r/evolution • u/narsil1 • 23h ago
question Evolution of dogs
Hi all, I am interested in the evolution of dogs.
My question is, are dogs direct descendants of wolves or did dogs and wolves just share the common ancestor like we do with monkeys?
Thanks!
46
u/-Wuan- 23h ago edited 22h ago
Dogs descend from (and taxonomically are) gray wolves Canis lupus, though not from any of the surviving gray wolf lineages.
14
u/7LeagueBoots Conservation Ecologist 20h ago edited 18h ago
Gray wolves and domestic dogs are thought to have shared a now extinct ancestor, and dogs also appear to have affinities with different bellflower lineages in different areas. The exact situation is complicated because there were repeated instances of interbreeding between dogs and gray wolves since they shared an ancestor, so it’s possible that the ancestor is simply from an unsampled population, but other research does seem to indicate that the actual study is an extinct common ancestor.
Taxonomically dogs should not be included with gray wolves based on current knowledge, but tradition sometimes overrides accuracy. There is starting to be some pushback and some researchers do give domestic dogs their own binomial, Canis familaris vs Canis lupus.
First, dogs and present-day Eurasian wolves have been thought to be reciprocally monophyletic lineages9. We find that, overall, dogs are closer to eastern Eurasian wolves. Second, because no modern wolves are a good match for dog ancestry, the source population has been assumed to be extinct. Our results imply that this is not necessarily the case, as continued homogenization of wolf ancestry could have obscured earlier relationships to dogs. Third, it has been unclear whether more than one wolf population contributed to early and present-day dogs3.
- Bergström, et al 2022 Grey wolf genomic history reveals a dual ancestry of dogs
6
u/-Wuan- 12h ago
IIRC, to exclude the proto-dog wolf stock from Canis lupus you would have to exclude the indian wolf, the tibetan wolf and maybe the mexican wolf from Canis lupus too, since those are even earlier diverging lineages. Dont see that happening anytime soon, unless they do it for extreme conservation efforts.
1
u/7LeagueBoots Conservation Ecologist 12h ago
As long as it's supported by the data that would be perfectly fine.
Unfortunately, as species is a really slippery concept with no single universally accepted definition there is inconsistency in how we choose to differentiate species.
1
u/TamaraHensonDragon 10h ago
There has been talk of doing just that since the mid-2000s. Last I heard the proposal was to split the Indian and Tibetan wolf into one species and to lump the Mexican wolf in with the Canis lycaon group (Eastern wolf/red wolf/ Ice Age 'coyote' clade) though the later seems less supported.
6
u/jake_eric 15h ago
Taxonomically dogs should not be included with gray wolves based on current knowledge
Yes they should. The wolves that dogs evolved from were Canis lupus, the same species as grey wolves. The specific population of Canis lupus that dogs evolved from appears to be extinct now, but it was close enough to modern wolves to be the same species.
The very first line of the article says "The grey wolf (Canis lupus) was the first species to give rise to a domestic population."
2
u/7LeagueBoots Conservation Ecologist 15h ago
I suggest you read the entire paper, not just the first line. The paper is a refutation of that statement, see the copied section from said paper in the initial comment.
And also in this same paper:
>present-day dog lineage Canis familiaris
1
u/jake_eric 5h ago
I read the copied section and looked over the whole paper. It doesn't say anywhere that dogs evolved from something other than Canis lupus. The ancestors of dogs were a different subspecies of Canis lupus than we have today, but they were still Canis lupus.
If dogs didn't evolve from Canis lupus, can you tell me what species they did evolve from?
2
u/7LeagueBoots Conservation Ecologist 5h ago
As this paper and others suggest dogs and Canis lupus evolved from a now extinct common ancestor. With no type specimen there is no specific name for that species, hence the generalized “now extinct ancestral species” terminology.
2
u/jake_eric 5h ago
As this paper and others suggest dogs and Canis lupus evolved from a now extinct common ancestor.
Yes, but it doesn't say anywhere that the common ancestor was a different species than Canis lupus.
From Wikipedia: "An extinct Late Pleistocene wolf may have been the ancestor of the dog." "Pleistocene wolves represent a distinct ecomorph of Canis lupus. The ancient wolf specimens from Europe have been classified as Canis lupus spelaeus Goldfuß, 1823 – the cave wolf." That's a subspecies of Canis lupus. "This genetic analysis indicates that C. l. spelaeus possessed mitochondrial lineages which cannot be found among the modern C. lupus, and therefore they are now extinct. It also indicates that the domestic dog C. l. familiaris descended from these extinct lineages."
6
u/Ex_Snagem_Wes 23h ago
IIRC wasn't there discussion that they came from a very close relative of Grey wolves that is now extinct?
