A study suggests that some Norwegian elkhounds and other Scandinavian and Finnish spitz-type dogs have recent wolf ancestry.
A reader named Margaret sent me a link to this study.
The study came out in May 2010, but I missed it.
This is an mtDNA study, which found that a particular haplogroup called d1 was most common in a certain group of dogs– the reindeer herding spitzes and the hunting spitz breeds of Scandinavia and Finland.
It can be found in all Scandinavian and Finnish spitz breeds, but in the elkhounds and the reindeer herding spitzes, it is very common. In the breeds sampled, 60 to 100 percent of these dogs had this haplogroup.
The origin of that haplogroup was traced to wolf and dog hybridization that happened 480 to 3,000 years ago.
Peter Savolainen was involved in the study, and Savolainen is best known for his findings that suggest all dogs were derived from southern Chinese wolves that were domesticated 16,000 years ago. (This finding has been challenged recently. I have a short piece in The Bark about it.)
The original purpose of the study was to see whether Scandinavia could be a potential area of wolf domestication. Of course, one must be willing to accept Savolainen’s methodolgy and general acceptance that domestication happened only once.
But it is an interesting find, for it suggests that there always was a gene flow between domestic and wild C. lupus. We are finding more and more evidence of this as time goes on. The fact that there isn’t much of one right now doesn’t mean that this has always been the case.
What is also of interest that hybridization between wolves and dog gave these particular animals some selective advantage over other dogs in the population. One wonders what that advantage might have been. Perhaps it was simply heterosis. Maybe it made it easier for them to survive harsh weather conditions. Perhaps it made it easier for these hybrids to compete with other dogs for mates.
Now, one must be careful reading too much into this study, for one of the reasons why our understanding of the exact time and place of dog domestication is that it happened a very long time ago. It is further complicated with the influx of wild wolf genes.
And that is further complicated with the influx of dog genes into the wolf population. (See the recent finding on black wolves for the most notorious example. Also see the sudden appearance of dewclaws on the hind legs of some Italian wolves for another.).
It is because of findings like this one about Scandinavian and Finnish spitzes that I am very cautious about thinking of dogs and wolves as separate species.
I think it is far wiser to think of them as part of an unusually diverse species.
This diversity has allowed C. lupus to survive and even thrive with the success of our species. I know of no other large carnivore that has so benefited from this thing we call civilization.
Think of all the other large carnivores, and every single one of them exists at only a small fraction of their former glory.
Domestic C. lupus has been successful where others have vanished.
And that is something remarkable.
***
The best analysis of how this process may have happened is found in this essay by Mark Derr.
I have always had skepticism about the view that dogs are nothing more than degenerate wolves that evolved to live off of our waste.
It’s a popular view. It is easy to explain, and it even makes for a compelling narrative for a television documentary.
However, the real process that happened is far more complex than can be explained in a forty-five minute documentary.
***
So are we now going to call Norwegian elkhounds wolf hybrids?
I doubt it.
But it something to keep in mind.
I’m never going to look at a Norsk elghund in the same way again.
Boy, I could ramble on and on, on this subject all day! Thanks for the Mark Derr article from “The Bark”–it says so many things that I believe, and AT LAST shows how easily refuted Coppinger’s ridiculous premise is, and hopefully such common sense enlightenment will undo the damage to dog domestication theory that Coppinger severely hamstrung with his “revolutionary NEW” notions(which blatantly ignored all the actual evidence that exists). One thing that I DO disagree with, from personal experience, is this silly, parroted statement that is getting way too popular is such discussions–that ONLY DOGS notice and learn to direct their gaze to what humans are looking at, or directly look into human eyes–that is poppycock. Apparantly some dumb lab experiment was done using dogs, wolves, chimps, and no telling what else, and in THAT experiment, only the overly domesticated dogs paid attention to the human gaze. What people don’t realize about such STUPID experiments, is that the animals utilized are often stressed to the max, and usually have ZERO friendly relations with the people experimenting on them, and are being watched in such artificial conditions that it can’t(but somehow ends up being) relatable to those same animals in more natural conditions. On top of that, take social animals like wolves and chimps, where a direct stare is considered aggressive and threatening, and you can bet in a frightening captive situation, with strange people trying to manipulate them for they know-not-what, they are going to do their best to avoid gazing directly and keep as low a profile as possible. Even though this is just common sense(a sense totally missing from many scientific experiments), I also have LOTS of personal experience to back this up. I worked with chimps in the wild, and buddy, you better believe, even though they may not let on, they noticed every tiny thing you do, and they paid VERY CLOSE atttention to anything you were looking at–they may just not be real obvious about it! Ditto for baboons. If you showed any interest in something(especially a food item), you better conceal your gaze and intentions very carefully from said primates, as they would notice immediately otherwise and beat you to the punch every time! Wolves, also are EXTREMELY sensitive to body language and if they have any kind of relationship with a human(and trust them), they have no problem looking them in the eye, or directing their gaze to something a human is looking at with interest. My own various wolf hybrids did it all the time–in fact, if I DIDN’T want them noticing and catching and killing some little critter on our daily rambles, I would have to quickly avert my gaze and pretend I didn’t see it! So this notion is nonsense, and I hate to see it bandied about as some proven fact. Many dogs may be somewhat better at paying attention due to centuries of domestication, but that is also as likely dependant on the relationship between dog and human as any inherited genetic trait, in my opinion. I am also amazed that the Cat People of the world have not jumped hissing and spitting on this silly conclusion some dumb, limited lab experiment came to…..
