3 ms·

Anybody else have to read this twice? It says dogs in the Americas were from Siberia, then proceeds to describe them as "native American", even though it just

Anybody else have to read this twice? It says dogs in the Americas were from Siberia, then proceeds to describe them as "native American", even though it just said in the previous sentence those dogs weren't native to America. I guess it continues calling those dogs 'native' because that is what modern Americans call the people who owned them. Makes for a confusing read though. I presume Canadians might say "First Nation dogs", which would make more sense.

dundarious 4y ago
My understanding is that it says that Siberian dogs populated the Americas at the same time as the first humans populated the Americas. It doesn’t explicitly say whether there were any dogs in the Americas before then, but there may not have been. Regardless, those Siberian humans came from Africa — still appropriate to call them Siberian in this context. For similar reasons, after a time, it becomes appropriate to label those humans after the Americas, and similarly the dogs that came with them.
dav_Oz 4y ago
>We sequenced complete mitochondrial genomes (mitogenomes) from 71 archaeological dog remains collected in North America and Siberia (Fig. 1a; Table S1) and analyzed these with 145 mitogenomes derived from a global dataset of modern and ancient canids (3). A phylogenetic tree constructed from the mitogenomes indicated that all sampled pre-contact dogs (spanning ~9,000 years) formed a monophyletic group within dog haplogroup A (Fig. 1b; Fig. S3; Fig. S6), which we refer to as pre-contact dogs (PCD). This analysis indicated that the most closely related mitochondrial lineage to the PCD clade are ~9,000 year-old dogs from Zhokhov Island in Eastern Siberia (3) (Fig. 1b; Fig. S3; Fig. S6). In addition, molecular clock analyses suggest that all PCD dogs shared a common ancestor ~14,600 years ago (95% high posterior density [HPD]: 16,484- 12,965; Fig. 1b; Fig. S6), which diverged from a shared ancestor with the Zhokhov Island dogs ~1,000 years earlier (95% HPD:17,646-13,739; Fig. 1b; Fig. S6). Interestingly, these time frames are broadly coincident with early migrations into the Americas (10–12).[0] Population genetics / migration can get quite complicated (different waves etc.) but the bottom line is all pre-contact dogs (meaning before the European colonists came) share a common ancestor @ 14,600 BC which in turn diverged from a shared ancestor with the Zhokhov Island [Siberia] dogs ~1,000 years earlier. >The history of the global dispersal of dogs remains contentious (1). In North America, the earliest confirmed dog remains have been radiocarbon dated to ~9,900 calibrated years before present (cal BP) (Koster, Illinois; (2, 3)), approximately 6,000 years after [!] the earliest unambiguous evidence of humans arriving in North America (4). While these early dogs were most likely not domesticated in situ [i.e. from North American wolves] (5), the timing of their arrival and their geographic origins are unknown [!]. [0]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7116273/figure/F1/?report=objectonly https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7116273/figure/...

dundarious 4y ago

My understanding is that it says that Siberian dogs populated the Americas at the same time as the first humans populated the Americas. It doesn’t explicitly say whether there were any dogs in the Americas before then, but there may not have been. Regardless, those Siberian humans came from Africa — still appropriate to call them Siberian in this context. For similar reasons, after a time, it becomes appropriate to label those humans after the Americas, and similarly the dogs that came with them.

dav_Oz 4y ago

>We sequenced complete mitochondrial genomes (mitogenomes) from 71 archaeological dog remains collected in North America and Siberia (Fig. 1a; Table S1) and analyzed these with 145 mitogenomes derived from a global dataset of modern and ancient canids (3). A phylogenetic tree constructed from the mitogenomes indicated that all sampled pre-contact dogs (spanning ~9,000 years) formed a monophyletic group within dog haplogroup A (Fig. 1b; Fig. S3; Fig. S6), which we refer to as pre-contact dogs (PCD). This analysis indicated that the most closely related mitochondrial lineage to the PCD clade are ~9,000 year-old dogs from Zhokhov Island in Eastern Siberia (3) (Fig. 1b; Fig. S3; Fig. S6). In addition, molecular clock analyses suggest that all PCD dogs shared a common ancestor ~14,600 years ago (95% high posterior density [HPD]: 16,484- 12,965; Fig. 1b; Fig. S6), which diverged from a shared ancestor with the Zhokhov Island dogs ~1,000 years earlier (95% HPD:17,646-13,739; Fig. 1b; Fig. S6). Interestingly, these time frames are broadly coincident with early migrations into the Americas (10–12).[0] Population genetics / migration can get quite complicated (different waves etc.) but the bottom line is all pre-contact dogs (meaning before the European colonists came) share a common ancestor @ 14,600 BC which in turn diverged from a shared ancestor with the Zhokhov Island [Siberia] dogs ~1,000 years earlier. >The history of the global dispersal of dogs remains contentious (1). In North America, the earliest confirmed dog remains have been radiocarbon dated to ~9,900 calibrated years before present (cal BP) (Koster, Illinois; (2, 3)), approximately 6,000 years after [!] the earliest unambiguous evidence of humans arriving in North America (4). While these early dogs were most likely not domesticated in situ [i.e. from North American wolves] (5), the timing of their arrival and their geographic origins are unknown [!]. [0]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7116273/figure/F1/?report=objectonly https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7116273/figure/...