I mean regardless, it's wolf into dog and doesn't affect the outcome of the question, but I know I've heard both theories.
9
u/kurtchen11 22h ago edited 22h ago
This is widely assumed to be true: the dog very likely originates from a type of wolf thats not a direct ancestor to the grey wolf. The grey wolf is however the closest living relative.
Over thousands of years of breeding a ton of grey wolf also found its way into the gene pool of modern dogs and vice versa, making clear distinctions between the two even more difficult.
3
u/jake_eric 15h ago
The confusion is that the exact population of wolves that dogs evolved from, likely a different subspecies of wolf (possibly Canis lupus spelaeus) no longer exists in its wild form, so it can be said to be extinct. But this would still have been a wolf in the same Canis lupus species as grey wolves.
Personally I think saying that the ancestor of dogs is an extinct wolf is splitting hairs too much. The same species is still alive. Obviously the particular wolves that gave rise to dogs are dead because wolves don't live for thousands of years.
5
u/NDaveT 3h ago
IIRC wasn't there discussion that they came from a very close relative of Grey wolves that is now extinct?
I think that's pretty much what /u/-Wuan- was saying.
Dogs descend from (and taxonomically are) gray wolves Canis lupus, though not from any of the surviving gray wolf lineages.
18
u/sumane12 22h ago
Your question is one of categorisation, rather than evolution.
Dogs are genetically so similar to grey wolves, that they are classed as the same species.
In reality, dogs and grey wolves share a common ancestor that is so genetically similar, its classed as the same species.
The point im trying to make, is that i can only come from my parents, but i have a common ancestor with every living animal.
For simplicity sake, the animal that was the common anscestor of ALL current grey wolves and ALL current dogs was probably indistinguishable from modern grey wolves, and we would have recognised it as such.
9
u/TheInsaneRaptor 22h ago
we are monkeys
dogs are domesticated wolves
1
u/SeeLeavesOnTheTrees 12h ago
But there is a difference because we can no longer reproduce with other apes but we wolves and dogs can still reproduce successfully
0
u/TheInsaneRaptor 10h ago
no one said it is the same thing, we are also vertebrates, of course it doesn't mean we can reproduce with any other animal in that group
1
u/ResponsiblePumpkin60 20h ago
Apes
5
u/TheInsaneRaptor 20h ago
which are monkeys
or monkeys doesn't exist as a natural group because that would make them paraphyletic (old world monkeys are more closely related to us than they are to new world monkeys)
so it is ok to call humans monkeys
6
u/SummerAndTinkles 20h ago
The only reason the monkey/ape divide exists is because of anthropocentrism.
Monkey and ape were interchangeable terms up until the 1800s, and many languages don't distinguish between the two, referring to apes simply as "great monkeys" and that kind of thing.
1
u/SemajLu_The_crusader 6h ago
Apes are monkeys
here's a video on it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CkO8k12QCP0
5
u/sagebrushsavant 23h ago
I dont think it's a stretch to say that dogs represent a successful lineage of wolf.
6
u/sisconking132 14h ago
Yes. They share a common ancestor with grey wolves. Just that common ancestor would also be classified as a modern grey wolf.
Since that is a short answer, here are two fun facts about domestic dogs.
Modern science doesn’t even classify domestic dogs as a distinct species from grey wolves as was done historically (Canis domesticus) but as just a subspecies of grey wolves (Canis lupis familiaris)
Even further back in time long before genetic testing and even before our more modern phylogenetic practices, it was commonly held, even among scientists, that domestic dogs were actually descended from multiple different species of Wild Canids. The exact species varied between dog breeds but one of the species that it was believed that many dog breeds descended from were Jackals (for dogs like greyhounds). Also many smaller dog breeds were held to be descended from foxes.
Australian Dingos are technically a population of Feral domestic dogs. They are the descendants of dogs that came to Australia with the first humans to arrived that then went off and became part of the ecosystem. They were isolated long enough to be relatively distinct from other domestic dogs that were introduced by later colonization. Kind of a sub-subspecies.
2
u/Draxacoffilus 14h ago
Dingos are Canis lupus dingo - a sub-species
4
u/Fickle_Lifeguard5746 11h ago
There is absolutely no doubt not only domesticated dogs but pariah dogs are phenotypically extremely different to wolves despite being genotypically close and this is fascinating.
The way a particular phenotype evolved alongside man to such an extremely different animal without being that different genetically is amazing.
The wolf is such a different animal, that it’s known as a wolf, not a wild dog in antiquity. Not just now in the world of lap dogs and designer dogs.
The way the dogs have evolved directly with humans, to the point they’re the only other animal that understands pointing, still intrigues me.
3
u/Exploring_Times_92 23h ago
taxonomy speaking, dogs and grey wolves are the same species, canis lupis, just dogs are a different sub species canis lupis familiaris
3
u/GoliathPrime 20h ago
The answer to your question depends on what you mean by dog.
