Dog spelled backwards is Canis Lupus ... Canis Lupus Familiaris
In his book The Truth About Dogs, Stephen Budiansky reports results of an mtDNA study by Robert Wayne that showed dogs and wolves are more similar in their mtDNA than are wolves and coyotes. If the mtDNA clock is right, and the fossil record for the wolf/coyote split is accurate, the wolf-dog split is no more than 135,000 years old, and wolf and dog share a huge number of distinctive mtDNA markers.
The earliest remains of the domestic dog date from 10 to15 thousand years ago; the diversity of these remains suggests multiple domestication events at different times and places. Dogs may be derived from several different ancestral gray wolf populations, and many dog breeds and wild wolf populations must be analysed in order to tease apart the genetic sources of the domestic dog gene pool.
To date, the first domesticated dog was found at a German site dated 14,000 B.C. Dogs were thought to work cooperatively with humans to locate and announce the position of prey wounded by hunters' primitive arrows.
A recent study in the journal Science, however—which looked at mitochondrial DNA from dogs, wolves, coyotes, and jackals—concluded that wolves and dogs may have genetically diverged much earlier, as long as 135,000 years ago.
A limited mtDNA restriction fragment analysis of seven dog breeds and 26 gray wolf populations from Different Locations Around the World has shown that the genotypes of dogs and wolves are either Identical or differ by the loss or gain of only one or two restriction sites 22. The Domestic Dog is an Extremely Close Relative of the Gray Wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence 15, 22, 23.
In comparrison, the Gray Wolf differs from its closest wild relative, the Coyote, by about 4% of mitochondrial DNA sequence. Therefore, the molecular genetic evidence Does Not support theories that Domestic Dogs arose from Jackal ancestors.
Dogs are Gray Wolves,despite their diversity in size and proportion; the wide variation in their adult morphology probably results from simple changes in developmental rate and timing.
There are the New Guinea Singing Dog, The Dingo, or the (frequently outcrossed to wolves) Alaskan Husky etc,
The scientific name of the African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) means painted wolf.
The Wild Dog has the same number of chromosomes as the domestic dog (Canis Familiaris) and similar neuroanatomy (Radinsky 1973) Phylogenetically.
The Evolution of the domestic dog is still a matter of much debate. (Not Anymore!) Some Believe that the dog is descended from the wolf, while others think they are evolved separately from a common ancestor. (Coppinger)
Recently the American Society of Mammologist recommended that the Domestic Dog be Reclassified as a new Subspecies of Wolf, Canis Lupus Familiaris.
There is genetic evidence that the Dog is descendent from the Wolf and that the Domestication of the Dog took place several times over the course of history.
(This and other studies and experiments throw away Coppinger Improbable theories)
Canis Lupus Familiaris has been the most frequently used term over the last 50 years.
It should be noted that the current edition (2005 third edition, 2008) of Mammal Species of the World classifies domestic dogs as Canis Lupus Familiaris
From Dogs Decoded, NOVA:
- GREGER LARSON: Those markers, in domestic dogs, show them to be much more closely related to grey wolves than they are to any other species. There's no admixture, so we never see a mitochondrial signature of, say, an African wild dog or jackal or coyote in a domestic dog. And of the thousands upon thousands of mitochondrial D.N.A. that has been extracted from domestic dogs, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM JUST LOOKS LIKE A GREY WOLF.
- Dogs Decoded: This controversy is settled; DOGS ARE DOMESTICATED WOLVES. But a mystery remains: when and how did this change take place?
Dr. Clive Wynne University of Florida, Wolf Park Indiana
- "You don't have to study dogs for long to realize, If you want to understand the dog, you better understand where the dog come from, you want to understand the Wolf"
Some News......
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124768140&sc=nl&cc=brk-20100318-0938&ps=brk-mp
'Dominant Signal Comes From The Middle East'
Then they analyzed DNA from more than 900 dogs from 85 breeds, and looked to see which of the wolf markers dogs most closely resembled. It turns out that most dogs shared markers unique to Middle Eastern wolves, although there were some dog breeds that were closer to other wolf populations.
"Many wolf populations may have contributed to the genomic diversity of dogs, but the dominant signal comes from the Middle East," says Wayne. The new research appears in the journal Nature.
"I can't say that I am surprised by the results," says Tamar Dayan, a zoologist at Tel Aviv University in Israel. "I would have been surprised if they were different."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6125898/Dogs-descended-from-wolf-pack-on-Yangtze-river.html
Today's dogs are all descended from a pack of wolves tamed 16,000 years ago on the shores of the Yangtze river, according to new research.
