Differences in the Behavior of Landraces and Breeds of Dogs - Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals - page 202

true of other species such as the house mouse, pigeon, rat, or the particular
bird species that use bird feeders.
One might hypothesize that the apparent similarity of size and shape
worldwide suggests selective pressures for energetic efficiency for the
resources, climate, and other environmental factors involved in scavenging
the village environment. Selection favored those individuals which could
feed close to human habitation. There may not have been any net benefit for
people, just as there may or may not be selective advantages to having house
mice or rats foraging in the human environment. The symbiotic relationship
is therefore commensalism—and for dogs it is an obligatory commensalism.
It could be that people derived sanitary benefits from having wastes
removed from the living area, and that dogs provided food, and that barking
at impending dooms was valuable. But (and this is a big “but”) there is no
more implication that selection occurred on the basis of these benefits than
there is for rats that lived on garbage, that were eaten on occasion, and that
warned sailors about their sinking ship by running up the mast. For the most
part, even in modern times, dogs are seen as noisy pests from which people
need to protect themselves ( Lord et al., 2009 ).
The diagnostic characteristics of domestic dogs, i.e. floppy ears, multicol-
ored piebald coats, and diestrous cycling, have also been subjected to the a
posteriori argument. One must keep in mind the results of Belyaev and Trut
(1975) . In an experiment to produce manageable and tame behaviors in
farmed fur foxes, Belyaev and Trut chose from large populations only those
animals with shorter flight distances. Breeding these animals together and
choosing the progeny with shorter flight distances, in a mere 20 generations
they essentially produced a domesticated (genetically tame) form. And, in
addition to the tame behavior, a number of unexpected anatomical changes
occurred, including piebald coats, diestrous cycles, floppy ears, and bizarre
vocalizations; “ they even sound like dogs” ( Belyaev, 1979 ). “Natural”

selection for flight distance produced morphological and behavioral salta-
tions which were not selected for.
The transformation from wild fox into dog-like creature simply by choos-
ing tame behavior has to mirror in some way the original transformation of
wild-type canid into dog. Animals that can forage on village wastes (a new
niche) in the presence of humans would have a selective advantage over their
siblings which were limited to scavenging at night on the outskirts of town.
This hypothesis is based on an observable population of animals in which
selection for reduced flight distance accounts for a differential mortality. One
advantage of this hypothesis is that there is a substantial population in which a
differential mortality can occur, which the Darwinian Theory requires. The
common belief that humans consciously chose those wild animals that were
tamable, and entered into a mutualistic working relationship with them (hunt-
ing), lacks evidence of a substantial population. None of the characteristic dog
traits are the result of simple Mendelian gene segregation, nor did Belyaev

...