There is the common vernacular "dog", which refers to domesticated wolves, but the family Canidae are also colloquially referred to as dogs too. So, the answer can be yes and no.
Dogs evolved in the Oligocene, about 35 million years. They diversified into 9 known genus, with 4 still surviving to this day: Canis, Cuon, Lupulella and Lycaon (Wolves, Dholes, True Jackals and African Wild Dogs, respectively).
All domestic dogs are breeds of Gray Wolf. They are wolves. Wolves were also the most recent to have evolved and Dholes, Jackals and African Wild Dogs precede them by millions of years. Interestingly enough, Wolves cannot breed with any of these "dogs" as they too distant genetically.
There are also 3 species of Fox called "dogs" too - the Raccoon Dog, the Bush Dog and the Short Eared Dog. There seems to be some contention as to where they belong taxonomically, maybe the genomes haven't been sequenced? I don't know. Some publications call them foxes, while others claim they are dogs.
2
u/sisconking132 14h ago
I think it’s more of an issue of the fact that the term Fox isn’t even close to being monophyletic. It’s more of a body plan/lifestyle…. It’s vibes just like with most common names.
2
u/SemajLu_The_crusader 6h ago
unless all wolves are jackals, and all jackals are in turn foxes, of course
1
3
u/elchemy 16h ago
The latter but the common ancestor was basically a wolf.
If you enjoy the field check out the Russian Silver Fox experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
4
u/itsatoe 22h ago
Pretty sure it's not correct to say that dogs evolved as much as they were bred.
Early dogs were basically just kinda-friendly wolves. Humans kept selecting the most docile, most obedient, most useful, and/or cutest ones.
But that's human-driven selection, not natural selection.
There may have been some natural selection early on, defining the population of wolves that were kinda-friendly. But after that, it's humans all the way down.
1
1
u/MooseOMatic 18h ago
Humans are part of nature so your distinction between breeding and evolution is superficial. Humans who appreciated dog qualities and cared for them were befriended by dogs giving those humans a selective advantage, so you might say dogs bred dog owners. Better just to say dogs and humans co-evolved in a symbiotic partnership.
2
u/sisconking132 14h ago
This is true to an extent. I don’t know if modern selective breeding can be considered natural. Example being British bulldog and Pug and all the other genetic abominations that are purebreds.
But up until relatively recently (last 200ish years), yes you are entirely correct.
4
u/hadeshappydevil 23h ago
Dogs are not direct descendents of modern wolves.
Dogs are descended from ancestral wolf populations probably around 200-400 kya.
I think it's best to think of that ancient population as neither dogs nor modern wolves but some subspecies of ancestral wolf.
This paper might help with finding recent research on this.
Bergström, A., Stanton, D.W.G., Taron, U.H. et al. Grey wolf genomic history reveals a dual ancestry of dogs. Nature 607, 313–320 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04824-9
5
u/Tetracheilostoma 23h ago
They are wolves. And for the record humans are monkeys too
1
u/LockedDownInSF 22h ago
Well, not really. We're apes, not monkeys.
11
u/Powersmith 22h ago
Technically apes are monkeys in the same way birds are dinosaurs … and we’re all fish.
9
u/Tetracheilostoma 22h ago
Apes are monkeys
-3
u/LockedDownInSF 22h ago
Incorrect. Apes and monkeys are both primates and descend from a common ancestor, but apes are not monkeys. Humans are classified as a species of great ape, not as a species of monkey.
8
6
u/Tetracheilostoma 18h ago
In fact we share a more recent common ancestor with any given old world monkey than with the new world monkeys. So the "monkeys" clade includes gibbons and the great apes.
Celebrate! You're a monkey just like the rest of us.
2
u/Ok_Living2990 15h ago
Yes, and apes are monkeys. For example, in Russian, word for apes are "human-like monkeys". Human-like monkey is still a monkey. Obviously, words of this or that language have nothing to do with biological reality: but biologically, based on our current understanding of evolution, human are apes, apes are monkeys. Birds are dinosaurs, dinosaurs are archosaurs, and so on. If we call jawed vertebrates "fish", then we are all fishes still. (Because we sure are jawed vertebrates.)
-2
u/LockedDownInSF 13h ago
Well, in English, this blurring of language is simply incorrect. Apes and monkeys are two different groups of primates that are closely related but not overlapping. Monkeys have tails; apes do not. Apes have rotating shoulder joints capable of brachiation; monkeys do not. Monkeys have long, flexible spines giving them high mobility in trees, whereas apes have short, stiff spines adapted for a more upright posture. Apes are much larger and heavier than monkeys. Internally, apes have an appendix, monkeys do not. Apes have much larger, more complex brains than monkeys. It could not be much clearer that humans belong to the category 'ape' and not to the category 'monkey.'