If the introduction of wolf genes ocurred 480 – 3000 years ago, that is some 200 – 2500 generations past. I doubt one would use the term “hybrid” after that many generations.
Of course, you’d have to define “hybrid”….which, these days, seems to mean whatever the speaker/writer wishes it to mean.
I’ve often thought about the Czechoslovakian wolfdog and the Saarlooswolfhond. Those are dogs (FCI recognized breeds), but they do have wolf ancestry.
I don’t know how they would be legally defined in the US. I know in the UK, they are now entirely legal.
“Wolf Hybrid” is, when used to describe a dog-wolf cross, technically incorrect, because a hybrid is a cross between two different species, and if wolves and dogs are genetically the same species(which I have no trouble believing), then “wolf dog” is more accurate–but then you confuse people since many dogs used to hunt wolves in the past are also referred to as “wolf dogs”! So despite it’s inaccuracy, I continue to use the term “wolf hybrid”, because people (usually) then know what you are talking about!…And yes, Retrieverman, how funny that a Czech or Sarloos wolfdog can be perfectly accepted by society because now they are considered a PUREBRED DOG(despite really recent wolf in their development), but yer average wolf hybrid is VILLIFIED by society! It will be interesting to see if, as the Sarloos Wolfhunds’ and Czech Wolfdogs’ gene pool narrows from the purebred dog status, and the inevitable genetic problems arise, if these breeds will be allowed to open their studbooks and allow new wolf blood in the mix–oh, and the howling that will cause!(not from the animals, either….). I have no problem accepting dogs and wolves as the same species–really, the only difference is DOMESTICATION. That CAN BE a huge difference, however, depending on the dog-type. As anyone who has raised and kept wild critters as pets will testify, domestic(usually) IS so much easier! But anyone who has lived with a pack of huskies can tell you(a dog type that hasn’t fallen too far from the original tree), dogs and wolves still share A LOT in common! In the history of dog domestication, it would be really strange if dogs and wolves HAD NOT crossed back-and-forth through the ages, especially in times when it was easy for them to do so(availability and opportunity), and the humans of those times did not have the ignorant, and unreasonable prejudices towards wolf-dog crosses that exist in modern society. I mean, just imagine, you are a prehistoric hunter(long. long before that tart Little Red Riding Hood went mincing through the forest), and your dog breeds with a wild wolf–the ultimete in canine hunting ability! How could you NOT see that as a good thing?
As I look at my elkhound mix passed out in front of the a/c duct with his cheek resting on his favorite pink and purple fleecy tug toy, I must admit the particularly wolfy ancestry’s not springing out at me ;)
I think one of the interesting suggestions in the article was the speculation that the breeding may have been quasi deliberate in that there looks like there might have been trade in these dogs with the d1 haplotype from the Saami and other indigenous nomad groups to the Indo-European farmers, but not the reverse. If most of the dogs in that part of the world were fuzzy arctic type dogs, anyhow, it’s a little harder to guess what physical attributes they’d have gained by breeding them with wolves. And the temperament benefits would seem marginal. (And, moreover, generalizing wildly, most of the Scandinavian breeds they’re talking about here don’t even temperaments quite as far on the end of the primitive dog spectrum as, say the Karelian bear dog or Akita or whatever). A hypothesis as interesting as any other is that dogs were somewhat scarce (hence there was a trade in them) and, in the more Arctic stretches where the nomads were, wolves relatively plentiful, and they may well have been both purposefully crossing dogs with wolves and then purposefully selecting gentler pups, in order to make a bigger pool of dogs that could be traded as domesticated.
Thanks for the information – i wasn’t familiar to that study.
I used to have an elkhound mix. I don’t know what the other breed(s) was/were because I got her from the SPCA. She had elkhound markings on her face and head, a thick reddish brown double coat, short legs, and a long back.
Anyway, she was ridiculously smart and stubborn and an incredible escape artist. She would bang herself against a securely latched gate to try to get it open – I had to lock the gate to keep her in. She was a door dasher and could get through the tiniest gap in a fence.
RIP, much loved Lady. I had to have her euthanized last spring due to old age, but I’ll never forget her.
There is a really interesting reason for this study taking place – oddly it had nothing to do with dogs at all.