely the domesticated dog originated from several subspecies of wolf and a now extinct wild form of Dingo, not excluding other ancestral forms.
Arshavsky, I. A. 1982. Physiological mechanisms and
regularities of individual development. (In Russian), Nauka,
Belyaev, D. K. and L. N. Trut. 1989. Convergent
evolution and the concept of destabilizing selection. In:
Vavilov’s Heritage in Modern Biology (In Russian). Nauka,
Coppinger, R. and L. Coppinger. 2001. Dogs. A
Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior and
Evolution. New York, NY: Scribner.
Darwin, Ch. 1883. The Variation of Animals and Plants
under Domestication. The second edition. New York: D.
Appleton & CO.
Evans, H. E. 2007. Miller’s Anatomy of the Dog.
Elsevier-Health Sciences Division.
Dinesh, K. Sharma, Jesus E. Maldonado, Yadrendadev
V. Jhala and Robert. C. Fleischer. 2004. Ancient wolf lineages
in India. Proceedings of the Royal Society. B. Biology Letters,
Koler-Matznick, J. 2002. The origin of the dog
revisited. Anthrozoos, 15(2), 98-118.
Koler-Matznick, J., B. C. Yates, S. Bulmer and I. L.
Brisbin. 2007. The New Guinea singing dog: its status and
scientific importance. Australian Mammalogy 29: 47-56.
Leonard, J. A., R. K. Wayne, J. Wheeler, R. Valadez, S.
Guillen and C. Vila. 2002. Ancient DNA evidence for Old
World and New World dogs. Science, 298: 1613-1616.
Lindblad-Toh, K., C. M. Wade, T. S. Mikkelsen, E. K.
Karlsson, D. B. Jaffe, M. Kamal, M. Champ, J. L. Chang, E. J.
Kulbokass III, M. C. Zody. 2005. Genome sequence,
comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic
dog. Nature (in progress).
Manwell, C. and C. M. A. Baker, 1983. Origin of the
dog: from wolf or wild Canis familiaris? Speculations in
Science and Technology, 72: 229-238.
Olsen, S. J. and J. W. Olsen. 1977. The Chinese wolf,
ancestor of New World Dogs. Science, 197.
Parker, H. G., L. V. Kim, N. B. Sutter, S. Carlson, T. D.
Lorentzen, T. B. Malek, G. S. Johnson, D. B. DeFrance, E. A.
Ostranger and L. Kruglyak. 2004. Genetic structure of the
purebred domestic dog. Science, 304: 1160-1164.
Shaposhnikov, G. Kh. 1966. The origin and break down
of reproductive isolation and criterion of species. (In Russian).
Entomological review, Vol. XLV, No. 1: 3-35.
Schmidt-Nielsen, K. 1972. How Animals Work.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 114.
Standards of Laikas of the USSR. 1936. All Union
Arctic Institute. [In Russian] Vol. LVI. Leningrad.
Tsuda, K., Y., H. Kikkawa, Yonekawa and Y. Tanabe.
1997. Extensive interbreeding occurred among multiple
matriarchal ancestors during the domestication of dogs:
Evidence from inter- and intraspecies polymorphisms in the Dloop
region of mitochondrial DNA between dogs and wolves.
Genes, Genetics and Systematics 72: 229 – 238.
Z-L. Ding, M Oskarsson, A Ardalan, H. Angleby, L-G.
Dahlgren, C. Tepeli, E. Kirkness, P. Savolainen, Y-P. Zhang.
Origins of the domestic dog in Southern East Asia are
supported by analysis of Y-chromosome DNA. Heredity, 2012,
I’m very late sharing these. Below you will find links to download the latest PADS journals (in English). These journals include some great articles on the color genetics of spitz-type dogs as well as information on the Norwegian Lundehund and an article on the Traditional Dog Breeding Of The Nanai People.
There was a time, when aboriginal dogs were the only dogs available. All of today’s popular dog breeds have been derived, at one time or another, from ancient aboriginal dogs. Then, they have been improved by deliberate selection and crossbreeding to achieve the desired combination of characters of appearance and behavior. Through long histories of life in confinement, good care, and trainability for obedience, they became more or less helpless, if left on their own. They are sometimes called man made breeds or cultured breeds. Many other animal breeds were also obtained by selective breeding and keeping under conditions of good care in a strictly controlled environment and they also declined in fitness and became more dependent on food and protection provided by people. The modern concept of a breed is based mainly on knowledge accumulated during work with this kind of breeds. Dogs, which do not fit any known breed listed in the catalogs of cynological clubs, remain “invisible” to the public and most often are not considered as breeds at all. On the other hand, if the major kennel clubs adopt an aboriginal breed, it also becomes changed and converted into another cultured pedigree breed. Thus, each of such transactions does not help the preservation of most of the remaining ancient unchanged breeds in the world, which aboriginal breeds are.
