Search for: All records

The process of domestication is commonly perceived as a human achievement, and domestic species are typically assumed to be those under human control. Domestic species have emerged from a greater diversity of interactions than this perspective allows, and none of the many definitions proposed for domestication can readily, reliably, and consistently distinguish domestic and nondomestic populations. Here, we propose that the process of domestication should instead be defined solely as evolution of a nonhuman population in response to an anthropogenic niche and that a domestic population is one that cannot sustain itself outside of an anthropogenic niche. As a result, this definition does not require comparisons with a presumed and largely unobservable ancestor. Instead, it focuses on the observable relationship between a nonhuman population and humans. It also avoids making assumptions about how domestication happens, thus enabling an exploration of the mechanisms underlying the process of adaptation to an anthropogenic niche. By applying this definition to plants, animals, and microbes, we illustrate its utility for investigating the evolution of the relationship between humans and other species and for anticipating which species are likely to survive in an increasingly human-influenced world. Domestication is simply an evolutionary process resulting from the interaction between two species, one of which is human. As we work to protect Earth’s biodiversity, this definition allows us to understand why, in response to the conditions human societies create, some species survive and thrive, while others struggle and go extinct. 

Numerous pairs of evolutionarily divergent mammalian species have been shown to produce hybrid offspring. In some cases, F 1 hybrids are able to produce F 2 s through matings with F 1 s. In other instances, the hybrids are only able to produce offspring themselves through backcrosses with a parent species owing to unisexual sterility (Haldane's Rule). Here, we explicitly tested whether genetic distance, computed from mitochondrial and nuclear genes, can be used as a proxy to predict the relative fertility of the hybrid offspring resulting from matings between species of terrestrial mammals. We assessed the proxy's predictive power using a well-characterized felid hybrid system, and applied it to modern and ancient hominins. Our results revealed a small overlap in mitochondrial genetic distance values that distinguish species pairs whose calculated distances fall within two categories: those whose hybrid offspring follow Haldane's Rule, and those whose hybrid F 1 offspring can produce F 2 s. The strong correlation between genetic distance and hybrid fertility demonstrated here suggests that this proxy can be employed to predict whether the hybrid offspring of two mammalian species will follow Haldane's Rule. 

Abstract The grey wolf (Canis lupus) was the first species to give rise to a domestic population, and they remained widespread throughout the last Ice Age when many other large mammal species went extinct. Little is known, however, about the history and possible extinction of past wolf populations or when and where the wolf progenitors of the present-day dog lineage (Canis familiaris) lived^1–8. Here we analysed 72 ancient wolf genomes spanning the last 100,000 years from Europe, Siberia and North America. We found that wolf populations were highly connected throughout the Late Pleistocene, with levels of differentiation an order of magnitude lower than they are today. This population connectivity allowed us to detect natural selection across the time series, including rapid fixation of mutations in the geneIFT8840,000–30,000 years ago. We show that dogs are overall more closely related to ancient wolves from eastern Eurasia than to those from western Eurasia, suggesting a domestication process in the east. However, we also found that dogs in the Near East and Africa derive up to half of their ancestry from a distinct population related to modern southwest Eurasian wolves, reflecting either an independent domestication process or admixture from local wolves. None of the analysed ancient wolf genomes is a direct match for either of these dog ancestries, meaning that the exact progenitor populations remain to be located.