How wolves became dogs

https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2025/12/18/how-wolves-became-dogs

by mooreds • 7 months ago

111 101 7 months ago

npstr• 6 months ago

amiga386• 6 months ago

It's Bob, all right... but look at those vacuous eyes, that stupid grin on his face - he's been domesticated, I tell you.

jacquesm• 6 months ago

Hehe, shades of The Far Side.

azornathogron• 6 months ago

HN title-destroying rules strike again. It's "How Wolves Became Dogs"

Luc• 6 months ago

This rule is one of the worst ones, often resulting in nonsense titles or grammatical problems.

Another one on the homepage right now: "Samba Was Written". Ok, great.

rebolek• 6 months ago

Technically it's correct.

andersa• 6 months ago

Why not get rid of this stupid title changer already? I don't get it.

k8sToGo• 6 months ago

Why is the how dropped? Is it automatic?

xnorswap• 6 months ago

Yes. There are a few other title-mangle rules that HN has.

It's an attempted technical solution to try to remove / limit the amount of "clickbait" in titles.

It does not work very well.

mooreds2• 6 months ago

It is automatic on submission, but the submitter can go back and edit the title. I just forgot to do so.

sph3• 6 months ago

It's clear that human companionship has shaped wolves into dogs.

A weird, perhaps silly question I've had for a while is: how have wolves shaped humans? Has human society in any way been affected by the structure of wolf packs? Did hairless monkeys form stronger tribes because of it?

I don't believe for a second that this deep interspecies friendship has been one-sided and hasn't brought psychological if not physical changes as much as the changes it's brought to wolves.

mikkupikku• 6 months ago

Seems plausible to me that our long relationship with wolves/dogs has modified humanity to be more empathic to other species of animals in general. Probably impossible to prove though.

tomkaos• 6 months ago

I read somewhere that he could have change human sleep. Human can have a deeper sleep knowing a guard will alert of danger.

the_af• 6 months ago

Thankfully we have those other animals, "human puppies", to counteract this :P

wendgeabos2• 6 months ago

It's hard to imagine how it could not have driven human evolution as well.

HPsquared• 6 months ago

This is where evolutionary theory can be viewed through the lens of coevolution or group selection (a group defined as containing both a selection of humans, and also animals and plants in varying degrees of domestication, as a whole system). This is in contrast to kin selection, which only accounts for genetic relatedness.

I remember in one of Jiang Xueqin's videos, he made the interesting argument that "grain domesticated humans" at least as much, if not more, than "humans domesticated grain".

IAmBroom7• 6 months ago

Grains aren't very good food until bread is invented (probably from sprouted grains, originally). Seeds are designed to keep their goodness inside, and are very good at that containment. Bread in turn requires cooking. (I wonder now if there was a brief period of surviving on raw sprouted grains... which are far inferior because they mold so quickly.)

Wisdom teeth are far more valuable to a precooking human, who has to chew constantly to break down plant cells. The extra chewing causes stress that induces the jaw to grow longers, allowing space for the wisdome teeth.

We're basically at the "awkward teenage" part of evolving past raw-food diets.

dkarl• 6 months ago

I think the "wheat domesticated humans" argument is about changes to our behavior, our culture and social structures, rather than genetic change. It isn't domestication in the evolutionary sense. It would be like keeping zebras on a farm with horses and doing your best to tame and train them. You might be able to change their behavior so that they behaved differently from wild zebras, but it wouldn't be domestication unless you bred them over generations to produce a population that was genetically different from wild zebras.

conductr6• 6 months ago

On a long enough timeline it’s possible that cat-people and dog-people evolve separately into different species

thebruce87m• 6 months ago

I think some dog people already are a different species - hanging bags of dog shit on trees would never occur to me for example. I’d hate to see what their Christmas trees look like.

sph3• 6 months ago

Only if cat-people and dog-people don't intermingle.

But given how hostile many cat-people are (see sibling comment), compared to dog-people which tend to also enjoy the company of cats, I can imagine a timeline where this misanthropist branch of humans splits off, goes to live in trees and hisses at anybody that comes nearby.

ddawson• 6 months ago

Culture has been affected by Toxoplasmosis which humans are primarily exposed to through cats so this makes sense.

pokstad2• 6 months ago

I watched a documentary on dogs that was cheerful until the last 5% when they mentioned modern day dog owners. The film speculated that dogs might be a considered like a parasite that infiltrates human families and causes them to stop breeding humans and instead only have dogs and cats. So if that’s the case, the evolution ends for us :)

TacticalCoder2• 6 months ago

It's so weird that cats are still so feline, basically miniature tigers/lions but that dogs went so much off the rails compared to majestic wolves. Sure, some dogs are wolves-like but many just lot the plot: chihuahuas, daschhunds (my mom always had those: friendly but... not wolves-like), pugs, sharpeis, etc.

