Unlike the somewhat problematic aquatic ape theory, what I’m about to propose really isn’t that controversial at all.
The acquatic ape theory (more correctly called “the aquatic ape hypothesis”) argues that it was living in and near the water that forced humans to evolve bipedalism and is also used to explain why we have fat under our skin and like to swim. It’s even used as a possible reason why we have little fur left on our bodies, and it also claims that humans are unique among primates in our ability to hold our breaths under water, which isn’t actually true.
This hypothesis contends that humans were on our way to becoming marine mammals, and that this has made all the difference.
I don’t buy it.
But I do think something like this has happened with another animal that we currently don’t regard as being a “marine mammal.”
I’m talking about retrievers.
Now, we usually don’t think of them as being marine mammals. They are, after all, just a subset of domestic dogs, which are themselves a subspecies of the common wolf, Canis lupus familiaris.
But unlike other dogs and wolves, the retriever is somewhat better adapted to swimming and diving than other dogs.
All dogs have connective tissue between their toes, but in retrievers, this connective tissue is a bit more extensive, which certainly gives them some advantage in swimming. All dogs are web-footed, but retrievers are more web-footed than others.
Many Labrador retrievers and some golden retrievers also have a tendency to put on quite a bit of fat. This is usually attributed to the dogs being derived from St. John’s water dogs that had to have voracious appetites to survive on Newfoundland during the winter when they weren’t used on the fishing fleet.
But such a tendency toward obesity doesn’t exist in arctic breeds, including those from Labrador and Greenland, which were similarly left to roam and forage when not being used for work. These dogs have healthy appetites. but you very rarely hear of a fat one.
But in Labrador retrievers, being fat is almost a breed characteristic. In the UK breed ring, the Kennel Club has had to crack down on people showing fat Labradors in the ring, for there are a great many dog judges in that country who think that a Lab shows ‘good bone’ when he’s shaped like a jiggling barrel.
This tendency towards being fat, though, does have an advantage for a dog that spends a lot of time in cold water. Fat insulates. It is also quite buoyant.
One can see that nature would have selected for St. John ‘s water that would have been more likely to have put on fat as a way of being able to handle swimming long distances in cold water. The fat would make the dog float more, and the animal would be able to keep its head above water with less effort. And the fat would insulate it a bit more.
And although both of these features would be marginally advantageous, they would still have real consequences with a working water dog.
Before the St. John’s water dog developed, the European water dog was poodle-type animal. It had a very thick coat that protected the animal from the worst of the cold, but the coat also had a tendency to collect water. It was also a source of drag that slowed the animal down when it swam.
The clips we see in Portuguese water dogs and poodles stem from attempts to reduce drag while still keeping the protective coat.
The St. John’s water dog was different from all these European water dogs in that it had a smooth coat.
It was actually selected for this coat; any dogs that were born with feathering were shipped off to Europe.
A smooth coat has certain advantageous for a marine mammal.
After all, have you ever seen a seal with poodle fur?
What about a long-haired otter?
These animals have very close coats because this makes the animal move more efficiently through the water.
To have a water dog with an otter’s coat would have meant that clipping was no longer necessary. The dense undercoat and the fat would have provided enough protection against the cold water, and the smooth coat required no maintenance. And the dog could swim longer and harder in very cold water for much longer.
The St. John’s water dog was dog on its way to becoming a marine mammal.
Indeed, if we now count polar bears a marine mammals, maybe we should classify this extinct breed of dog as one, too.
There are accounts of these dogs swimming for days at sea, which might be exaggerations, and stories of them diving many feet to retrieve shot seals. There are even some fellows who use the dogs to pursue shot porpoises with varying degrees of success. They were also use to retrieve shot waterfowl and sea birds from those very same seas, which is sort of the same work their descendants do today.
But they were most famous for retrieving fish off of lines. In the old days, the English fishermen from the West Country would come to Newfoundland to fish with hooked lines. They plied the waters in small dories, and they would send their dogs to help haul in the lines. In those days, the fishhooks often were not barbed, and when the dog came upon the hooked fish, there was a good chance that it could escape. A good dog could catch the cod if it managed to work its way off the hook at the last minute, which is not an easy task!
Most retrievers and the modern Newfoundland and Landseer breeds derive from this water dog. Some strains are very well-adapted to swimming in cold water. Others less so.