The aboriginal breed and subspecies in zoology
Aboriginal dogs are natural breeds, which have never been developed by any planned genetic manipulation, deliberate selective breeding and intentional crossing of one breed with another. Old travelers, when they found them with people in far away countries, commented about the benefits, intelligence and serviceability of the local dogs to native people. At the same time, they used unflattering epithets calling them “mongrels”, “poorly bred Collies”, “mangy beasts”, “ugly dogs”, etc. Generally, travelers, whose eye was trained on European purebreds, considered aboriginal dogs just local mongrels and it was not too far from the truth. However, those were peculiar mongrels, which now we prefer to call aboriginal breeds, though some dog lovers and experts are reluctant to apply the term “breed”, when discussing aboriginal dogs.
Aboriginal have drawn the interest of professional biologists only recently, because of raised public concern about the preservation of nature and national heritage. There are surprisingly few serious scientific studies on aboriginal dogs per se. In fact, they are very much like wild animals, because nobody can claim authorship over any particular type of aboriginal dog. The most that we could do is to discover and describe them like we discover and describe wild species and races. Geographers and ethnographers discovered aboriginal dogs and left a few more or less sketchy descriptions, from which we now are trying to collect knowledge about their origins and historical past. Now, many of the aboriginal dogs are extinct or have become seriously threatened with extinction and an increasing number of enthusiasts are eager to get involved in their rescue by importing them from their native countries and taking good care of them, popularizing and keeping pedigree records with the hope of the AKC, FCI, national kennel clubs, etc recognizing them. Usually, there is no lacking of interest to try a new “unspoiled” breed. The question is: to what end? Do we need to spoil aboriginal dogs, too? Before getting seriously involved in projects of rescue and preservation of aboriginal breeds it is necessary to understand how and why they are different from cultured breeds and take a closer look at the very concept of aboriginal breed. The real preservation of aboriginal breeds can be only the preservation of them as aboriginal breeds together with their environment and work for people.
One of the most striking traits of all aboriginal dogs is their naturalness. Actually, they are more similar to subspecies of wild animals, described by zoologists, than to classic breeds (cultured breeds) of domesticated animals. Indeed, each population of a peculiar type of aboriginal dog has its own unique geographic range of distribution and it is always associated with a certain ethnic group. Because they are domesticated animals and associated with people, they may be safely called, therefore, ethno-geographic breeds. At the same time, like wild animals, each of such ethno-geographic breeds is a product of slow evolution under conditions of life and work for people. It has been subject to natural selection and selection by people in favor of better working qualities. Selection by people has been very subtle, sometimes; it is called “unconscious” selection, which may be considered rather like another form of natural selection, than what we call selection based on modern knowledge of animal husbandry, animal science and genetics. This is because aboriginal dogs live and work for people under conditions of nearly unlimited freedom, are never, or rarely, confined, are irregularly fed (sometimes not fed for weeks), mate freely and sometimes raise their puppies without the assistance of people. They live with humans rather like symbiotic animals than like animals captured, forced, “enslaved” or spoiled by domestication. Of course, the aboriginal dogs obtain their own benefits from sharing their lives with people, such as protection from wild predators, sometimes from the weather and food shortage. The latter is particularly obvious, where people and dogs live in extremely harsh climates, such as in the polar north or in deserts, where both people and dogs became literally interdependent for survival. However, everyone, people and dogs, had to work to obtain their daily bread. For example, a bad working dog would most likely not be treated very well, would possibly left unfed and most likely not bred; and it would be left to die in time of famine or it would be killed for its pelt to make mittens. Although dogs never or rarely lived confined and mated freely, puppies of favorite bitches or puppies sired by the best working males, if the sire was known, were spared more often to be raised as a replacement for adult dogs growing older. This kind of selective mortality worked rather by eliminating the least fit, than by preserving a few of the best dogs. Cyclic fluctuations of productivity in nature, game density and all kind of natural calamities affected both dogs and their owners. Natural selection never stopped.
Another similarity of aboriginal dogs to subspecies of wild animals is in the fact that aboriginal breeds are the oldest unchanged breeds in the world. Indeed, according to fossil and archeological evidence dogs of the Laika or sled dog type have been around people since Neolithic times. Excavated saluki type skeletons were dated to 2,500 years BC and so was the Australian Dingo. Powerful livestock guarding dogs are very old as well.
