Literature DB >> 28585433

Reconsidering the distribution of gray wolves.

Greger Larson1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2017        PMID: 28585433      PMCID: PMC5460078          DOI: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2017.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Zool Res        ISSN: 2095-8137


× No keyword cloud information.
When attempting to understand where domestic plants and animals were domesticated, it is essential to consider the geographic distribution of the wild ancestor. Many domestic taxa now inhabit just about every continent thanks to their human-mediated dispersal which began soon after they were incorporated into the human niche. But just because sheep are now crucial to the economy of New Zealand and Wales, for example, does not mean that they were domesticated there. In fact, they could not have been since the wild ancestors of sheep were geographically restricted to a relatively small portion of Western Eurasia (Pedrosa et al., 2005). Similarly, chickens, rabbits and camels are now found across the planet. Though wild populations of all three have also been moved by people and thrive in their new environments, it is only within the pre-historic natural ranges of the wild species that they could have been domesticated (Larson et al., 2014; Larson&Fuller, 2014; Wang et al., 2014). The geographic origins of dogs have been contentious for several reasons, not the least of which is the widespread distribution of wolves across the Northern Hemisphere. The ability of wolves to colonise such a tremendous range from Portugal to Newfoundland means that, at least theoretically, dog domestication could have taken place anywhere (or more than once) across these longitudes. Since 2002, multiple genetic studies of modern samples have suggested that dogs were domesticated in Southern East Asia (e.g., Wang et al., 2016a), though other studies have suggested alternative scenarios (e.g., Botigué et al., 2016; Frantz et al., 2016; Shannon et al., 2015). According to several canonical maps of wolf distribution, however, wolf populations never existed in this region. If true, then the conclusions based upon the genetic studies will have failed at the first hurdle since it would be impossible to domesticate a population that did not exist. In order to establish the veracity of the commonly accepted maps, and to establish whether wolves were ever present in China, a new study conducted by Wang et al. (2016b) systematically searched for evidence for the presence of wolves. They began with a comprehensive literature search, but not content to rely on the testimony of others, they also visited three natural history museums and obtained 26 skins collected across China. Lastly, they identified 25 archaeological sites including wolf remains. Taken in isolation, these individual lines of evidence could be questioned. The weight of all three together, however, suggests that at least historically, and most likely in pre-history as well, grey wolves maintained populations across China. An email exchange with the authors of the primary source that claimed wolves were absent from most of China revealed that the southern borders of the wolf distribution map were a great deal more equivocal than the boundary led readers to believe. This result demonstrates the pitfalls of taking species distribution maps at face value. In this case, the line demarking the southern boundary of the grey wolf distribution has enormous ramifications. If wolves were present in central and southern China as recently as the second half of the 20th century, they were likely present in the preceding millennia and thus, they could have been the source of a domestication process in East Asia. This is not to say that dogs were definitively domesticated in China, but this result does at least remove a major hurdle that had been undermining that contention. More generally, Wang et al. (2016b) demonstrates the power of a comprehensive due diligence to clarify what had been a long-standing, though ultimately insubstantial claim. In addition, this approach is key for ground-truthing and illuminating western scientists about the literature and records that have historically been difficult to penetrate. A great deal more information is sitting just under the surface and with collaborations between Eastern and Western scientist, the entire scientific community will benefit enormously, and answers to long-standing questions will be forthcoming.
  8 in total

1.  Genetic structure in village dogs reveals a Central Asian domestication origin.

Authors:  Laura M Shannon; Ryan H Boyko; Marta Castelhano; Elizabeth Corey; Jessica J Hayward; Corin McLean; Michelle E White; Mounir Abi Said; Baddley A Anita; Nono Ikombe Bondjengo; Jorge Calero; Ana Galov; Marius Hedimbi; Bulu Imam; Rajashree Khalap; Douglas Lally; Andrew Masta; Kyle C Oliveira; Lucía Pérez; Julia Randall; Nguyen Minh Tam; Francisco J Trujillo-Cornejo; Carlos Valeriano; Nathan B Sutter; Rory J Todhunter; Carlos D Bustamante; Adam R Boyko
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-10-19       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Current perspectives and the future of domestication studies.

Authors:  Greger Larson; Dolores R Piperno; Robin G Allaby; Michael D Purugganan; Leif Andersson; Manuel Arroyo-Kalin; Loukas Barton; Cynthia Climer Vigueira; Tim Denham; Keith Dobney; Andrew N Doust; Paul Gepts; M Thomas P Gilbert; Kristen J Gremillion; Leilani Lucas; Lewis Lukens; Fiona B Marshall; Kenneth M Olsen; J Chris Pires; Peter J Richerson; Rafael Rubio de Casas; Oris I Sanjur; Mark G Thomas; Dorian Q Fuller
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-04-22       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  Domestication genomics: evidence from animals.

Authors:  Guo-Dong Wang; Hai-Bing Xie; Min-Sheng Peng; David Irwin; Ya-Ping Zhang
Journal:  Annu Rev Anim Biosci       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 8.923

4.  Evidence of three maternal lineages in Near Eastern sheep supporting multiple domestication events.

Authors:  Susana Pedrosa; Metehan Uzun; Juan-José Arranz; Beatriz Gutiérrez-Gil; Fermín San Primitivo; Yolanda Bayón
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2005-10-22       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Genomic and archaeological evidence suggest a dual origin of domestic dogs.

Authors:  Laurent A F Frantz; Victoria E Mullin; Maud Pionnier-Capitan; Ophélie Lebrasseur; Morgane Ollivier; Angela Perri; Anna Linderholm; Valeria Mattiangeli; Matthew D Teasdale; Evangelos A Dimopoulos; Anne Tresset; Marilyne Duffraisse; Finbar McCormick; László Bartosiewicz; Erika Gál; Éva A Nyerges; Mikhail V Sablin; Stéphanie Bréhard; Marjan Mashkour; Adrian Bălăşescu; Benjamin Gillet; Sandrine Hughes; Olivier Chassaing; Christophe Hitte; Jean-Denis Vigne; Keith Dobney; Catherine Hänni; Daniel G Bradley; Greger Larson
Journal:  Science       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Ancient European dog genomes reveal continuity since the Early Neolithic.

Authors:  Laura R Botigué; Shiya Song; Amelie Scheu; Shyamalika Gopalan; Amanda L Pendleton; Matthew Oetjens; Angela M Taravella; Timo Seregély; Andrea Zeeb-Lanz; Rose-Marie Arbogast; Dean Bobo; Kevin Daly; Martina Unterländer; Joachim Burger; Jeffrey M Kidd; Krishna R Veeramah
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2017-07-18       Impact factor: 14.919

Review 7.  The geographical distribution of grey wolves (Canis lupus) in China: a systematic review.

Authors:  Lu Wang; Ya-Ping Ma; Qi-Jun Zhou; Ya-Ping Zhang; Peter Savolaimen; Guo-Dong Wang
Journal:  Zool Res       Date:  2016-11-18

8.  Out of southern East Asia: the natural history of domestic dogs across the world.

Authors:  Guo-Dong Wang; Weiwei Zhai; He-Chuan Yang; Lu Wang; Li Zhong; Yan-Hu Liu; Ruo-Xi Fan; Ting-Ting Yin; Chun-Ling Zhu; Andrei D Poyarkov; David M Irwin; Marjo K Hytönen; Hannes Lohi; Chung-I Wu; Peter Savolainen; Ya-Ping Zhang
Journal:  Cell Res       Date:  2015-12-15       Impact factor: 25.617

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.