The retrievers of the United Kingdom were used primarily on shooting estates, where land-based game birds and lagomorphs were their main quarry. Some were used to retrieve waterfowl, but the British retriever culture was primarily that of a land-based working dog. Over time, they bred for a smaller and lither working dog, which still shows up in the strains of golden retriever that are primarily bred for work. During the heyday of the working flat-coated retriever (of which the golden retriever is a surviving remnant), the majority of these dogs were 50-60-pound dogs with longer legs and gracile frames– quite different indeed from the somewhat robust water dogs of Newfoundland from which they descended.
If the particular shore-fishing culture of Newfoundland had been allowed to continue on for many, many centuries, it is likely that the the St. John’s water dog really would have begun to have evolved through both natural and artificial selection into a much more marine-adapted animal than it was. Perhaps the would have evolved even more webbing between their toes. Maybe they would have actually evolved a real layer of blubber beneath their skins for insulation.
At least one species of wild dog is semiaquatic. The short-eared dog of South America has been little studied, but in most analyses of its diet show that it eats a lot of fish. The short-eared dog has very webbed feet— even more so than modern retrievers do. Because they live in Amazonia, they have no need for fat for insulation, but it has been suggested that this webbing is an adaptation that helps the dog pursue a more aquatic existence than other South American wild dogs.
St. John’s water dogs were famous for their fishing abilities, and they were well-known for charging into the surf and coming out with a fish, a feat that one sometimes sees retrievers doing quite well. One could see that over time, that the St. John’s breed would have evolved even more in this direction than the short-eared dog has.
But the Newfoundland fishing changed over time. Better hooks and mechanized fishing equipment made the dogs largely obsolete. The cod fishery has collapsed, as has the fishery for almost everything else. The outports of Newfoundland were shut down through resettlement schemes.
And the ancestral bloodlines of the St. John’s water dog became polluted with “improved” Labrador retriever blood from UK and the North American mainland. The last of the St. John’s water dogs with no Labrador retriever ancestry are believed to have died in the 1970’s.
In the US, Labrador retrievers are called “duck dogs,” but virtually no Labrador retriever that is being used as a hunting dog in the US today is used exclusively on waterfowl. Most of them at least moonlight as flushers and retrievers land-based game birds, which usually have longer seasons and more liberal bag quotas.
The retriever has to be a spaniel a lot of the time.
In the UK, the retriever is still primarily used on land-based game, though they are still used in “wildfowling” (a nice word for duck hunting).
In no place is it required to be the same kind of water dog that its ancestors were.
The potential for it evolving into a canine marine mammal has long sense passed.
But it could have gone down this road.
The retrievers that exist today are gun dogs that have been built and selected out of this lineage.
And it’s really what makes them unique as working dogs.
Now, this all might sound a bit bizarre, but this summer, reader Mashka Petropolskaya sent me this master’s thesis on the behavior of Labrador retrievers in an aquatic environment. The thesis was written by a student in the marine sciences program at the University of Porto in Portugal, and the thesis found that Labrador retrievers are unusually attracted to water and that access to water and swimming opportunities may be very important for the welfare of dogs in that breed.
Not all Labradors like the water, but there clearly is a tendency in retrievers to be interested in the water.
So maybe we really need to appreciate their “marine mammal” tendencies more in order to provide them the best environment possible.
When we are not walking over the hills, Mary and I often walk by the Thames or other waterways where we always always meet wet labradors – and rarely any completely dry ones. A friend of ours took his labrador puppy on one of its first outings to Henley on Thames where it immediately jumped into the river, swam around for a while and then reemerged much to the relief of the anxious owners who had up to that point not even given their puppy a bath let alone walked it by a river. It must be proof of a hardwired tendency in certain breeds – is my conclusion. Some breeds can’t be kept out of the water and others won’t go near it, simple.
That tendency in some breeds is not always expressed yet is expressed in other breeds not bred for water work. For instance, my neighbor’s Landseer, Teddy, won’t go near the water, but my first Saint, Toby, would jump in the water at every opportunity (on the other hand, my last Saint, Sammie, absolutely hated getting wet–walking him in the rain was always a chore.)
Its like our discussion on retrieving, some naturally do, others don’t. Its much easier to use those that naturally take to it for the purpose than to train those that don’t to do so.
How do you separate evolution and human selection? Or does it not matter?
My opinion only:
From the perspective of the organism (in this case a breed of dog), it really doesn’t matter.
Anthropogenic selection operates in the same way as does selection in response to environmental stressors, such as climate.