Similarity between aboriginal dogs and wild animals extends even further, if we take a closer look at their behavior, when they are working for people. Among dog trainers, aboriginal dogs are well known by their independent character. They often call them hard heads, stubborn and even stupid. This is because aboriginal dogs easily get bored, when taught to do circus type tricks or other behavior unnatural to them and so are tame wolves. This is what happens when wolves are trained to do similar unnatural things. Nobody calls a wolf stupid… However, in their native environment, aboriginal dogs show great intelligence, performing amazingly complex tasks and they do it all by themselves. They quickly learn what and how something should be done without much teaching, training and directing by people. They all work naturally. To start working, the aboriginal dog does not need a “stick and carrot” training system. The very work is the reward to them. To start working, an aboriginal dog puppy needs to be raised in the right environment. At a certain age, every puppy easily picks up the idea what to do and how to do it. Thus, aboriginal sight hounds, called Tazy, Saluki, Afghan, Bakhmul and Taigan learn to hunt by themselves, when they are taken into an environment where fast running animals occur. In fact they are born, live and grow up in such an environment near their owner’s tent or yurta. A hunting Laika puppy starts finding squirrels and barking under a tree with squirrel or grouse from the age of several months, if allowed to run free in the woods and the same puppy will switch to higher value game, when it matures without much encouragement. A good Laika knows what should be hunted and how. Sled dogs start pulling from the age of four months, being harnessed with older dogs or helping women or children to pull small sleds with firewood; aboriginal sled dogs are excellent hunting dogs and are used to hunt big marine mammals. Livestock guarding dog puppies start working in concert with older dogs, taking part in the protection of the herd by running free with older dogs and under conditions of being raised with the herd. To all these dogs, their work is a natural part of their everyday life. This behavior is very different from the behavior of “willing to please”, quickly learning how to sit, come up, and roll over and other similar things by cultured breeds. The aboriginal dog is doing work beneficial to people, but it acts like a wild animal, because it is preprogrammed genetically. The whole chain of action at work of an aboriginal dog is strikingly similar to the chain of action of wolves, which are also preprogrammed to live and hunt in a pack. However, with dogs, human masters and other domesticated animals became either a part of their pack or a vital element in their life and environment. To them, livestock is no longer game, but a part of their protected territory. To a hunting dog, the game shot or caught also belongs to the master. He will feed the dog in later on. Now, I will illustrate conceptual difference between an aboriginal breed and a cultured breed based on the observations of people with experience of dog behavior.
This is the Basenji, one of wildest aboriginal breeds and the Cocker Spaniel, one of most admired cultured breeds. Coren (1994), a dog trainer, compared the behavior of 79 breeds and evaluated their intelligence by comparing a dog’s capability to learn and obey the commands of the trainer. In his book, “The Intelligence of Dogs: Canine Consciousness and Capabilities” he wrote that the Cocker Spaniel was among the most intelligent of dogs, but on his list the Bsenji was 78th among 79 breeds he tested. This book was among the best sellers of that time and it was even discussed in morning TV program in the USA. The poor Basenji was publicly humiliated! However, by coincidence, there was a serious scientific study done almost 30 years before Coren’s book was published, in which Scott and Fuller (1965) compared the behavior of the Basenji and the Cocker Spaniel in experiments designed for obedience and problem solving. The authors also used the Sheltie, the Fox Terrier and the Beagle in their research project on the genetics and the social behavior of dogs. Among these five breeds, only the Basenji was a truly primitive aboriginal breed. In experiments, involving voice, such as to stay quiet on the scales, restraining the dog’s activity by being put on the leash, obedience, being inactive and remaining on a platform at a distance from the trainer, the Cocker Spaniel was the easiest to train. Basenjis were the hardest to train. The other three breeds tested fell in between the two. In goal orientation tests nine-week-old puppies were trained to run and solve problems to reach the goal. In this and other problem solving experiments of different difficulty, the Basenji turned out to be the most intelligent of all five breeds and the Cocker Spaniel was the last. This became particularly obvious in experiments, where flexibility of feet and toes and the dog’s inventiveness were required. Thus, the aboriginal “wild type” breed showed its merit, where independent thinking, motivation and initiative were needed. Remarkably, the man-made breed, the Cocker Spaniel, was most successful in passive obedience tests. In fact, here we deal with two different concepts of breed. Both the cultured breed and the natural breed (wild type) are very good dogs, but they had been made by different forces and for different purposes. The Basenji is more like a wild subspecies of Canis familiaris and the Cocker Spaniel is a cultured breed of Canis familiaris.
Here is my favorite definition of subspecies offered by Mayr (1963): A subspecies is an aggregate of local populations of a species, inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of the species, and differing taxonomically from other populations of the species. The word taxonomically means that a population is uniquely different enough to be recognized by scientists as a subspecies and given a unique scientific name in Latin. Add to this definition a human comparison, belonging to an ethnic group, and you will get a good definition of an aboriginal breed. In fact, attempts at describing aboriginal breeds as subspecies of Canis familiaris were done repeatedly, but this did not get much support among zoologists simply because Canis familiaris is a domesticated animal and its varieties do not belong to traditional subject of interest to taxonomists. Actually, each aboriginal breed is best characterized by its capability to do specific work, its appearance and by its unique geographic range together with its place in the culture of a certain ethnic group (or closely related groups), with which it lives. Its coat color is quite variable individually, including one particularly striking phenotype with white spots, a trait developed under domestication and living under human protection. Both ideas of subspecies and aboriginal breed are applied to real populations with a real geographic range and their recognition as entities with a name are supported by conventional wisdom and practicality. This makes them an important and very conspicuous part of biological diversity. The conventional definition of breed is weakly supported by hard science, because the idea of a breed (here again comes the similarity to the subspecies of wild animals) is always something vague and usually it is nothing more than what we agree upon collectively. Definition of breed by Merriam Webster Dictionary: “Breed is a group of animals or plants presumably related by descent from common ancestors and visibly similar in most characters”, also emphasizes the appearance, although traits of productivity and function are not less important.
