5 ms·

The emergence and diversification of dog morphology

35 points by Marshferm 11mo ago

ericyd 11mo ago
My first dog taught me how to love animals, and that is a gift for which I'll forever be grateful.
tomcam 11mo ago
The dogs that win prizes often disturb me. I feel like there must be a bunch of inbreeding going on, and maybe for features that look interesting but aren't necessarily good for them. Is this concern misplaced? Not a dog show expert so maybe I'm just revealing my ignorance.
- peacebeard 11mo ago
  The genetics of inbreeding are extremely well-understood. Dog pedigrees are well tracked, and there are tools you can use to assist in preventing inbreeding. Irresponsible breeders give responsible breeders a bad name. Some breeders are even focusing on making breeds healthier as their goal.
  - hshdhdhj4444 11mo ago
    How many hundreds of thousands of individual unhealthy dogs must be forced to life a life of suffering to make the “breed healthier as a goal” even if that laughable idea is successful? Why not just not breed unhealthy dogs, adopt the many stray dogs that persist and only once we have empty shelters consider breeding healthy breeds? Dogs are beings, not toys or decorations.
    - peacebeard 11mo ago
      To answer your question honestly, the reason is because "healthy" isn't a binary. There certainly are dogs that are so unhealthy they should not be bred. But on the other hand, there is no world in which all dogs are 100% healthy: if your goal is to say animals should not be bred unless they are 100% healthy, they'll go extinct! Making progress reduces suffering. Efforts to breed healthier dogs should not be mutually exclusive with efforts to empty shelters. I envision a world where the shelters are empty too: I don't believe it's necessary to stop the efforts to have healthier dogs until after the shelters are empty. You can make progress on two fronts at once! When you say dogs are beings, not toys or decorations, you run the risk of sounding accusatory. I believe we have goals in common and could learn from each other without resorting to villainizing.
      - IAmBroom 11mo ago
        You are positing strawmen. GP did not say healthy was binary, nor that we could achieve 100% health in dogs. And as for accusing: J'accuse. People who buy puppies that can't breathe properly are insensitive jerks.
    - IAmBroom 11mo ago
      You may be suffering downvotes, but your point is worthy. Real dogs are suffering lifelong breathing difficulties, hip pain, and so on, all because of breeding ideals.
- gregfjohnson 11mo ago
  There are bitter and heartstrong arguments on this topic. Brachycephalic breeds with flat faces or short snouts (for example pugs, bulldogs, boxers, Boston terriers) cause anger among some and devotion among others. (We are a three-pug family.) Pugs have an average lifespan of 12 to 15 years, as compared with the overall average dog lifespan of 10 to 13 years. We have also had (and loved) boxers, which have an average lifespan of 10 to 12 years. Boxers seem to be genetically prone to cancer, which is how we lost our most recent boxer. There's a classic cartoon showing two wolves in the bushes at the edge of a campfire, looking at the leftovers being thrown around by the humans. One says, "Look, what the heck, let's cozy up to these two-legged creatures that seem to have lots of food. What could go wrong?" Next frame is a picture of an unhappy-looking pug wearing a birthday hat..
  - Doxin 11mo ago
    I think the reason take so much offense at e.g. pugs is because they don't need to be bred that way. Where I'm at a law was passed making it illegal to breed dogs with congenital conditions. As a result basically all the pugs you see here have a bit of a snout as do all the boxers. Crucially this didn't change the breeds personality perceptibly, and it only changes the look the tiniest of bit. In trade you get dogs that are visibly happier and have more energy. A neighbor in particular previously had two french bulldogs with no snout. They'd spend all day panting and snoring. Once they passed away they got new ones, now with snout. They spend all day running and jumping instead.