The main difference is that in the first instance the process is consciously directed (and thus is sometimes detrimental to the survivability of the species in question), rather than as a survival response to random stressors.
A second big difference is that human selection is an accelerated process usually limited to a very small gene pool, whereas ‘natural’ evolution takes place over time, with gradual change, as well as occasional bursts of changes, and successive but diminishing back-crossings to the original or sister species, thus usually ensuring a broad, stable gene pool.
Thirdly, whereas natural selection is likely to lead to long term change, human selection is a relatively short-lived phenomenon; i.e., feral animals either A) die out; B) are absorbed back into wild populations of their kin; or C) return to a reasonable facsimile of their undomesticated forebears, as witness wild boars and dingos.
Well, here you have both.
If you took an Irish water spaniel out on the Grand Banks to haul lines off a dory, it could do it, but its coat would slow it down just enough for it to be a problem.
You have people selecting for retrieving behavior and the coat, but nature would be selecting for almost all the rest.
I think this guy demonstrates the aquatic ape theory might be more legitimate than you think.
Maybe those aquatic people had aquatic dogs. LOL
I love it when you get speculative. And I think this is good speculation from known fragmented facts -and it’s probably true. Kind of like my landrace native dogs speculations. It is like archeology when you must speculate based on a single fragment of evidence. Two or three pieces and you can start triangulating your speculations, so to speak.
I have not made up my mind yet on the aquatic people hypothesis. Until we get to do the seaside archeology from shorelines that are now covered with glacier melt and thus are buried under the sea bed, we can only speculate. I have followed the aquatic man idea for many years, but it is stuck until the archeology is done.
Deep diving is a human ability that manifests in many cultures. Pearl divers from the Persian Gulf and Japan are two cultures in which deep sea diving for pearls is still par for the course and they can hold their breath for a long time. There is a pearl diving tribe in the Philippines that is legendary for this. (If the clip is of a Philipino, I would not be surprised.)The Yaquis of the Sea of Cortez were another tribe renowned for holding their breath under water while while diving for pearls. In fact the only pearl farm in North America is manned by Yaquis who have a deep abiding love of pearls.
I am sure a cultural survey of this trait will show this ability is alive and functioning in many more parts of the world, than I have mentioned here.The original purpose of deep diving probably was stalking sea creatures, but knowledge of this ability worldwide comes down to us primarily through the pearl diving cultures of the world.
One last factoid. Holding your breath increases lung capacity and pot smokers tend to have a measurably greater lung capacity than non-pot smokers. (I recently got this factoid from the DRC.net newsletter. http://stopthedrugwar.org/)
Rman, though the point of all this was to speak about dogs, you now have put me in this position….where I MUST ask….what are your problems with the aquatic ape theory? I just am DYING to know.
No, really, I am. I’m pretty much like Kate on the whole thing as far as my POV goes. Her URL in the last paragraph sealed the deal for me. :)
I agree with Elaine Morgan’s feminism, and I do agree that we need to be careful of gender biases in science.
However, I think there are some theoretical problems with aquatic ape:
The biggest problem I have is that she thinks a marine lifestyle is the cause of almost all of our unusual adaptations that distinguish us from other primates. She lost me the minute she claimed that humans are the only primates that can hold their breath underwater. It’s simply false.
It’s also very similar to Coppinger’s neotenous scavenger theory of dog domestication in that it is quite reductionist, when the reality is much more complex.
And I think it’s set up in such a way that if any one part of her theory is falsified, the whole thing collapses.
For example, I’m very skeptical of her part about the human larynx being descended because of our aquatic existence. There are lots of animals with descended larynxes that aren’t aquatic at all, like virtually all the Cervus deer.
This theory has been around longer than Morgan’s participation. I haven’t even seen her ted talk, though I will go after this. I read her or someone else in the university ethology section decades ago.
I do not think she has ever had very good evidence and tries to explain too many details by speculation, but the basic underlying idea could be worth something. This idea isn’t even a real hypothesis, it is a pure speculation that is particularly fun to think about because it does explain some things in a clever way.
I am not going to rule out that our relationship with the sea goes back to before we became human and that humans may reflect that – by even little, superficial differences such being the future human line with the peculiar hair growth patterns. (BTW, Very similar genetically to the restricted hair growth patterns of hairless dogs,…LOL)
Her claim of underwater breath-holding being unique is silly; many mammals other than humans make a living doing just that.
