> It's well known that wolves self-domesticated It is really not. All we have are two popular hypotheses, which may even be true at the same time. It is clear

> It's well known that wolves self-domesticated It is really not. All we have are two popular hypotheses, which may even be true at the same time. It is clear the self-domestication pathway would not have worked without humans allowing it to happen. This quickly devolves into semantics. It is however not up for debate that humans have been breeding dogs/wolves for millennia. > resulting in the subspecies Canis lupus familiaris. Put the wrong two zoologists in the same room and if you're unlucky they'll bore you all day debating whether domesticated dogs are a distinct taxon. Just say species without specifying and you'll sidestep the issue. If you want to call them Canis lupus familiaris rather than Canis familiaris, then sure! I guess that's why I meant!