So many are just... Not badass? A wolf is badass. Cats are totally badass: they're natural born killers, hunting billions of poor preys yearly.

My parents are divorced. Father always had huge dogs (St. Bernard, Leonberg, Newfoundland, etc.) while mother always had tiny dogs (daschunds). I loved these dogs but I really hate having to take care of dog poo. So I'm a cat person.

As a bonus my miniature tiger takes care of itself and goes shitting where nobody can see it.

overfeed2• 6 months ago

My bet is the other species will be a result of Toxoplasma gondii zombification.

dsign• 6 months ago

Slightly tangential, but I think that dogs have allowed for some bad things to happen to us. Like, they are available physically, so if you don’t want to go insane in this society of ours where you are allowed to have physical contact with at most one person (your one and only partner), you can get a dog or five, or simply pet your friend’s dog or even a neighbor’s. Many post-agricultural revolution civilizations predicated on small family cells and strict property and succession rules would have been impossible without a dog to pet.

sph3• 6 months ago

Are nuclear families a post-agricultural phenomenon? AFAIK, it's a much recent societal change driven by the industrial revolution (i.e. 300 years ago vs ~15,000 years of agriculture)

TacticalCoder2• 6 months ago

... if you don’t want to go insane in this society of ours where you are allowed to have physical contact with at most one person ...

There are animals where the male and female only ever live together and are loyal (and not for the sake of the idea of loyalty, they're animals). It's not something speficic to some human societies.

akkad334• 6 months ago

I don't really understand this comment. Are you saying dogs made way for nuclear families? Why would it be impossible? In India for example pet ownership is very low. Much lower than prevalence of nuclear families

IAmBroom7• 6 months ago

Many post-agricultural revolution civilizations predicated on small family cells and strict property and succession rules would have been impossible without a dog to pet.

That's silly. US Midwest farmers meet every detail up until "would have been impossible"; dogs are common but not ubiquitous, and farming communities are highly social.

(Cats, ironically, are ubiquitous on farms, because of their utility at hunting mice and rats.)

Ironically, you're describing the classic "cat lady" trope, only with the wrong pet type.

deadbabe• 6 months ago

Misconceptions about wolf pack hierarchical structures have led humans to come up with misguided perceptions of being an Alpha, Beta, Sigma, etc…

psunavy03• 6 months ago

On the plus side, it makes it easier to write off someone as a loser when they use any of those terms unironically.

venusenvy47• 6 months ago

I've watched a couple documentaries that discuss your question. I think they mention the aspect about how humans could become more agricultural.

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt10462930

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/dogs-that-changed-the-world-...

belviewreview• 6 months ago

I am speculating that agriculture lead to human beings evolving to do the sort of labor that it requires, especially grains.

WalterBright3• 6 months ago

how have wolves shaped humans?

The bonds between humans and wolves go both ways. Humans love their dogs.

z3t4• 6 months ago

It's common in fur farms that they breed the animals that are most friendly to humans, and in only a few generations those animals behave like very friendly pets, and killing them becomes more difficult.

wendgeabos2• 6 months ago

huh so that's a way that it's adaptive for the animals

ekr____• 6 months ago

suzzer99• 6 months ago

A NOVA episode on dogs showed a Russian study where they bred the most friendly foxes with each other and did the same with the most aggressive (so extremes in both directions). The aggressive-bred animals were like that scene in I Am Legend where he checks on his infected rats. They were being fed, and they still wanted to kill their feeders. Kind of terrifying.

akkad334• 6 months ago

Why do they kill animals for fur? Could they not shave them? (I realise my question sounds dumb)

snerbles• 6 months ago

The pelt is what's harvested - the fur is not removed from the skin.

In some cases the animal's hair can be cut without harm, like how sheep are shorn for wool.

szanni• 6 months ago

I am rather surprised the article does not mention the shared hunting technique of pursuing prey until exhaustion as a possible link.

Many hunter gather tribes apparently employed this technique and it can still be found today in Africa with the San people.

Sharing food or stealing wolf puppies were probably part of the domestication but was this because humans possibly hunted alongside wolves? Humans possibly being capable of pursuing for longer distances due to better body temperature control through sweating while wolves being better at tracking.

At least that would be my take.

IAmBroom7• 6 months ago

Interesting. Counterpoint: since the canines can't keep up with the humans, are they only used to start the hunt? How do they know where the humans are near the end?

Until the dog is fully domesticated (OK, I'll go home and await his return. He'll bring me meat!), I don't know how they could cooperate on a many-hour hunt like this.

I used to wonder the same about falconry until I met a hawkmaster. The animals don't take prey far away where they'd be hard to find; they hover or perch near the humans in open fields, where they are trivial to find.