"Peter Savolainen, a biology researcher at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm and who led the study with a team of Chinese researches, said: "For the first time in world history it is possible to provide a detailed picture of the dog, with its birthplace, point in time, and how many wolves were tamed.
"This is a considerably more specific date and birthplace than had previously been put forward.
"Our earlier findings from 2002 have not been fully accepted, but with our new data there will be greater acceptance.
"The picture provides much more detail."
The earliest remains of the domestic dog date from 10 to15 thousand years ago; the diversity of these remains suggests multiple domestication events at different times and places. Dogs may be derived from several different ancestral gray wolf populations, and many dog breeds and wild wolf populations must be analysed in order to tease apart the genetic sources of the domestic dog gene pool.
To date, the first domesticated dog was found at a German site dated 14,000 B.C. Dogs were thought to work cooperatively with humans to locate and announce the position of prey wounded by hunters' primitive arrows.
A recent study in the journal Science, however—which looked at mitochondrial DNA from dogs, wolves, coyotes, and jackals—concluded that wolves and dogs may have genetically diverged much earlier, as long as 135,000 years ago.
A limited mtDNA restriction fragment analysis of seven dog breeds and 26 gray wolf populations from Different Locations Around the World has shown that the genotypes of dogs and wolves are either Identical or differ by the loss or gain of only one or two restriction sites 22. The Domestic Dog is an Extremely Close Relative of the Gray Wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence 15, 22, 23.
In comparrison, the Gray Wolf differs from its closest wild relative, the Coyote, by about 4% of mitochondrial DNA sequence. Therefore, the molecular genetic evidence Does Not support theories that Domestic Dogs arose from Jackal ancestors.
Dogs are Gray Wolves,despite their diversity in size and proportion; the wide variation in their adult morphology probably results from simple changes in developmental rate and timing.
There are the New Guinea Singing Dog, The Dingo, or the (frequently outcrossed to wolves) Alaskan Husky etc,
The scientific name of the African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) means painted wolf.
The Wild Dog has the same number of chromosomes as the domestic dog (Canis Familiaris) and similar neuroanatomy (Radinsky 1973) Phylogenetically.
The Evolution of the domestic dog is still a matter of much debate. (Not Anymore!) Some Believe that the dog is descended from the wolf, while others think they are evolved separately from a common ancestor. (Coppinger)
Recently the American Society of Mammologist recommended that the Domestic Dog be Reclassified as a new Subspecies of Wolf, Canis Lupus Familiaris.
There is genetic evidence that the Dog is descendent from the Wolf and that the Domestication of the Dog took place several times over the course of history.
(This and other studies and experiments throw away Coppinger Improbable theories)
Canis Lupus Familiaris has been the most frequently used term over the last 50 years.
It should be noted that the current edition (2005 third edition, 2008) of Mammal Species of the World classifies domestic dogs as Canis Lupus Familiaris
From Dogs Decoded, NOVA:
- GREGER LARSON: Those markers, in domestic dogs, show them to be much more closely related to grey wolves than they are to any other species. There's no admixture, so we never see a mitochondrial signature of, say, an African wild dog or jackal or coyote in a domestic dog. And of the thousands upon thousands of mitochondrial D.N.A. that has been extracted from domestic dogs, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM JUST LOOKS LIKE A GREY WOLF.
- Dogs Decoded: This controversy is settled; DOGS ARE DOMESTICATED WOLVES. But a mystery remains: when and how did this change take place?
Dr. Clive Wynne University of Florida, Wolf Park Indiana
- "You don't have to study dogs for long to realize, If you want to understand the dog, you better understand where the dog come from, you want to understand the Wolf"
Some News......
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124768140&sc=nl&cc=brk-20100318-0938&ps=brk-mp
'Dominant Signal Comes From The Middle East'
Then they analyzed DNA from more than 900 dogs from 85 breeds, and looked to see which of the wolf markers dogs most closely resembled. It turns out that most dogs shared markers unique to Middle Eastern wolves, although there were some dog breeds that were closer to other wolf populations.
"Many wolf populations may have contributed to the genomic diversity of dogs, but the dominant signal comes from the Middle East," says Wayne. The new research appears in the journal Nature.
"I can't say that I am surprised by the results," says Tamar Dayan, a zoologist at Tel Aviv University in Israel. "I would have been surprised if they were different."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6125898/Dogs-descended-from-wolf-pack-on-Yangtze-river.html
Today's dogs are all descended from a pack of wolves tamed 16,000 years ago on the shores of the Yangtze river, according to new research.