  - Mumps 11mo ago
    If I'm reading your meaning correctly, about lifespans, I think the comparison isn't quite correct? lifespan seems to be more strongly correlated by size, not squashed-nosed-ness. Consider chihuahua, shitzu's (and crosses: bichon-shitzu, ...), poodle crosses, heck lagotto (lagotti?). All can live well past 15. Versus GSPs, great danes, Irish wolfhounds, and so on, coming in closer to say 6-10 years. I've never really heard argument on lifespan of pugs et al versus other dogs, though. More around (perceived) ugliness/prettiness, and their breathing issues.
litoE 11mo ago
Every child should have a dog. It gives them valuable life lessons about responsibility, fidelity, unconditional love and to always turn around three times before you lie down.
- block_dagger 11mo ago
  Alternative viewpoint: separating a dog from its natural social life and forcing its integration into a human world, even if done out of a concept of affection, is morally wrong. I suspect future generations will liken the domination of many species, such as dogs and cats, to slavery.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Swizec 11mo ago
    > such as dogs and cats, to slavery. Cats famously domesticated themselves though. More of a symbiosis than subjugation
    - _yb2s 11mo ago
      Same applies to dogs really
      - hunter-gatherer 11mo ago
        Indeed. A year ago I purchased a working/field line golden retriever from a reputable breeder (pm me if interested) and embarked on training my first gun dog. We've done a few hunting trips this season and I found myself telling my father the other day something along the lines that I don't really care for the _hunting_ so much as I find something primal and natural about the symbiotic relationship that I've formed with this dog, especially when we hunt together. It's like he knows his chances of survival are better if we work this out together. I fail to articulate the feeling well. And as a parent comment suggested a slavery relationship... I don't know.. If so, I've got a pretty well pampered and happy slave dog.
Marshferm 11mo ago
I recommend this extraordinary book, The First Domestication the coevolution of Humans and Wolves, charting the possible events. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300226164/the-first-domestication/ https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300226164/the-first-dome...
elphinstone 11mo ago
I always wondered if there was some genetic factor related to mutations, perhaps, that was stronger in dogs than cats, horses, cows, sheep, etc. There's such morphological variety.
pb_safety_club 11mo ago
This is a very interesting study, and the authors clearly did very good work. That said, I don't think the main takeaway is as surprising as some of the coverage makes it sound. It's already very well established, both historically and genetically, that modern breeds were created by Victorian-era breeders using the dogs available in local populations. So the idea that the "raw material" (i.e. genetic variants) of 18th–19th century working dogs shaped modern morphology fits neatly with what we already know. For example (drawing from my area of expertise), the bull-and-terrier types that became modern pit bull–type breeds were created by crossing bull-baiting dogs with terriers, and they still reflect traits from both. The value of the paper, to me, isn't in overturning prior understanding but in providing a much more detailed timeline of how and when this diversification happened. It’s a solid contribution, but just maybe not as paradigm-shifting as recent headlines imply.