Here is a definition of ‘breed’ put together by a well noted American geneticist Jay L. Lush, (1994): “Animals that, through selection and breeding, have come to resemble one another and pass those traits uniformly to their offspring. Aboriginal dogs, living in a certain region and used for the same purpose are quite well covered by this definition, because they have came to resemble one another through the process of selection and they pass their traits to their offspring. Calling aboriginal dogs of a certain ethnic group and geographic region breeds is very common in scientific and popular literature. The arguments sometimes are going on about which principle to choose, geographic or ethnic (national). Separation of them would always be artificial. This is what was done in the former Soviet Union, where four known today hunting Laika breeds had been designated. Although the words “to resemble one another” mean chiefly the appearance, in agricultural species the productivity traits of animals may be not less or even more important than traits of their appearance and it is equally true for aboriginal breeds.
Creative breeders of agricultural animals may develop and keep their own unique breeds. Therefore, here is a more liberal definition of breed: “A breed is a group of domestic animals, termed as such by the common consent of the breeders, … a term which arose among breeders of livestock, created one might say, for their own use, and no one is warranted in assigning to this word a scientific definition and in calling the breeders wrong when they deviate from the formulated definition. It is their word and the breeder’s common usage is what we must accept as the correct definition” Lush, 1994)
In the free world, any breeder or group of breeders of dogs, or other animals, can try their hand at the art of breeding and the future of any of their newly developed breeds would depend on their acceptance and usefulness to their users. However, aboriginal breeds are very different. Essentially, they are naturally occurring geographical variants of the domesticated dog (Canis familiaris), equivalent to a subspecies in zoology. Each of them is unique and came into existence by evolutionary process. Aboriginal breeds are natural monuments of nature and culture, because they have proven their usefulness and passed the test of time. Their most important conceptual difference from the constantly changing and newly emerging man made, or cultured breeds, is in the fact that they have been developed by the ability to perform a specific function. Their appearance is of secondary importance and it is always expressive of the function.
Aboriginal breeds are the predecessors of all man-made breeds. The ability to hunt certain game and in a certain way was very important to hunters of past centuries. Those dogs still resembled very much their ancestral aboriginal breeds; they were hardy and tough dogs, because they were bred by hunters for other hunters. Although dogs of different breeds had different names and purposes, crossing different breeds was common and mixes resulted from interbreeding were still named rather by their purpose and performance than by their appearance, such as scent hounds, sight hounds or bird pointing dogs, regardless of admixtures of other breeds in them. Every dog was valued for its ability to hunt the right way and this kind of genetic “alchemy” continued in dog breeding as long as dogs were bred for performance in field. However, radical changes took place in late 19th century, when dogs were bred pure with pedigree records and used for show contests. Dog shows renewed the popularity of hunting breeds, which had declined in numbers during the previous period, due to the loss of land available for hunting and the growth of urban populations in Europe. Now, more city dwellers became breeders of dogs, including hunting dogs, which became ornamental rather than hunting breeds. They sold puppies for profit to dog show enthusiasts and as pets. Because the breeders were most often not hunters, the appearance of the dog became more important and the original purpose of the breed. To the show fancy, all those hunting or guarding instincts became atavistic traits of the past and not taken seriously any more. It is interesting that even now some show fans and even some judges seriously believe that as long as the conformation is good, the functional qualities are also automatically present in the dog. Therefore, it is believed that show winning lines would be very good field performers, if given the chance. This is unlikely, because first, many traits highly valued at shows actually do not have any functional meaning for hunting and second, there are anatomical traits, which are misinterpreted by show judges, if they are not hunters themselves. This is why many hunting breeds became split into two groups, one for show and one for hunting.
However, the problem with show breeds does not end here. Using a few show winning males as sires and breeding dogs with maximal similarity to the ideal described in a breed standard leads to a loss of genetic heterozygosis in the population. Persistant inbreeding sooner or later results in the fixation of deleterious alleles and the appearance of genetic anomalies in the offspring with increasing frequency, such as missing teeth, wrong bite, and obsessive compulsive disorder and other nervous disorders, reproductive anomalies, hereditary blindness, epilepsy, hip dysplasia, etc. Interestingly enough, we already have several breeds that were derived from aboriginal stock during relatively recent times and transformed into popular pedigree show dogs. Each of them suffers hereditary ailments and the older the breed’s history as a show dog, the more it genetically deteriorated. Here is a list of such breeds: the Finnish Spitz, the Samoyed, the Siberian Husky, the Alaskan Malamute, the Karelian Bear and the Basenji. Each of them has a list of hereditary health problems. Several other breeds with only aboriginal ancestors, but bred to a standard, such as the West Siberian Laika, the East Siberian Laika, the Central Asian Ovcharka, and the Caucasian Ovcharka, remain in a better shape, because they were all meant to be used for field work, not just for show. Nevertheless, they too underwent various changes away from the ancestral aboriginal type dogs. All kennel bred aboriginal breed dogs follow the same pattern of changes: they become bigger and heavier, voracious eaters, prone to obesity and slower at work. These changes become particularly noticeable after the age of about 5 years. Their aboriginal ancestral populations still survive and comparisons permit us to observe and investigate the differences. The differences between kennel bred show lines and their ancestral aboriginal populations can become quite noticeable very soon even without clear knowledge by their breeders.