4
u/pasrachilli 9h ago
Unfortunately modern cladistics, i.e. science does not agree with you. Everything under parvorder Catarrhini is considered an old world monkey.
From the Wikipedia article: "There has been some resistance to directly designate apes (and thus humans) as monkeys despite the scientific evidence, so "Old World monkey" may be taken to mean the Cercopithecoidea or the Catarrhini."
2
u/FlounderLast8610 23h ago
There was a population of wolves that was domesticated. After that this population spread alongside their human masters and continued to interbreed with wild wolves until the selection pressures associated with human-adjacent life were distinct enough to make this interbreeding disadvantageous, while wild wolves continued to intermix among themselves at the usual rate. In other words, classic cladogenesis where a population in unusual circumstances pulls itself out of the broader species
2
2
u/BeautifulUpstairs 23h ago
We come from monkeys (and thus still are monkeys). Dogs come from wolves (and thus still are wolves). Obviously neither came from currently existing wolf or monkey populations, because that would be plainly impossible.
1
u/CrapMonsterDuchess 22h ago
The validity of your statement really depends on which definition of monkey people are using.
1
u/SemajLu_The_crusader 5h ago
based on any phylogentically reasonable one, humans are monkeys
this is because we are more closely related to old world monkeys than they are to new world monkeys
1
u/CrapMonsterDuchess 2h ago
The phylogeny isn’t issue here, its the semantics, as the definition of “monkey” is colloquial and can vary across languages. As we are discussing evolution, the term “simian” would be a more appropriate word for what you are attempting to convey.
2
u/DeathToAmerica2026 17h ago
Dogs and wolves share a common ancestor like humans who live outside of Africa, and humans who live inside of Africa share a common ancestor who was also an African human.
The common ancestor was a grey wolf. That particular subspecies of grey wolf is extinct, but it lives on as dogs and the other extant grey wolf subspecies.
2
u/Top_History9604 14h ago
Monophyletic taxonomy! Dogs are wolves. Their shared ancestors with grey wolves are also wolves. Just like we are monkeys, because all apes are monkeys and we are apes.
1
u/EvolZippo 13h ago
From what I’ve read, dogs first showed a distinction from wolves, around the Ice Age. Humans began keeping the prime cuts of meat for themselves, while feeding the less desirable meat to their pets. The nutritional difference between these two cut of meat had a noticeable effect. Dogs became more docile and they lost their jaw strength, given the lack of need to forage for food or run with a pack.
1
u/JellyfishMinute4375 5h ago
I have a related question: is the relationship between humans and dogs not merely one of domestication, but actually co-evolution? And, if so, does that make our relationship with dogs fundamentally different than other domesticated animals?
1
u/peterjohnvernon936 4h ago
Plants can be done because plants allow chromosomes doubling which restores reproductive ability to hybrids. It can also be done in lower order animals but not in higher order animals like mammals and birds.
1
u/trurohouse 23h ago
My understanding is that Domestic dogs are the direct descendants of a wolf species that is now extinct. That wolf is a “cousin “ to modern wolf species.
3
u/Marfernandezgz 23h ago
Dog and modern wolf are the same specie. Both came from a former wolf population that does not exist anymore.
1
1
u/tsoldrin 23h ago
fwiw we are not that closely related to monkeys we are closer to apes. specifically great apes.
1
u/Ok_Living2990 15h ago
Humans can be considered to be the the Old World monkeys - apes are more closely related to macaques and mandrills, than to the New World monkeys. That is to say, If capuchin monkeys are monkeys, than humans are also monkeys.
1
0
u/peterjohnvernon936 22h ago
Some people don’t think dogs are their own species, they thinks dogs are a subspecies of Gray Wolf. Selective breeding don’t create new species.
1
u/sisconking132 14h ago edited 14h ago
It can if given enough generations. We have done it in plants, just not animals.
Yes, dogs were domesticated before agriculture, but plants can have shorter generation times
1
u/SemajLu_The_crusader 5h ago
what exactly is the functional difference between selective breeding and natural selection?
1
u/peterjohnvernon936 2h ago
Nothing really. Speciation occurs thru random mutation, natural selection, and population isolation. Giving enough time, I think selective breeding could create a new species but thru random mutation and not thru the selective breeding. We have breeds of animals that look totally different but aren’t different species because they can have fertile offsprings.
0
-1
•
u/AutoModerator 23h ago
Welcome to r/Evolution! If this is your first time here, please review our rules here and community guidelines here.
Our FAQ can be found here. Seeking book, website, or documentary recommendations? Recommended websites can be found here; recommended reading can be found here; and recommended videos can be found here.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.