I am sure our cultural relationship with the sea is much more profound than we now realize; our speculations about aquatic apes merely fuel the imagination to pursue our human relationship with the sea scientifically as well as in fantasy….
I used to read science fiction and know it has to be imagined before it is done- and often the science follows the craziest speculations of the farthest out thinkers who spurred other imaginations to accomplish the speculation into reality.
I wouldn’t claim there is much science going on in the aquatic ape theory, yet.
ucc: like!
I think what I personally found attractive about the aquatic ape thesis was that it wasn’t the same old mantra about our uniquely human characteristics all arising from the he-man hominid’s hunting style and needs–as if there were no females in our family tree at all. It was just a new and refreshing angle on an old theme.
Now, if you ask me whether I think it holds water, that’s another kettle of fish altogether (sorry, couldn’t help myself.)
BTW: I was impressed enough by the theory that I’ve maintained a paperback copy (Bantam Books) of Elaine Morgan’s Descent of Woman in my anthropological library since it came out in July 1973.
Mammals have been around for eons. Easy to imagine lines taking to the water, then going back onto land with the genetic equipment not obliterated, just suppressed for the moment, to be brought out again as the occasion demand, say in the retriever.
A lot of retrievers truly love the water. They will spend a lot of time in the water and swim long distances just for fun. I saw one, a golden, fetch a ball shot so far out into somewhat choppy water, I was worried for the dog. But, no, she returned with the ball, then danced around begging for another round.
I think the aquatic ape theory is far-fetched. As extraordinary claims do, it requires extraordinary proof. A lot of monkeys playing in the water and seashore encampments do not add up to an aquatic ape. The idea is so preposterous that it would require, IMO, finding a hominid that obviously could not survive on land.
I don’t think it unlikely that ocean foraging CONTRIBUTED to human evolution, but I am quite skeptical that it’s the primary cause.
As with most things in evolutionary theory, the picture is not so pat (though many scientists get a pet theory and stick to it, much as is the case with the Social Brain Hypothesis and many others).
It makes for good narrative to say This One Thing led to This One Adaptation but it’s usually bullshit. :) However, the converse is true in that This One Thing may have contributed to This One Adaptation.
I agree with the contribute part. But we sure did get some different genes than any other ape.
One thing I do wonder, is how did we get the restricted hair allele? Why does it dominate all mankind? What is the advantage in the restricted hair.? It seems it is on the foxi3 gene, just as in dogs, and expresses in a similar way, but must be a true dominant and it seems to have wiped out any hairy humanoids in our direct ancestry. Was it progressive? or due to a mutation? Why did any humanoid insist on breeding to the hairless humanoids? Where is the advantage?
Judging by my hairless dog, she gets scratches where there should be hair, she has to watch it that she doesn’t get too cold. I I often put clothes on her so she can tumble in the thorn bushes with the other dogs and stay warm.
Would not a naked human experience the same thing outdoors hunting or gathering? A seashore existence is the most likely scenario for the naked humanoids- and the subcutaneous fat that other apes don’t have, but at what points these two adaptations come into the permanent gene pool is still to be determined.
We can speculate, as many biologists and physical anthropologists have, as to why we’re the “Naked Ape”, but I don’t know that we’ll ever have a definitive answer. As has been said elsewhere on this post, its probably the result of multiple factors.
My problem with the aquatic ape theory is that H. sapiens isn’t well adapted to water. Where are the webbed toes and fingers? Why can’t we hold our heads up out of the water when we swim? My Labbies can outswim me by a wide margin…and I’ll bet they could take on some Olympic swimmers, and they can still spot game while they paddle.
I bet an average wolf could outswim an average human too, but it doesn’t make all wolves descended from aquatic canids either. Certain members of both species can and do hunt in water, but both species are also historically widespread and known to be generalist species. So it’s no surprise that if there was a food source to be exploited, both species would do just that.
I’ll also keep my healthy skepticism on the aquatic ape hypothesis for now. We’re great at reaching up to get things off high shelves when we need to, but it doesn’t mean we all derive from a common ancestor that specialised in just plucking fruit from trees by standing on it’s tippy toes and reaching up.
You didn’t watch the above video?
Humans have had the capacity for foraging under water- in this case I think it was 60 meters- for millennia. Humans who live off of deep water fish do not need to swim on the surface very much, though how far a person can swim on or below the surface goes up with practice and swimming quite long distances is not unknown, even in modern times. We don’t seem to need webbed fingers and feet. Just watch the man’s swimming technique- he kind of flaps his feet. then he walks on the sea floor. He has practiced these techniques since he was a child and is now a master of the technique and thus a really good provider.