There is a book based on investigations into hereditary health problems of purebred dogs: “Medical and Genetic Aspects of Purebred Dogs”, Ross.D. Clark, J. D. Steiner and H. David. Haynes, editors, 1983. This is a book of 576 pages about hereditary problems of AKC and FCI recognized breeds. Can you imagine how much the authors of this book would write on this subject, if they were to study aboriginal dogs uncontaminated by interbreeding with cultured breeds? Perhaps, they would find not very much, because among aboriginal dogs, mutations like these are wiped out by natural selection. Probably recessive alleles with deleterious effect on the phenotype occur among them at frequencies similar to those found in wild species. I remind readers that in not so remote past up to 90% of the Collie population were carriers of hereditary blindness. Discussion and bibliography on this subject can be found in Beregovoy and Moore Porter (2001) and Derr (1997).
Degenerative selection The very life style of dog owners and the reasons why they breed or keep dogs are major parts of that environment, which is reshaping every dog breed in the long run, even contrary to the good intentions of dog owners to breed better dogs. This is a result of unconscious selection under conditions of passive life in kennels, inside homes or restricted physically by other means. The life of dogs in commercial kennels is particularly detrimental to an aboriginal dog breed, which is a discriminating, faithful, energetic, independent and capable field performer – all qualities not needed in a commercial style kennel. Indeed, the favorite dog of a show breeder, especially of a mass breeder, is a dog convenient for feeding, breeding, petting and, of course, for showing. Such a dog should be content with being locked up in the kennel for many long days without freedom to run and interact with the outside world. Kennel training became a routine requirement even for many family dogs. The dogs have to learn all kinds of things not to do: not to express craving for personal attention or for freedom by barking or trying to escape. In short, good kennel dogs should be dogs that are the least demanding for physical and mental activity and less responsive to all kinds of environmental stimuli. Their character should be closer to a pig or a rabbit than to a dog, “man’s best friend’. Moreover, the most convenient potential show winner, regardless of the original purpose of the breed, should allow an unfamiliar person to lead it away and to inspect it by touching without protest. The dog should stay calm for many hours of boring time when being transported and waiting at the show event. All these qualities are conducive to a natural indifference and sluggishness in the dog. Under these conditions, the high energy, full-of-fire dog is a disadvantage. Inventive ‘escape masters’ are the most likely category that a commercial breeder or an average backyard breeder, living in a friendly neighborhood, would want to get rid off first. Dogs with a long history of selection to be “good kennel dogs” do not need any innate desire or skill to find their home, because they would never be tested on the matter, being condemned to stay in kennels and never meant to be field performing dogs. They live life and are bred like rabbits and they are change accordingly. Some may argue that they take their dogs to different organized activity events specifically designed to keep the dogs and their owners busy, such as agility, weight pulling, lure coursing or water retrieving, schutzhund and obedience contests. All these are better then nothing, but with an aboriginal breed, this cannot replace real hunting, pulling sleds or protecting livestock one day after another. All these city dog activities are like a drop in the bucket and they are moreover different activities, which require a different dog. To an aboriginal breed, work is a part of life; to a cultured breed, work is a periodic active entertainment.
Another degenerative form of selection contrary to the traits of most biologically perfect dogs is linked with the basic biological function of reproduction, from mating to giving birth to puppies. Some breeders treat their dogs as if they were agricultural productive animals or even ornamental plants. Females with more then one estrus per year and producing larger litters have a natural selective advantage and this is good for making a profit from selling puppies. Females that do not accept males without prolonged courting and foreplay are at a disadvantage, especially if they had been flown or given a ride far away for mating with a choice sire. All naturally designed forms of behavior, such as courting, fighting, sometimes exhausting chasing have an adaptive purpose of preventing the unfit males from reproduction. Breeders prefer females readily mating with any male. Males, selected among show winners are “precious” potential sires and are usually being helped to mate by constraining the female, which otherwise would reject it, sensing its biological inferiority. The dogs must mate, especially, if one of them was shipped away just for mating with a choice dog.
When puppies are about to be born, all product oriented junk literature about dogs tells you: “Call your vet!” A good aboriginal dog female is a good mother and it does not need any assistance, except a place protected from bad weather, timely provided food and a bowl with water. Mother knows best and it is better to allows nature to take its course. Do not call your vet, but if the dog cannot breed the natural way, do not breed it at all. Even feeding kibble dry dog food, if continued for generations, will change our dogs genetically. Commercially produced dog food, does not exercise jaws and muscles, makes teeth dirty and overloads dog’s digestive system with all kind of ballast. It makes eating, digesting and defecating almost like in a herbivore, with plenty of excrement. In the long run, it may trigger certain adaptive changes in the dogs. Feed it natural foods!