"Peter Savolainen, a biology researcher at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm and who led the study with a team of Chinese researches, said: "For the first time in world history it is possible to provide a detailed picture of the dog, with its birthplace, point in time, and how many wolves were tamed.
"This is a considerably more specific date and birthplace than had previously been put forward.
"Our earlier findings from 2002 have not been fully accepted, but with our new data there will be greater acceptance.
"The picture provides much more detail."
The Origen of the Controversy from Darwin to Mech...
Update!
Confirmed!
The same David Mech altogheter with others experts on the field, wanted to set the record straight due to the wide spread of misinformation and misinterpretation made by the Slandering Liars of the "purely positive" Cult about the concept of Dominance being "mythology"...
Now Mech Debunk the Myth about “Dominance being a Myth” used by those Pigeons detractors of Cesar Millan.
(I Love the irony in this…)
Confirmed!
The same David Mech altogheter with others experts on the field, wanted to set the record straight due to the wide spread of misinformation and misinterpretation made by the Slandering Liars of the "purely positive" Cult about the concept of Dominance being "mythology"...
Now Mech Debunk the Myth about “Dominance being a Myth” used by those Pigeons detractors of Cesar Millan.
(I Love the irony in this…)
MISINTERPRETATIONS and inaccuracies of Mech Study used in the "purely positive" dogma.
Accord to those Pigeons, dogs and wolfs do not form Packs, do not have Hirachycal order, they do not have Leaders also called the Alphas and they do not perform the Alpha Roll, For them they are "Happy Families" and Yes we can think of the packs as a "Family" but we do NOT make litteral extrapolations.
All their claims are based in a field study made for David Mech on 13 summers in Ellesmere Island (1999)
There are also the IMPROBABLES Coopinger's Theories, not worthy to mention to fuel the confusion, every one have their own theories:
Konrad Lorenz thought that dogs decended from the Golden Jackal
Michael Fox developed a "missing link" theory
The "pure positive" clique adopted and teach based on Improbable Coppigner's theory, "dogs domesticate themselves" and "dogs and wolves are two branches from the same ancestor"
in a few words ANY ONE can make his own theory, after all: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts " - Albert Einstein (or... change the terminology!)
I will be providing the Observations, Data and Evidence provided by other Researchers, Scientists and Experts in the field, that Refute their position, because for them, the Personal Experience and Empiric Observations means "nothing"
David Mech Should charge them for use his work like Lame Excuse to Sell their Dogma.
Mech-at 66, ancient by the standards of active field biologists-is full of incongruities.
For example, that a man associated with the protection of wildlife came to study animals because he enjoyed trapping them as a boy in Syracuse, N.Y. Even now, Mech drives the back roads of east-central Minnesota each winter, tending 200 mink traps.
Or that a man who loves to trap has also loved opera ever since watching the movie The Great Caruso.
Or that he doesn't own a dog. "People expect I'm going to love dogs because I'm this big canid guy. I don't even like them, to tell you the truth."
Or that a man known for the recovery of wolves would advocate killing them.
When those 'pure positive' Pigeons make the Reference of D. Mech Work they are talking about the results from a field study examining a Solitary Pack of Wolves in the wild completed by David Mech on 13 Summers on Ellesmere Island (1999).
The Dominance encounters are more common in the Winter months, several factors can affect the display of Dominance Ritual Behaviours.
The Observations show that, at least in Summer on Ellesmere Island the Wolfs displayed the behaviour Described by D. Mech.... allegadly, the Very Convenient Misinterpretation of those Pigeon is based on Mech's OWN Anthropomorphized point of view, he also seems to ignore one of the basic rules when comes to the Description and Classiffication of Behaviour.
Behavior of the ancestor
Genetic research identified the wolf as the nearest evolutionary relative of the dog (Vilá et al., 1997). This fact provides a very effective comparative background, even though wolves have been distributed across the entire Holarctic and are represented by genetically and behaviorally different populations. Additionally, wolves have suffered from human hunting and environmental destruction in most parts of the world, which probably changed their behavior in many respects (e.g., increased their homophobia).
- "Only wolves of the polar region have no fear of humans, and they are gentler with one another as well.
There is a good reason for the wolves fear: humans have been exterminating them mercilessly.
This probably has been accompanied by some natural selection: the surviving wolves are the descendants of timid, mistrustful individuals that tended to avoid humans." - Vilmos Csanyi
But in Ellesmere Island....