I am not sure any other ape can swim like humans, Somehow we come equipped to master the shoreline waters as well as the land- while I don’t think the aquatic ape happened so long ago, humans have a profound connection to water, especially the sea.
If I didn’t know how rigid and conservative academia can be, I would have less interest in some idea along those lines. Although most of the bones found of early hominids concentrate in the Great Rift area, it does not mean that there were not water loving humanoids, whose bones can not be preserved. The great rift area is simply a place that could maintain a record of humanoids in all their stages. It does not rule out, say, an Ethiopian shore living humanoid- it is just very difficult to preserve any dead tissue in the ocean- even bones.
I meant 60 feet. Many peoples of the world can go 20 meters or 60 feet. I know an American boy living in Tahiti who goes that deep- though he uses fins and a mask.
Regarding the dogs – the combination of cold and water may have made for selection of particular characteristics that do have some parallels elsewhere. The water off Newfoundland is pretty cold (Surface water temperatures on the Atlantic side reaches a summer average of 12 °C (54 °F) inshore and 9 °C (48 °F) offshore to winter lows of −1 °C (30 °F) inshore and 2 °C (36 °F) offshore) compared to say, that of the Mediterranean (12 C in winter to 22C in summer off Marseille). It’s possible a gene that increases the tendency for fat deposits might be due to this – or due (as apparently it was with Mammoths and with camels) to an irregularity in the food supply. Once a mutation occurred or an animal with this characteristic arrived in the area, selection would do the rest. Ditto for the oily coat — the Portuguese water dog also has an oily coat. I believe the Bergamasco does also, so it could have simply been selected for as those dogs with these characteristics would have been better at cold water work than others and more likely to survive irregular feedings by humans than others.
Regarding the “aquatic ape” theory – current theory holds that elephants are secondarily terrestrial (ie have an aquatic background), so an “aquatic ape” period isn’t impossible – the problem is that the fossil record doesn’t seem to show any evidence of it. The current theory is that hair loss was subsequent to an upright stance as it allows for a better “cooling system”. The problem with that is that it doesn’t answer why we remain so susceptible to skin cancer caused by sun exposure, which would appear to offset the plus of a better “cooling system”. H. Sapiens appears able to “water cool” easily – but this DOES require that humans have ready access to water, although there’s no need for salt water. The paleontological record does indicate seafood in the diet of early Homo (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/06/02/did-dining-on-seafood-help-early-humans-grow-these-big-brains/) but it might not have required much more than wading. A lack of hair might have been a plus in a wading ancestor, but not nearly as much as being “air cooled”.
The aquatic ape theory was interesting, but so far the evidence appears to falsify it. Aquatic tendencies might have added some selective pressure, but it’s not likely to have been significant.
I was going to go with elephants as an example of a terrestrial species that evolved from ancestors on their way to becoming marine mammals, but I didn’t have time to get a good link to put in the comments.
We evolved into an ape that was/is an efficient walker/runner in a hot climate, so air cooling via us sweating is a pretty good supposition for why hairlessness gave us an evolutionary advantage. With regards to humans being succeptible to skin cancer, paler skinned people are far more prone to skin cancer than darker skinned ones due to higher melanin levels in darker skin being a protective factor against premature skin ageing and melanoma. Hence caucasians being the bulk of skin cancer sufferers. However, the advantage paler pigmentation provides to absorb UV rays to boost vitamin D synthesis far outweighs the disadvantage of skin cancer risks. Even then, it’s only around 2% of all human cancers, so not a significant enough problem to wipe a population out for being poorly adapted.
Forgot to say, what you said about water dogs is brilliant and makes a lot of sense.
I’m aware of the efficent walker theory and of the “vit D” theory. However, fast running antelope aren’t hairless, so I do question that hairlessness is the only means of providing sweating/cooling. For that matter, hair that is sufficent for a light covering (ie UV) would not preclude sweating as a means of cooling. It may have been that vermin control may have had a bigger play in the issue. Vit D can be obtained in the diet and many mammals can synthesise it without being hairless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D). So I do rather question if the current “answer” is all there is to why we are hairless (and have fat deposits many other mammals don’t) and why we are still so susceptible to UV and melanomas.