Commercial dog breeders prefer younger females for breeding. Many hereditary health problems start showing up with age, especially, when the dog is over three – four years old. Commercial breeders do not like taking chances with breeding older dogs. Thus, deleterious mutations with effect on phenotype at an older age are avoided. This is why we have so many show dog breeds, which are not very smart, spontaneous unprovoked biters, not developing a bond with the master or a natural attachment to the place where they live, and get lost once allowed off leash, especially if left for some time unsupervised, etc. We have armies of dog behavior therapists, dog trainers, animal psychologists and veterinarians. Our cultured breed dogs keep them busy. With aboriginal dogs, these specialists would loose their earnings simply because they are all healthy physically and mentally. Natïve breeders of aboriginal dogs simply kill all abnormal individuals.
Preservation of heterozygosis of aboriginal breeds Finally, there is another important feature of aboriginal breeds, which is still poorly investigated. Every aboriginal breed in its own environment should have a high level of heterozygosis, similar to wild animal species. Much of the variation is of a polygenic nature. The high heterozygosis in aboriginal population can be expected a priori, because of the known wide range of phenotypical variation in their populations and because stabilizing natural selection favors heterozygous organisms. This is how balanced polymorphism is maintained in populations of wild animals. This is how a natural population absorbs, like a sponge, alleles from other aboriginal populations. This happens when dogs come in a direct contact as a result of transhumance. Hybrid vigor has a selective advantage, especially if newly obtained alleles are beneficial ones, and this is why aboriginal populations are always somewhat mongrelized. Despite the fact that certain types of aboriginal dogs prevail locally, under conditions of uncontrolled breeding or frequent genetic exchange between populations of adjacent and even far away regions, they are open to new possibilities, occurring naturally. Variation caused by contacts between dogs during seasonal migration (transhumance) is very old and well described by Cruz (2007) in livestock and herding dogs of Portugal. This kind of variation existed long before the recent influx of imported dogs and should not worry anyone. Trading caravans, regional fairs, hunting parties far away from home, war parties and the very nomadic way of life of aboriginal dog owners with their livestock have helped to maintain the general similarity of dogs of the same purpose over large territories, despite some local differences among dogs that have survived over long periods of time. Variation caused by mixing aboriginal dogs of similar purpose is not a problem, because they all can do the same job and their ability to survive does not diminish. Examples of this kind of mixing are in Kyrgyzstan between Taigan and Tazy, in Afghanistan between Afghan Hounds and Saluki, in Azerbaijan between shorthair and longhair Caucasian Mountain Dogs, in Siberia between hunting Laika types belonging to neighboring ethnic groups, between different types of contiguous populations of northern sled dogs, etc. It would be entirely different, if aboriginal breeds were mixed with imported cultural breeds. Even a small admixture of cultured breeds would be wiped out by natural selection. However, mass interbreeding, when imported breed dogs even outnumber aboriginal ones, is a death sentence for the aboriginal breed. Although aboriginal breeds came into existence at the hands of native dog breeders, purging alien genes from it would be difficult without some knowledge of animal science, genetics and good understanding of the breed. Because preservation of an aboriginal breed means preservation of a population, not just a few appealing looking dogs picked up by tourists, it should always be a collective effort by truly concerned breeders.
Saving aboriginal breeds from extinction
The avoidance of unconscious negative selection is very important for a long-term breeding program of any aboriginal breed and it is a challenging task. For example, if a well-informed dog lover imports a pair of aboriginal dogs from their native land, he would certainly take good care of them. He would do his best to find a good home for the puppies. However, the natural selection stops here. Now, it is up to the diligence of the breeder how not to destroy the dog’s fitness and its working ability, which fascinated him in the first place. This work ought to be well organized and the breeding must be selectively aimed primarily at working performance, traits of endurance and physical vigor. The dogs must be kept and evaluated under conditions as natural as possible. Keep them busy, hunting, pulling sleds, herding or guarding, according to the respective breed’s profession, and ensure diverse interactions with other dogs and the rest of the environment. This helps to know the dogs and find out the best dogs for breeding. Indeed, how will you find out if your dog is smart and capable of work, if you keep it locked up all the time? Many of us would give up the idea of having such a dog, because not everyone has the time and conditions to keep it the right way. To succeed, the breeder of aboriginal dogs should focus on their better performance.
At present, there are a few enthusiasts, who are trying to breed better dogs by using performance in the field as the sole criterion of the breed. This means selecting for a certain function, instead of a certain appearance.
In the USA, coyote hunters in central and western prairie states are developing the Coyote Hound for at least 100 years (Eliason, 2007). One may ask why develop another kind of a sight hound, when we already have several excellent sight hound breeds for hunting all kinds of game? The problem is none of them satisfies a coyote hunter. Under existing conditions in American prairie and western states, Greyhounds do not endure hot weather and can even die of overheating, if sent on a hot day after some quarry. Besides, they can break their legs on the rugged terrain. Scottish Deer Hounds have enough guts to fight a coyote, but they are not fast enough to catch it. Borzois can run fast, but they are not maneuverable enough, when the coyote starts weaving under barbed wire fence and shrubs; besides, they do too not like hot weather. A good Coyote Hound must be fast, maneuverable, bold and aggressive, strong and skillful for catching such a strong and fast predator as the coyote is. Coyote hunting enthusiasts are crossing all kinds of sighthounds and even non-sighthound dogs to add the necessary qualities to their major mixed breed origin stock. Trial and error continues, anything goes, which helps further to improve the breed functionally. Is it a breed? Yes, this is the breed, which is the best at catching and killing coyotes. Its appearance does not matter much, but in the functional part, they all are very good and similar anatomically. Their appearance is variable; but this is unimportant for their function; some dogs have a wiry coat and have a beard, like the Scottish Deer Hound, and some are smooth; some have one ear upright and the other hanging and any coat color is accepted. Their functional anatomy and vigor are perfected to the limit, but some less important traits of the appearance, such as ears or coat color, are allowed to vary. Owners and users of the Coyote Hound think that their dogs are beautiful, but to the traditional “purist» dog breeder, this is hard to accept. The coyote hunters see beauty in their dogs’ performance. The Coyote Sight Hound is truly a unique dog breed with one single and most important trait, they can catch and kill coyote better then any other existing purebred.