- Never hunted, the wolves had little fear of humans. On the barren tundra, no trees or brush would hide them from view. - from the
The Far Reach of David Mech by Greg Breining
So, Do Not act and talk like your stating proven Facts!!...
And... I think that Mech Does Not Have Any Hesitacion when comes to include Early Interpretations, because... Was Not him the First who Sugest the Posibility that the Hierarchical system or Pack were a "Family"
The Credit of the Pack as "Family" Does Not Belong to David Mech The Credit is of Maurie (1944) and Schenkel (1967)
Maurie (1944) and Schenkel (1967) made a Studies where they were who Sugest the Posibility that Pack was a family,
Here is Mech's reference of their work:
'Schenkel did consider the possibility that the pack was a family, as Murie (1944) had already reported, BUT ONLY IN A FOOTNOTE'
Of course we also can make reference of "Wolf family" it's Logic, since the Alpha pair are the Breeders.
But We Do Not Traslate that Interpretation Literaly to the Context of a Human Family like you (Very Conveniently isn't?) and David Mech did.
(And YOU Pigeons use that endeble Misinterpretation like a mainstay of your Dogma)
And of Course, very Coneniently you Ignore other of Mech's Statements:
"The degree to which these arguments apply to other species no doubt varies considerably and is beyond the scope of this article."
He should wrote this:
Because one pack was involved in this study rather than several, the results are only a preliminary test of the hypothesis and may not apply to other wolf packs.
It's would be like an experiment based on the premise that All the Hierachical Order and Pack Struckture is Like a "Family" and drawing all your Conclusions Based upon that Premise.
Then ALL his work is based on a False Premise:
1- The yearlings naturally dominate the new pups just as older brothers and sisters in a human family - Mech
2- This leadership role, however, does not involve anyone fighting to the top of the group, because just like in a human family, the youngsters naturally follow their parents’ lead.- Mech
3- Wolf packs are merely family groups formed EXACTLY the same way as human families are formed. - Mech
4- Calling a wolf an alpha is usually no more appropriate than referring to a Human parent or a doe deer as an alpha. - Mech
5- Such an approach is analogous to trying to draw inferences about human family dynamics by studying humans in refugee camps. - Mech
( The Same goes for his study, Such an Interpretation is analogous to trying to draw inferences about human family dynamics by studying humans in... Mormon Compounds. )
"I conclude that the typical wolf pack is a family, with the adult parents guiding the activities of the group in a division-of-labor system in which the female predominates primarily in such activities as pup care and defense and the male primarily during foraging and food-provisioning and the travels associated with them." - D. Mech
All Your Believes, Pigeons are Based in Your Own MISINTERPRETATIONS of Mech Study.
David Mech was Thinking on that when he made the Study?
The point here is not so much the terminology but what the terminology falsely implies: a rigid, force-based dominance hierarchy. - Mech
That is True but... That one is NOT the correct explanation... This is:
"Among many social species of animal, there have come to exist social Hierarchies in which certain individuals are More Dominant Than Others.
Selection should favour rapid and Honest communication between opponents to settle Dominance Relationships while Avoiding Prolonged and Intense Fighting.
The Communication of Aggressive Motivation or Fighting Ability has important Fitness Consequences for Competing animals.
There are distinct evolutionary Benefits to these Social Structures, as they provide an Efficient Mechanism for Arbitration and Negotiation in the Distribution of scarce Resources. - Erik Zimen
Even More, Mech Can be Questioned since he Ignores one of the Rules when comes to the Description and Classification of Behavior
Accord to the American Society of Mammalogists (2007)
The description and classification of behavior are fundamental to quantitative studies of animal behavior. Although Sometimes Neglected, this Stage of a Behavioral Study is Crucial because IT Determines the scope of Analysis and Often Dictates the Course of Future Research (Bekoff 1979; Hinde 1970; Hutt and Hutt 1970).
However, classifying behavior is difficult because it occurs as a continuous stream of movement, and OBSERVER BIASES affect how units of behavior are separated and recombined from this stream (Fentress 1990).
Nevertheless, regularities and discontinuities in patterns of movement do provide an empirical basis by which to subdivide behavioral streams into natural units (Altmann 1965; Lehner 1996; Martin and Bateson 1993).
