MY AMERICAN SCIENTIST
LOG IN! REGISTER!
SEARCH
 
RSS
Logo IMG
HOME > PAST ISSUE > March-April 1999 > Article Detail

FEATURE ARTICLE

Early Canid Domestication: The Farm-Fox Experiment

Foxes bred for tamability in a 40-year experiment exhibit remarkable transformations that suggest an interplay between behavioral genetics and development

Lyudmila Trut

When scientists ponder how animals came to be domesticated, they almost inevitably wind up thinking about dogs. The dog was probably the first domestic animal, and it is the one in which domestication has progressed the furthest—far enough to turn Canis lupus into Canis familiaris. Evolutionary theorists have long speculated about exactly how dogs' association with human beings may have been linked to their divergence from their wild wolf forebears, a topic that anthropologist Darcy Morey has discussed in some detail in the pages of this magazine (July–August 1994).

As Morey pointed out, debates about the origins of animal domestication tend to focus on "the issue of intentionality"—the extent to which domestication was the result of deliberate human choice. Was domestication actually "self-domestication," the colonization of new ecological niches by animals such as wolves? Or did it result from intentional decisions by human beings? How you answer those questions will determine how you understand the morphological and physiological changes that domestication has brought about—whether as the results of the pressure of natural selection in a new niche, or as deliberately cultivated advantageous traits.

In many ways, though, the question of intentionality is beside the point. Domestication was not a single event but rather a long, complex process. Natural selection and artificial selection may both have operated at different times or even at the same time. For example, even if prehistoric people deliberately set out to domesticate wolves, natural selection would still have been at work. The selective regime may have changed drastically when wolves started living with people, but selective pressure continued regardless of anything Homo sapiens chose to do.

Another problem with the debate over intentionality is that it can overshadow other important questions. For example, in becoming domesticated, animals have undergone a host of changes in morphology, physiology and behavior. What do those changes have in common? Do they stem from a single cause, and if so, what is it? In the case of the dog, Morey identifies one common factor as pedomorphosis, the retention of juvenile traits by adults. Those traits include both morphological ones, such as skulls that are unusually broad for their length, and behavioral ones, such as whining, barking and submissiveness—all characteristics that wolves outgrow but that dogs do not. Morey considers pedomorphosis in dogs a by-product of natural selection for earlier sexual maturity and smaller body size, features that, according to evolutionary theory, ought to increase the fitness of animals engaged in colonizing a new ecological niche.

The common patterns are not confined to a single species. In a wide range of mammals—herbivores and predators, large and small— domestication seems to have brought with it strikingly similar changes in appearance and behavior: changes in size, changes in coat color, even changes in the animals' reproductive cycles. Our research group at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics in Novosibirsk, Siberia, has spent decades investigating such patterns and other questions of the early evolution of domestic animals. Our work grew out of the interests and ideas of the late director of our institute, the geneticist Dmitry K. Belyaev.

Figure 1. In the late 1950sClick to Enlarge Image Like Morey, Belyaev believed that the patterns of changes observed in domesticated animals resulted from genetic changes that occurred in the course of selection. Belyaev, however, believed that the key factor selected for was not size or reproduction, but behavior—specifically amenability to domestication, or tamability. More than any other quality, Belyaev believed, tamability must have determined how well an animal would adapt to life among human beings. Because behavior is rooted in biology, selecting for tameness and against aggression means selecting for physiological changes in the systems that govern the body's hormones and neurochemicals. Those changes, in turn, could have had far-reaching effects on the development of the animals themselves, effects that might well explain why different animals would respond in similar ways when subjected to the same kinds of selective pressures.

To test his hypothesis, Belyaev decided to turn back the clock to the point at which animals received the first challenge of domestication. By replaying the process, he would be able to see how changes in behavior, physiology and morphology first came about. Of course, reproducing the ways and means of those ancient transformations, even in the roughest outlines, would be a formidable task. To keep things as clear and simple as possible, Belyaev designed a selective-breeding program to reproduce a single major factor, strong selection pressure for tamability. He chose as his experimental model a species taxonomically close to the dog but never before domesticated: Vulpes vulpes, the silver fox. Belyaev's fox-breeding experiment occupied the last 26 years of his life. Today, 14 years after his death, it is still in progress. Through genetic selection alone, our research group has created a population of tame foxes fundamentally different in temperament and behavior from their wild forebears. In the process we have observed some striking changes in physiology, morphology and behavior, which mirror the changes known in other domestic animals and bear out many of Belyaev's ideas.





» Post Comment

 

EMAIL TO A FRIEND :

Of Possible Interest

Letters to the Editors: Good Sharers

Letters to the Editors: Working Together

Spotlight: First Person: Building with DNA

Subscribe to American Scientist