Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cervicalgrdle t1_j69ankp wrote

Reply to comment by iayork in Has a new animal species evolved since mankind’s existence? by coding_ac

Would dogs count too since they evolved from wolves due to human taming?

26

iayork t1_j69e8ox wrote

It’s debated whether domestic dogs are species or subspecies. The arguments are arcane and extremely tedious. Since it’s pretty much irrelevant to the question here (are there five thousand species since humans appeared, or five thousand and one?) I’m not interested in this semantic argument.

34

Any-Broccoli-3911 t1_j69ilvd wrote

All domestic animals are typically considered species but can still reproduce with their wild ancestors, so it's more than one species you would add. Also, dingo are also sometime considered species or subspecies.

7

copiouscoper t1_j69ouk9 wrote

Polar bears and grizzlies can hybridize and produce fertile offspring, yet it would obviously be ridiculous to say they’re the same species. The fertile offspring argument has always been flimsy at best when defining a species.

21

Dbeka_X t1_j6atw1b wrote

It is only flimsy if used incompletely: Two organisms belong to two different species if they do not reproduce - the keyword would be „reproductive community“. This can be due to genetical /anatomical differences or (!) because they don’t share the same ecological niche.

This definition does not apply to organisms that reproduce non-sexually.

5

ZekeDarwin t1_j6bs61q wrote

Nah, absolutely not a certain metric. Biologists deal with life, and life is super complex. Way too complex to categorize into the little boxes that we desire.

Hybridization is very common in the animal kingdom, way more common than we realized in the early days of taxonomy… centuries before dna would be discovered.

7

Dbeka_X t1_j6cjpgk wrote

We talk about science. The art of science is it to put the real world into categories. No categories no science.

I wonder what "Hybridization is very common in the animal kingdom" does mean. Any data? Usually Hybrids are sterile, so there is no effect on natural occurring species - see here. And: Hybrids are no species. I understood that occuring hybridization is a result of the anthropocene.

Taxonomy may be old but species is the central unit of evolutionary biology. The concept was developed by Ernst Mayr, who knew about DNA. Indeed the idea behind it all is that genes can be shared by all members of a given species. When gene flow is hampered by barriers populations can differentiate. Genetic differentiation will lead to phenotypic differentiation. New species are born.

−2

[deleted] t1_j6aelac wrote

[removed]

−2

vandunks t1_j6b71ig wrote

Yeah, even dogs and wolves can breed, and it would be weird to say that they are the same species.

−2

djublonskopf t1_j6hsy33 wrote

We currently describe dogs and grey wolves as the same species, Canis lupus.

4

annomandaris t1_j6b417p wrote

The current theory is dogs did not come from wolves, but that they had a common ancestor that split into dogs and wolves, then we domesticated dogs but wolves are and always have been undomesticatable

1

cervicalgrdle t1_j6blj3i wrote

Were humans the evolutionary pressure for dogs to branch off from their common ancestor with wolves?

4

djublonskopf t1_j6hst2a wrote

Dogs didn't evolve from gray wolves specifically, but they definitely evolved from some kind of wolf or wolves.

4

annomandaris t1_j6iq1pz wrote

Yes, I mean as far as Ive read, the wolf/dog ancestor split into 2 wolf types. One was the ancestor of wolves that would become the wolves as we know them today, and the other was a wolf that would eventually be domesticated, and become something like a husky/malamutes, and eventually the rest of dog species.

So while wolves have been bred with dogs at several points in history, it’s not quite accurate to say dogs came from wolves (the ones we know today). They came from other wolves.

1

Stephlau94 t1_j6b88vi wrote

Then how come they can still reproduce without any problem? I mean, the genus Panthera can also interbreed to a degree, but the resulting offspring is usually infertile or only partially fertile, the same with mules, but dog-wolf offspring don't (seem to) have this problem.

2

annomandaris t1_j6b8f95 wrote

Because when they split they took their reproductive systems with them. So they still have the same number of chromosomes and stuff.

1

TheBoggart t1_j6fqzb8 wrote

Hm. I’ve never heard that. Can I get a citation?

2