Investigators can therefore Minimize Bias in the Classification of behavior by selecting behavior units that reflect these natural subdivisions. - American Society of Mammalogists (2007)
Since, again, the Dominance encounters are more common in the Winter months, when Mating Occurs and on the Tables of Dominance interactions he does Not Include Standing Over, "Hugging" or Involve Food except for "food-begging"
(A behavior which pups and sometimes sub-adults use to get food from dominant members)
Mech write: Insuficient data... (for summer months)
I occasionally saw intense "pinning" of a 2 -year-old female by her mother in summer 1994 that some might label "hostile." However, to me this behavior appeared to be merely the type of interaction I observed between the mother and an errant pup she could not control. In any case, these types of interaction were uncommon during my study.- D. Mech
The only other general dominance rules I discerned involved scent-marking and food ownership and transfer.
With scent-marking, both breeding male and female mark, but subordinates do not unless vying for dominance (Packard 1989; Asa et al. 1990), and I have seen no exceptions.- Mech
We noted each time a wolf submitted posturally to another wolf. Usually this deference was characterized by "licking up" to the mouth of the Dominant animal in the "active Submission" posture (Fig. 5 in Schenkel 1967), Similar to that described by Darwin (1877) for Domestic Dogs. - D. Mech
In captive packs, the unacquainted wolves formed dominance hierarchies featuring alpha, beta, omega animals, etc.
With such assemblages, these dominance labels were probably
appropriate, for most species thrown together in captivity would usually so Arrange Themselves - Mech
(And what is a Dog in a human Enviroment?
“Domestication means Domination,” writes historian Yi-Fu Tuan in his book Dominance and Affection: The Making of Pets. “The two words have the same root sense of mastery over another being—of bringing it into one’s house or Domain.” )
The one use we may still want to reserve for "alpha" is in the relatively few large wolf packs comprised of multiple litters. Although the genetic relationships of the mothers in such packs Remain Unknown, probably the mothers include the original matriarch and one or more daughters, and the fathers are probably the patriarch and unrelated adoptees (Mech et al. 1998).
In such cases the older breeders are probably Dominant to the younger breeders and perhaps can more appropriately be called the alphas.
Evidence for such a contention would be an older breeder consistently Dominating food disposition or the Travels of the pack.- Mech
In "standing over," one wolf would stand over (Schenkel 1947) a lying wolf, positioning its groin above the nose of the lying wolf. Sometimes the lying wolf sniffed at the groin or genitals of the standing wolf.
Schenkel (1947) saw "standing over" only during "peaceful" times and did not seem to consider it Dominance-related. In the case of hugging, My Sample Size (5) was insufficient to determine whether it was dominance-related (L.D. Mech, SEE FOOTNOTE).
Now he writes a FOOTNOTE!
Also when he Publish his book The Wolf he ignores the FOOTNOTE that make the Reference to the Pack as a "Family" or maybe at the time was insufficient data... from a different Pack
WAS THE SAME MECH and Schenkel who spread the believes on the Alpha's
"I crafted my book The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species in the late 1960s.
I included much reference to Schenkel’s study. The book was timely because no other synthesis about the wolf had been written since 1944, so The Wolf sold well. - Mech
And what he Say about the Work of his Peers?
"Others liberally write of "alpha" animals
(Creel and Creel 1996). - Mech
Thus, only in the relatively few packs with multiple breeders might there be intense rivalries such as those Haber (1977) reported during the breeding season in his unusual pack.
On the other hand, at least some of the difference in Reported "hostility" might be due to Different VIEWPOINTS OF THE OBSERVERS. -Mech (Every body else is wrong, I'm Right!)
And More His Study obiusly is Not Replicable or Confirmed, so he must do a "Disclaimer"
One place where this issue becomes particularly confusing is Yellowstone National Park, where great numbers of the public spend much time observing wolves right along with wolf biologists and naturalists. - David Mech
Again, he should wrote like on other studies:
Because one pack was involved in this study rather than
several, the results are only a preliminary test of the hypothesis and may not apply to other wolf packs.
or:
Because the collared wolves monitored in this study were all from the same pack, they did not represent a sample of the greater wolf population in northwest Montana.
Consequently, data analysis was limited to mostly descriptive statistics, along with a non-parametric chi square test.
The Journal of American Science, Movements of Radio Collared Wolves and Their Significance on Pack Assembly; Jay S. Mallonée, Wolf & Wildlife Studies 2008
The description of the interacctions of the pack on Ellesmere Island are Based on Mech own Interpretations.