Another example is the Alaskan Husky. What kind of a breed is it? The Alaskan Husky is a dog breed, which can pull sleds very fast and very far. Function comes first. What do the dogs look like? Very much like the northern Spitz (or Siberian sled dog). Any coat color is acceptable; some dogs have not perfectly prick ears or asymmetric ears, but because of the function and the northern environment, the classic sled dog appearance prevails. Genetically, this breed is in a constant flux, because its enthusiasts cross again and again, trying to improve function. All kinds of breeds have been added to the breeding stock: aboriginal North American sled dogs similar to the Canadian Eskimo Dog, the Alaskan Malamute and the Siberian Husky. Since the Gold Rush era sighthounds were added for speed, scenthounds for endurance, Irish Setters for hyper temperament, and more recently the German Shorthaired Pointer, the German Shepherd Dog and, sometimes, wolf. All this was recombined and reselected to improve one function, which is always the same, running very fast and for very long. The appearance is subordinate to the function. Perhaps under pressure of natural selection and life in the north, at a glance the Alaskan Husky is a northern sled dog. Alaskan Huskies may not look beautiful enough to some, but they win races.
These two examples deserve the serious attention of zoologists and geneticists. Some dog experts decisively refuse to recognize these two breeds, but in fact, these dogs are as much breeds as any other pedigreed breed, but they are based on a different concept of breed. In these two cases, appearance is subordinate to working ability and dogs of each of the two breeds are quite uniform anatomically and behaviorally. Perhaps, this is how all aboriginal breeds started in prehistoric time, when their ancestors initially looked like the Dingo or other generalist aboriginal dogs?
Selection for performing a certain job began from the time when the wolf was first domesticated. Perhaps the job of the first dogs was just being a pet and occasionally food. This is that ecological niche, which was occupied by the Australian Dingo before it became discovered by Europeans. Being selected over millennia for different functions and adapting to different geographic environments, they diverged, producing Laika, Saluki, livestock guarding dogs and other types of aboriginal breeds. Their further fate would depend on the fate of entire ecological systems, from where they came to us. Breeding for preservation is not the same as breeding for improvement. Even if we know what any particular aboriginal bred should be able to do and how it should look, breeding it in “captivity” can help only as a temporary measure; if continued for many generations; it will change the breed for the worse, because of degenerative selection.
Some aboriginal breeds are highly variable morphologically and are even polytypical, which means they have more then one type in one population or several close sub-breeds. Understandably, their natural diversity cannot be preserved by breeding to a traditional breed standard that reduces variation as much as possible. The standard of an aboriginal breed must be more liberal, descriptive and include more than one type found in the home country of the breed. A. Sedefchev and S. Sedefchev (2007) already put it to work with the Karakachan Dog. The best dogs suitable for breeding should not be show champions, but rather best rated dogs. Entire dog show and trials of aboriginal breeds should be redesigned to emphasize field behavior and physical performance.
The preservation of maximal heterozygosis within breeding stock could be achieved beneficially by running several parallel lines with periodic subsequent crossbreeding. Breeders of productive agricultural animals commonly use this method.
Using and breeding aboriginal dogs for performing a different job that is new to them would change them, especially if they were selected for greater trainability. This would change them by making them more responsive to trainer’s commands, but this may come at the expense of their ability to work independently in their native countries.
Owners of cultured breeds will continue breeding and taking their dogs to shows and many do not mind to picking up some of the aboriginal breeds to keep and breed them for the same purpose. Some strains derived out of aboriginal breeds, after a number of generations, will be selectively modified for a different use, or even transformed into a different breed under a different name. Adding a healthy and vigorous genes of aboriginal “wild type” breeds to ailing genetically cultured breeds can be a benefit. However, this activity is irrelevant to our goal of preserving indigenous ancient aboriginal breeds.