35 points by Marshferm 11mo ago

ericyd 11mo ago

My first dog taught me how to love animals, and that is a gift for which I'll forever be grateful.

tomcam 11mo ago

The dogs that win prizes often disturb me. I feel like there must be a bunch of inbreeding going on, and maybe for features that look interesting but aren't necessarily good for them. Is this concern misplaced? Not a dog show expert so maybe I'm just revealing my ignorance.

peacebeard 11mo ago
The genetics of inbreeding are extremely well-understood. Dog pedigrees are well tracked, and there are tools you can use to assist in preventing inbreeding. Irresponsible breeders give responsible breeders a bad name. Some breeders are even focusing on making breeds healthier as their goal.
- hshdhdhj4444 11mo ago
  How many hundreds of thousands of individual unhealthy dogs must be forced to life a life of suffering to make the “breed healthier as a goal” even if that laughable idea is successful? Why not just not breed unhealthy dogs, adopt the many stray dogs that persist and only once we have empty shelters consider breeding healthy breeds? Dogs are beings, not toys or decorations.
  - peacebeard 11mo ago
    To answer your question honestly, the reason is because "healthy" isn't a binary. There certainly are dogs that are so unhealthy they should not be bred. But on the other hand, there is no world in which all dogs are 100% healthy: if your goal is to say animals should not be bred unless they are 100% healthy, they'll go extinct! Making progress reduces suffering. Efforts to breed healthier dogs should not be mutually exclusive with efforts to empty shelters. I envision a world where the shelters are empty too: I don't believe it's necessary to stop the efforts to have healthier dogs until after the shelters are empty. You can make progress on two fronts at once! When you say dogs are beings, not toys or decorations, you run the risk of sounding accusatory. I believe we have goals in common and could learn from each other without resorting to villainizing.
    - IAmBroom 11mo ago
      You are positing strawmen. GP did not say healthy was binary, nor that we could achieve 100% health in dogs. And as for accusing: J'accuse. People who buy puppies that can't breathe properly are insensitive jerks.
  - IAmBroom 11mo ago
    You may be suffering downvotes, but your point is worthy. Real dogs are suffering lifelong breathing difficulties, hip pain, and so on, all because of breeding ideals.
gregfjohnson 11mo ago
There are bitter and heartstrong arguments on this topic. Brachycephalic breeds with flat faces or short snouts (for example pugs, bulldogs, boxers, Boston terriers) cause anger among some and devotion among others. (We are a three-pug family.) Pugs have an average lifespan of 12 to 15 years, as compared with the overall average dog lifespan of 10 to 13 years. We have also had (and loved) boxers, which have an average lifespan of 10 to 12 years. Boxers seem to be genetically prone to cancer, which is how we lost our most recent boxer. There's a classic cartoon showing two wolves in the bushes at the edge of a campfire, looking at the leftovers being thrown around by the humans. One says, "Look, what the heck, let's cozy up to these two-legged creatures that seem to have lots of food. What could go wrong?" Next frame is a picture of an unhappy-looking pug wearing a birthday hat..
- Doxin 11mo ago
  I think the reason take so much offense at e.g. pugs is because they don't need to be bred that way. Where I'm at a law was passed making it illegal to breed dogs with congenital conditions. As a result basically all the pugs you see here have a bit of a snout as do all the boxers. Crucially this didn't change the breeds personality perceptibly, and it only changes the look the tiniest of bit. In trade you get dogs that are visibly happier and have more energy. A neighbor in particular previously had two french bulldogs with no snout. They'd spend all day panting and snoring. Once they passed away they got new ones, now with snout. They spend all day running and jumping instead.
- Mumps 11mo ago
  If I'm reading your meaning correctly, about lifespans, I think the comparison isn't quite correct? lifespan seems to be more strongly correlated by size, not squashed-nosed-ness. Consider chihuahua, shitzu's (and crosses: bichon-shitzu, ...), poodle crosses, heck lagotto (lagotti?). All can live well past 15. Versus GSPs, great danes, Irish wolfhounds, and so on, coming in closer to say 6-10 years. I've never really heard argument on lifespan of pugs et al versus other dogs, though. More around (perceived) ugliness/prettiness, and their breathing issues.

litoE 11mo ago

Every child should have a dog. It gives them valuable life lessons about responsibility, fidelity, unconditional love and to always turn around three times before you lie down.

block_dagger 11mo ago
Alternative viewpoint: separating a dog from its natural social life and forcing its integration into a human world, even if done out of a concept of affection, is morally wrong. I suspect future generations will liken the domination of many species, such as dogs and cats, to slavery.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- Swizec 11mo ago
  > such as dogs and cats, to slavery. Cats famously domesticated themselves though. More of a symbiosis than subjugation
  - _yb2s 11mo ago
    Same applies to dogs really
    - hunter-gatherer 11mo ago
      Indeed. A year ago I purchased a working/field line golden retriever from a reputable breeder (pm me if interested) and embarked on training my first gun dog. We've done a few hunting trips this season and I found myself telling my father the other day something along the lines that I don't really care for the _hunting_ so much as I find something primal and natural about the symbiotic relationship that I've formed with this dog, especially when we hunt together. It's like he knows his chances of survival are better if we work this out together. I fail to articulate the feeling well. And as a parent comment suggested a slavery relationship... I don't know.. If so, I've got a pretty well pampered and happy slave dog.

Marshferm 11mo ago

I recommend this extraordinary book, The First Domestication the coevolution of Humans and Wolves, charting the possible events. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300226164/the-first-domestication/ https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300226164/the-first-dome...

elphinstone 11mo ago

I always wondered if there was some genetic factor related to mutations, perhaps, that was stronger in dogs than cats, horses, cows, sheep, etc. There's such morphological variety.

pb_safety_club 11mo ago

This is a very interesting study, and the authors clearly did very good work. That said, I don't think the main takeaway is as surprising as some of the coverage makes it sound. It's already very well established, both historically and genetically, that modern breeds were created by Victorian-era breeders using the dogs available in local populations. So the idea that the "raw material" (i.e. genetic variants) of 18th–19th century working dogs shaped modern morphology fits neatly with what we already know. For example (drawing from my area of expertise), the bull-and-terrier types that became modern pit bull–type breeds were created by crossing bull-baiting dogs with terriers, and they still reflect traits from both. The value of the paper, to me, isn't in overturning prior understanding but in providing a much more detailed timeline of how and when this diversification happened. It’s a solid contribution, but just maybe not as paradigm-shifting as recent headlines imply.