He refers to the Alpha and to the Heriachal System on a very Simplistic maner like -'promoting friendly relations' or 'reducing social distance' or 'families' Statements Very open to Misinterpretations
There are Many Scientists, Biologists who have studied wolfs in their Dens, Natural Environments not only that who studied the wolfs on captivity and don't forget the Empiric Observations from Native people who live within nature
ALL of them coincide on the same,
On every Pack there are Leaders the breeding pair called Alpha male and female
There are a Hierarchal System
There are Dominance and Submission and More it is also Tangible, Quantitative and Verificable ( Journal of Mammalogy, 2005
DOMINANCE, AGGRESSION, AND GLUCOCORTICOID LEVELS IN SOCIAL CARNIVORES
SCOTT CREEL )
Not only the Misleading Interpretation of Mech, (emphasis mine) since there are a lot of Evidence provided for him and many other Scientists and Biologists
I'm going to make use of my own Discernment and Understanding
So, I chose to believe on others researchers so much less Intellectually Dishonest than those who Follow the Dogma Dictated by Ian Dunbar and his Pigeons.
All their claims are based in a field study made for David Mech on 13 summers in Ellesmere Island (1999)
There are also the IMPROBABLES Coopinger's Theories, not worthy to mention to fuel the confusion, every one have their own theories:
Konrad Lorenz thought that dogs decended from the Golden Jackal
Michael Fox developed a "missing link" theory
The "pure positive" clique adopted and teach based on Improbable Coppigner's theory, "dogs domesticate themselves" and "dogs and wolves are two branches from the same ancestor"
in a few words ANY ONE can make his own theory, after all: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts " - Albert Einstein (or... change the terminology!)
I will be providing the Observations, Data and Evidence provided by other Researchers, Scientists and Experts in the field, that Refute their position, because for them, the Personal Experience and Empiric Observations means "nothing"
David Mech Should charge them for use his work like Lame Excuse to Sell their Dogma.
Mech-at 66, ancient by the standards of active field biologists-is full of incongruities.
For example, that a man associated with the protection of wildlife came to study animals because he enjoyed trapping them as a boy in Syracuse, N.Y. Even now, Mech drives the back roads of east-central Minnesota each winter, tending 200 mink traps.
Or that a man who loves to trap has also loved opera ever since watching the movie The Great Caruso.
Or that he doesn't own a dog. "People expect I'm going to love dogs because I'm this big canid guy. I don't even like them, to tell you the truth."
Or that a man known for the recovery of wolves would advocate killing them.
When those 'pure positive' Pigeons make the Reference of D. Mech Work they are talking about the results from a field study examining a Solitary Pack of Wolves in the wild completed by David Mech on 13 Summers on Ellesmere Island (1999).
The Dominance encounters are more common in the Winter months, several factors can affect the display of Dominance Ritual Behaviours.
The Observations show that, at least in Summer on Ellesmere Island the Wolfs displayed the behaviour Described by D. Mech.... allegadly, the Very Convenient Misinterpretation of those Pigeon is based on Mech's OWN Anthropomorphized point of view, he also seems to ignore one of the basic rules when comes to the Description and Classiffication of Behaviour.
Behavior of the ancestor
Genetic research identified the wolf as the nearest evolutionary relative of the dog (Vilá et al., 1997). This fact provides a very effective comparative background, even though wolves have been distributed across the entire Holarctic and are represented by genetically and behaviorally different populations. Additionally, wolves have suffered from human hunting and environmental destruction in most parts of the world, which probably changed their behavior in many respects (e.g., increased their homophobia).
- "Only wolves of the polar region have no fear of humans, and they are gentler with one another as well.
There is a good reason for the wolves fear: humans have been exterminating them mercilessly.
This probably has been accompanied by some natural selection: the surviving wolves are the descendants of timid, mistrustful individuals that tended to avoid humans." - Vilmos Csanyi
But in Ellesmere Island....
- Never hunted, the wolves had little fear of humans. On the barren tundra, no trees or brush would hide them from view. - from the
The Far Reach of David Mech by Greg Breining
So, Do Not act and talk like your stating proven Facts!!...
And... I think that Mech Does Not Have Any Hesitacion when comes to include Early Interpretations, because... Was Not him the First who Sugest the Posibility that the Hierarchical system or Pack were a "Family"
The Credit of the Pack as "Family" Does Not Belong to David Mech The Credit is of Maurie (1944) and Schenkel (1967)
Maurie (1944) and Schenkel (1967) made a Studies where they were who Sugest the Posibility that Pack was a family,
Here is Mech's reference of their work:
'Schenkel did consider the possibility that the pack was a family, as Murie (1944) had already reported, BUT ONLY IN A FOOTNOTE'
Of course we also can make reference of "Wolf family" it's Logic, since the Alpha pair are the Breeders.