I also wondered why they don't just eat the prey. It's because that involves lots of effort; they know a human will shortly arrive with tasty food that isn't wrapped in tough fur. Basically, they trade a package of hamburger for a Big Mac.

runjake• 6 months ago

Counterpoint: since the canines can't keep up with the humans, are they only used to start the hunt?

Can you elaborate here? This is a weird fascination of mine (man+canine).

I walk long distances with dogs, here's what I've found and ruminated:

1. If I chase or follow a dog, I can chase them to exhaustion.

2. If I'm walking several miles with a dog, they tend to trot ahead of me and stop and pant and wait for me. Rinse, wash, repeat. Bursted energy/rest cycles.

mjanx1233• 6 months ago

the canines can't keep up with the humans

That only applies in hot climate. In moderate climate, canines have similar performance to humans, in the arctic canines are ~2x better.

Retric• 6 months ago

Dogs packs also do persistence hunting by having the animal pass back and forth. As long as the prey is forced to travel further than any individual dog it works fine.

In the wider context there are other examples of cross species hunting with octopus and fish for example. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/watch-octopuses-te... So, completely wild wolves doing something similar with humans seems extremely plausible.

dboreham3• 6 months ago

Probably a bit backwards. There is a filter on <species available for domestication> : they have to either be able to keep up with humans, or be small enough to be carried by a human. Hence: dogs, cats, rats, bunnies, etc.

MichaelRo• 6 months ago

> “The only, absolute and best friend a man has, in this selfish world, the only one that will not betray or deny him, is his dog.”

Well, this is far from absolute, isn't it? :) There's a fair number of vicious attacks of a dog on his owner. Oftentimes pitbulls (are they even dogs or rather "creatures"?!), but other breeds do it too. So ... nothing is absolute :P

gradschool• 6 months ago

For another example of betrayal, one of the cronies in Katherine the Great's court always gave a dog to his girlfriends whenever he started a new relationship. Then if the dog ever greeted some other guy familiarly, he inferred he was falling out of favor. He probably learned that trick when someone did it to him, because he would let the other guy know how he was rumbled before graciously bowing out.

inahga• 6 months ago

Mostly, if not entirely due to intentionally poor breeding practices. Who betrayed who?

IAmBroom7• 6 months ago

Mostly, if not entirely, due to poor raising.

I've gotten "BEWARE OF DOG!" pitbulls and rottweilers to befriend me simply by speaking kindly to them, and then over a period of days raising that to handsniffs, then petting.

Misanthropic dogs are taught that behavior, which contradicts 10,000+ years of training. They don't enjoy being assholes.

This is not to say dogs aren't naturally barky and suspicious of strangers; that is also part of their millenia of training. Lots of nice people are also suspicious of strangers. But aggressively attacking people is basically psychotic behavior for a social animal that considers humans part of its society.

IAmBroom7• 6 months ago

The quote doesn't insist all dogs are infinitely loyal.

Your disgusting prejudice aside, I've never met a pitbull in public that wasn't sweet and loving - which reinforces my suspicion that the real problem with them is the sort of psychotic, uncaring owner they attract.

When I was young, it was Dobermans that were demonized, and likewise the dog of choice for assholes who abused them as mere security devices.

macspoofing• 6 months ago

Next up: Raccoons.

srean• 6 months ago

Wouldn't mind killer whales and dolphins while we are at it. We aren't that great about sharing the environment though.

thedudeabides5• 6 months ago

positive sum games

jjtheblunt4• 6 months ago

I watch the genetic studies and it seems always presumed, in these articles, that dogs derive from wolves, not that dogs derive from siblings of wolves that derive from a common proto-canine ancestor.

The wikipedia entry considers the issue, presents data that are curious with respect ot the data in the Economist article, saying domestication is presumed from wolves roughly 14,000 years or so ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog#Taxonomy

The Economist article hints at the curiosity, in mentioning pre-Colombian dogs in the Americas were distinct some 23,000 years ago, but then returns to the standard presumptions.

An article in Nature also considers the ancestry presumptions

https://www.nature.com/articles/505589e

griffzhowl• 6 months ago

The wiki article doesn't say domestication occurred roughly 14k years ago, it says at least 14k years ago, because that's the earliest definitive evidence of a domesticated dog. Here are the next two sentences from the wiki article:

"The remains of the Bonn–Oberkassel dog, buried alongside humans between 14,000 and 15,000 years ago, are the earliest to be conclusively identified as a domesticated dog.[9][7] Genetic studies show that dogs likely diverged from wolves between 27,000 and 40,000 years ago."

jjtheblunt4• 6 months ago

agreed. in one of the articles linked, they further summarize

"Dog ancestors diverged from modern wolf ancestors at least 27,000 years ago"

which is still compatible with the two diverged ancestries sharing a proto-canid ancestor from which proto-wolves and proto-dogs both were derived.