Preserving aboriginal breeds should be a part of a broader nature conservation project, involving landscapes, vegetation and wild animals, such as hares, antelopes, jackals, foxes, wolves, coyotes, bears, etc. Of course, people with their traditional ways of land use with their livestock and dogs would be a vital part of such projects. Effective conservation cannot be achieved unless the people who live and rely on these lands are an integral part of the conservation process. Nature Conservancy and various charitable funds and associations should support such projects and aboriginal dog lovers would benefit by saving the truly “wild type” core populations of aboriginal breeds. At this conference, we had an opportunity to hear about interesting studies and developments in the history, variation and preservation of the Tazy in Central Asia and in Kazakhstan. The breed is certainly on the way to recovery (K. N. Plakhov and A. S. Plakhova, 2005). The authors have done tremendous work to save the breed in the country and have accumulated very interesting knowledge of the breed’s history and existing variation. However, their recent idea of developing a separate breed, the Kazakh Tazy, is potentially dangerous to the very idea of preserving this breed as an aboriginal one. It would simply be transformed into another cultured breed with all the subsequent changes, such as a reduction of variability and isolation from its still surviving really aboriginal populations. Very interesting results from scientific in-depth studies on the aboriginal breeds of Portugal were presented by Cruz (2007). An example of progress in the preservation of the Karakachan Dog was made by A. Sedefchev and S. Sedefchev (2007) in Bulgaria. The Sedefchevs, did not fly to Almaty, as they planned, but they sent their article recently. They conduct an exciting project for preserving three of the oldest animal breeds still surviving in Europe: the Karakachan Dog, the Karakachan sheep and the indigenous breed of horse; and this work is a part of an integral project of nature preservation, including wolves and bears. Such efforts can serve as an example to others how to obtain financial support and tackle such difficult and complex problems.
Breeders, actively using aboriginal dogs for work and for sports are exactly those people, who must seriously contribute in their preservation for future generations. Nevertheless, saving aboriginal dogs in their countries of origin is the most reliable way of securing the survival of these unique remarkable dogs. Strains of aboriginal breeds in possession of dog owners far away from countries of their origin would need periodic genetic exchange with core populations of the “wild type”, just as the ancient Greek giant Antaeus needed to touch mother Earth to regain his strength.
Beregovoy, V. and J. Moore Porter. 2001. Primitive Breeds – Perfect Dogs. Hoflin Publishing. 424 pp.
Coren, S. 1994. The Intelligence of Dogs. A Guide to the Thoughts, Emotions, and Inner Lives of Our
Canine Companions. Bantam Books. New York, Toronto, London, Sydney, Auckland. 271 pp.
Cruz, C. 2007. Livestock guarding dogs from Portugal. A review of current knowledge. In this pubicaton.
Derr, M. 1997. Dog’s Bes Friend. Annals of Dog Human Relationships. Henry Holt and Company, New
York, 380 pp.
Eliason, E. 2007. In this publication.
I’m a bit behind on posting these. Below you will find links to download the latest PADS journals (in English). These journals include some great articles on the color genetics of spitz-type dogs as well as information on the Tazy and the Avuvi.
Today I was watching Ike play with Masha. They have a very dysfunctional relationship. It seems they both want to play but have trouble communicating, which leads to frustration on both sides.
Also, Ike seems to have a major crush on Masha, so there are a lot of attempted-humpings in these Ike-Masha interactions.
Because of all this, these interactions usually lead to Masha ignoring Ike and Ike becoming frustrated at her. How does Ike respond to this frustration? By barking toward her. I wrote “toward her” because he doesn’t really bark at her, he bark above her… Like he’s barking up at an object.
This made me realize something: he was displaying a similar behavior seen when a dog trees game.
Ike is a West Siberian Laika, which is a breed that has been used through history for treeing small game. So this type of behavior is very much “built in” for Ike – it’s a innate behavioral pattern.
This makes me wonder: is this behavior pattern the product of selecting treeing dogs to be extra sensitive to frustration and extra vocal (and loud)?
Then I started to think about all the times I have heard Ike bark. You know, he doesn’t bark all that much, but when he does it’s usually out of frustration.
For example, when I leave him in my car while I run in a store real quick – he responds by barking. When I walk out in the yard and he is on the other side of a fence, he responds by barking. When Jen or I give affection to another dog while Ike is around he responds by barking. There are many other examples, but they all seem to center around Ike being frustrated.
Basically, the behavior chain looks like this: Ike gets frustrated > Ike barks…
If the barking results in him not getting what he wants (negative punishment) > his frustration builds > Ike barks more.
If the barking results in him getting what he wants, i.e. he’s no longer frustrated (positive reinforcement) > he stops barking.
Based on that bit of logic, is treeing behavior in hunting dogs simply a negative punishment loop?…
The hunting dog chases game up a tree. The dog gets frustrated at the game in the tree and barks. The game moves further away up the tree (or stays still) due to the barking (negative punishment), which frustrates the dog more, and the barking increases.
Eventually the hunter comes and shoots the animal, which drops to the ground allowing the dog to interact with it (or at least see it), which acts as positive reinforcement for the loop.
This has to be an artificially selected behavioral loop as wolves don’t bark, and if they did, they wouldn’t bother staying at the base of a tree barking pointlessly at a small animal. That’s a horrible waste of energy, and wolves need to conserve their energy the best they can. Also, a wolf doesn’t have a human companion to come along and kill the animal in the tree for him/her, and certainly barking (you know, if wolves barked) isn’t going to get the the critter out of the tree.