But We Do Not Traslate that Interpretation Literaly to the Context of a Human Family like you (Very Conveniently isn't?) and David Mech did.
(And YOU Pigeons use that endeble Misinterpretation like a mainstay of your Dogma)
And of Course, very Coneniently you Ignore other of Mech's Statements:
"The degree to which these arguments apply to other species no doubt varies considerably and is beyond the scope of this article."
He should wrote this:
Because one pack was involved in this study rather than several, the results are only a preliminary test of the hypothesis and may not apply to other wolf packs.
It's would be like an experiment based on the premise that All the Hierachical Order and Pack Struckture is Like a "Family" and drawing all your Conclusions Based upon that Premise.
Then ALL his work is based on a False Premise:
1- The yearlings naturally dominate the new pups just as older brothers and sisters in a human family - Mech
2- This leadership role, however, does not involve anyone fighting to the top of the group, because just like in a human family, the youngsters naturally follow their parents’ lead.- Mech
3- Wolf packs are merely family groups formed EXACTLY the same way as human families are formed. - Mech
4- Calling a wolf an alpha is usually no more appropriate than referring to a Human parent or a doe deer as an alpha. - Mech
5- Such an approach is analogous to trying to draw inferences about human family dynamics by studying humans in refugee camps. - Mech
( The Same goes for his study, Such an Interpretation is analogous to trying to draw inferences about human family dynamics by studying humans in... Mormon Compounds. )
"I conclude that the typical wolf pack is a family, with the adult parents guiding the activities of the group in a division-of-labor system in which the female predominates primarily in such activities as pup care and defense and the male primarily during foraging and food-provisioning and the travels associated with them." - D. Mech
All Your Believes, Pigeons are Based in Your Own MISINTERPRETATIONS of Mech Study.
David Mech was Thinking on that when he made the Study?
The point here is not so much the terminology but what the terminology falsely implies: a rigid, force-based dominance hierarchy. - Mech
That is True but... That one is NOT the correct explanation... This is:
"Among many social species of animal, there have come to exist social Hierarchies in which certain individuals are More Dominant Than Others.
Selection should favour rapid and Honest communication between opponents to settle Dominance Relationships while Avoiding Prolonged and Intense Fighting.
The Communication of Aggressive Motivation or Fighting Ability has important Fitness Consequences for Competing animals.
There are distinct evolutionary Benefits to these Social Structures, as they provide an Efficient Mechanism for Arbitration and Negotiation in the Distribution of scarce Resources. - Erik Zimen
Even More, Mech Can be Questioned since he Ignores one of the Rules when comes to the Description and Classification of Behavior
Accord to the American Society of Mammalogists (2007)
The description and classification of behavior are fundamental to quantitative studies of animal behavior. Although Sometimes Neglected, this Stage of a Behavioral Study is Crucial because IT Determines the scope of Analysis and Often Dictates the Course of Future Research (Bekoff 1979; Hinde 1970; Hutt and Hutt 1970).
However, classifying behavior is difficult because it occurs as a continuous stream of movement, and OBSERVER BIASES affect how units of behavior are separated and recombined from this stream (Fentress 1990).
Nevertheless, regularities and discontinuities in patterns of movement do provide an empirical basis by which to subdivide behavioral streams into natural units (Altmann 1965; Lehner 1996; Martin and Bateson 1993).
Investigators can therefore Minimize Bias in the Classification of behavior by selecting behavior units that reflect these natural subdivisions. - American Society of Mammalogists (2007)
Since, again, the Dominance encounters are more common in the Winter months, when Mating Occurs and on the Tables of Dominance interactions he does Not Include Standing Over, "Hugging" or Involve Food except for "food-begging"
(A behavior which pups and sometimes sub-adults use to get food from dominant members)
Mech write: Insuficient data... (for summer months)
I occasionally saw intense "pinning" of a 2 -year-old female by her mother in summer 1994 that some might label "hostile." However, to me this behavior appeared to be merely the type of interaction I observed between the mother and an errant pup she could not control. In any case, these types of interaction were uncommon during my study.- D. Mech
The only other general dominance rules I discerned involved scent-marking and food ownership and transfer.
With scent-marking, both breeding male and female mark, but subordinates do not unless vying for dominance (Packard 1989; Asa et al. 1990), and I have seen no exceptions.- Mech
We noted each time a wolf submitted posturally to another wolf. Usually this deference was characterized by "licking up" to the mouth of the Dominant animal in the "active Submission" posture (Fig. 5 in Schenkel 1967), Similar to that described by Darwin (1877) for Domestic Dogs. - D. Mech
In captive packs, the unacquainted wolves formed dominance hierarchies featuring alpha, beta, omega animals, etc.