Interestingly, the article about Belgian prehistoric canid dna says the genetics are so varied that they don't form a clear group.

IAmBroom7• 6 months ago

We have fossil records of wolves that do not seem much different from modern grey wolves. We do not have fossil records of ancestors to the grey wolves that share much of their DNA coexisting with the grey wolves.

Occam's Razor says that the posited ancestor of Canus domesticus that shared grey wolf DNA was... the grey wolf.

jjtheblunt4• 6 months ago

I believe the linked articles number 10 and 11 in the wikipedia article have a counterexample to what you just wrote.

they do also emphasize that the "northern dogs" (huskies, malamute, akita?) are very close to wolves in shared ancestry.

mjanx1233• 6 months ago

Dogs descend from an extinct wolf species that was sibling to the grey wolf. There are multiple wolf species, proto wolves date far before dog domestication.

jjtheblunt4• 6 months ago

that's consistent with what is discussed a couple days ago with article links.

do you have a dataset or study with such? it would be interesting.

jebarker• 6 months ago

Highly recommend the book "How to tame a fox" about the Russian fur farm fox domestication experiment

mooreds2• 6 months ago

Famous Fox Domestication Experiment Challenged
The tamed foxes, whose appearances changed with breeding, weren’t wild to begin with, say the authors of a new study.

softwaredoug• 6 months ago

One clue is in mythology.

Across many cultures, dogs exist in a transitory space between life and death (ie Cerebus). Hinting at dogs being "transitory" from here (camp) and out there (the wilderness). Going between, getting scraps, staying for a while, leaving. You can imagine a process unfolding over Millenia of gradual domestication this way. You see it in Ancient North Eurasians myth across different cultures. Ancient North Eurasians are genetic precursors Eurasian, Western Europe, and American lineages where dog domestication originated, and arguably where many cultures have the deeper associations with dogs.

feintruled• 6 months ago

Interesting article, though is there really much new there? Also it discounts the alternative hypothesis of some bright spark acquiring wolf pups and doing it purposefully because that would take 'weeks'. Weeks, you say?

Surely some enterprising hunter-gatherer had sufficient time on their hands. I can't help but think strutting around with a feared predator at your beck and call would have been the ultimate status symbol, and once you saw it would have to be the must have accessory for the self-respecting hunter. Aficionados would no doubt breed their stock amongst themselves to save the hassle of having to abduct more wolf cubs, which would naturally tend to the more suited specimens (friendliness being one trait as you don't want them eating the kids). Once it was realised what an incredible force multiplier they are in hunting and their utility in defence, any time investment would pay for itself many times over.

I find this no less as unlikely as thinking humans would let wolves help themselves to their excess food. Fascinating subject all round, no matter the reason. I hope they can figure out more.

tastyfreeze• 6 months ago

I see this as likely as becoming more amenable to humans over a long time due to free food.

Falconers often acquire and train wild birds. With wolves abducting pups or adopting orphans seems like a reasonable path to domestication.

SJC_Hacker• 6 months ago

I find this no less as unlikely as thinking humans would let wolves help themselves to their excess food

Wolves can extract nutrition from animal tissue which humans discard, such as bone and the tougher cartilage/connective tissue. Modern dogs still absolute love bones.

They also have much better night vision than humans, sense of smell and hearing.

So, follow human tribes and pick off the remains when they move camp. Maybe eventually escalate to sneaking in at night. The human tribes now become a "resource" which the wolves will start guarding from other predators, such as bears or competing wolf packs. The humans eventually catch on that the wolves are providing a benefit at very little cost - food remains which they are not eating anyway. They even start to share kills - the wolves being better at tracking game while the humans finish the kill with spear/bow.

When animal and crop domestication occurs, you get another benefit - protecting the flocks/herds/crops from marauders. Especially at night.

Beijinger• 6 months ago

Previously: Our dogs' diversity can be traced back to the Stone Age https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45922997

Me: Not sure man. The closest relative to the dog is the likely extinct, Japanese Wolf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_wolf Maybe they were very tame to begin with? Like the extinct Falkland wolf:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_wolf

"There were no forests for the animal to hide in, and it had no fear of humans;[citation needed] it was possible to lure the animal with a chunk of meat held in one hand, and kill it with a knife held in the other"

craig552uk• 6 months ago

A good (if slightly dated) book on the subject:

How the Wolf Became the Dog by Mark Derr

This is an active, and fast-moving, research area and I'd be keen to read something more up-to-date.

ChrisMarshallNY2• 6 months ago

All these comments, and no one has mentioned the classic “What’s the Worst That Can Happen?” Meme?

I won’t link to it, because all the sources are not so nice for techs, but just search for “10000 years later”, or “what’s the worst that can happen?”. The thumbnail previews will be fine. No need to open X or Facebook.

How wolves became dogs

Related Stories