With such assemblages, these dominance labels were probably
appropriate, for most species thrown together in captivity would usually so Arrange Themselves - Mech
(And what is a Dog in a human Enviroment?
“Domestication means Domination,” writes historian Yi-Fu Tuan in his book Dominance and Affection: The Making of Pets. “The two words have the same root sense of mastery over another being—of bringing it into one’s house or Domain.” )
The one use we may still want to reserve for "alpha" is in the relatively few large wolf packs comprised of multiple litters. Although the genetic relationships of the mothers in such packs Remain Unknown, probably the mothers include the original matriarch and one or more daughters, and the fathers are probably the patriarch and unrelated adoptees (Mech et al. 1998).
In such cases the older breeders are probably Dominant to the younger breeders and perhaps can more appropriately be called the alphas.
Evidence for such a contention would be an older breeder consistently Dominating food disposition or the Travels of the pack.- Mech
In "standing over," one wolf would stand over (Schenkel 1947) a lying wolf, positioning its groin above the nose of the lying wolf. Sometimes the lying wolf sniffed at the groin or genitals of the standing wolf.
Schenkel (1947) saw "standing over" only during "peaceful" times and did not seem to consider it Dominance-related. In the case of hugging, My Sample Size (5) was insufficient to determine whether it was dominance-related (L.D. Mech, SEE FOOTNOTE).
Now he writes a FOOTNOTE!
Also when he Publish his book The Wolf he ignores the FOOTNOTE that make the Reference to the Pack as a "Family" or maybe at the time was insufficient data... from a different Pack
WAS THE SAME MECH and Schenkel who spread the believes on the Alpha's
"I crafted my book The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species in the late 1960s.
I included much reference to Schenkel’s study. The book was timely because no other synthesis about the wolf had been written since 1944, so The Wolf sold well. - Mech
And what he Say about the Work of his Peers?
"Others liberally write of "alpha" animals
(Creel and Creel 1996). - Mech
Thus, only in the relatively few packs with multiple breeders might there be intense rivalries such as those Haber (1977) reported during the breeding season in his unusual pack.
On the other hand, at least some of the difference in Reported "hostility" might be due to Different VIEWPOINTS OF THE OBSERVERS. -Mech (Every body else is wrong, I'm Right!)
And More His Study obiusly is Not Replicable or Confirmed, so he must do a "Disclaimer"
One place where this issue becomes particularly confusing is Yellowstone National Park, where great numbers of the public spend much time observing wolves right along with wolf biologists and naturalists. - David Mech
Again, he should wrote like on other studies:
Because one pack was involved in this study rather than
several, the results are only a preliminary test of the hypothesis and may not apply to other wolf packs.
or:
Because the collared wolves monitored in this study were all from the same pack, they did not represent a sample of the greater wolf population in northwest Montana.
Consequently, data analysis was limited to mostly descriptive statistics, along with a non-parametric chi square test.
The Journal of American Science, Movements of Radio Collared Wolves and Their Significance on Pack Assembly; Jay S. Mallonée, Wolf & Wildlife Studies 2008
The description of the interacctions of the pack on Ellesmere Island are Based on Mech own Interpretations.
He refers to the Alpha and to the Heriachal System on a very Simplistic maner like -'promoting friendly relations' or 'reducing social distance' or 'families' Statements Very open to Misinterpretations
There are Many Scientists, Biologists who have studied wolfs in their Dens, Natural Environments not only that who studied the wolfs on captivity and don't forget the Empiric Observations from Native people who live within nature
ALL of them coincide on the same,
On every Pack there are Leaders the breeding pair called Alpha male and female
There are a Hierarchal System
There are Dominance and Submission and More it is also Tangible, Quantitative and Verificable ( Journal of Mammalogy, 2005
DOMINANCE, AGGRESSION, AND GLUCOCORTICOID LEVELS IN SOCIAL CARNIVORES
SCOTT CREEL )
Not only the Misleading Interpretation of Mech, (emphasis mine) since there are a lot of Evidence provided for him and many other Scientists and Biologists
I'm going to make use of my own Discernment and Understanding
So, I chose to believe on others researchers so much less Intellectually Dishonest than those who Follow the Dogma Dictated by Ian Dunbar and his Pigeons.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use