Of Wolves and Dogs

You got my point exactly. Also, not all people, and this may be good or bad,  subscribe to Wayne's genetic theory that all canids descended from the gray wolf. Even though the Smithsonian Institute and ASM changed the species nomenclature to show gray wolf as the root of all other canids. I've heard others interpret it to mean that all canids are the same species. That your dog is a wolf. That is, there are some who do not subscribe to the new name, canis lupus familiaris and still use canis familiaris.

But it was Wayne's team that found at least 26 genetic indicators that differ between dog and wolf. No one here has the genetic background to determine if those genetic differences have anything to with the GIT, though I'm willing to bet that at least one has to do with the difference in the coronoid process. BTW, coronoid process can be used to describe any joint function, not just the jaw. Your knee and and elbow are coronoid processes, too. The original evolutionary thought is that there were several types of canid like creatures, most originating in America and moved over the Bering Strait and down to at least the Asian Steppes.

I also think there is a range of behavior in omnivores. Some may lean more towards meat than plant. So, while I have seen a wolf eat a berry right off of the bush, that doesn't mean that was the whole of his diet. And, in wild canids, their diet can change with the season.

Radial adaptation is the theory that an animal evolves or mutates if the need arises for survival. Non-radial adaptation, which was coming into vogue, says that animals do not evolve in response to environment (in our discussion, domestication). A mutation that allows survival in the new or changed environment is what gets passed on.

 
Actually, Adaptive Radiation is not that an animal purposefully evolves to suit its needs. It describes the type of adaptation where several species evolve from one, common ancestor to fill different niches... the most common example is that of Darwin's Finches on the Galapagos Islands. My zoology text's definition is this : Adaptive Radiation: production of many ecologically diverse species from common ancestral stock.
 
I think it's long been misunderstood that animals choose to evolve by JQP... It's been my understanding that, even since Darwin's time, those who believed in evolution understood it as mutations or slight differences that allowed certain members of a species to proliferate (a great example is the peppered moth in England). I think it's also important, when viewing domesticated species, to account the difference between evolution and selection of traits (such as, humans chose a dog better able to withstand more vegetation in their diet). Dogs may have also evolved (I'm not discounting that) but even 200,00 years is short amount of time for that scale of evolution to occure.
 
Ron, with the wolf and berry, did it happen to take place in or around Russia?
 
Xerxes, I've also speculated that some breeds of dogs did not have wolf origins, although I doubt Jackals, coyotes, or other similiarly behaved species because of their lack of a hierarchial structure that seems to predominate today's dog (Jackals are typically loners, coyotes rarely form extended packs)... although there are several pack-forming species such as the African Wild Dog, the Dingo, Red wolves, and grey wolves.
 
 

Ron, with the wolf and berry, did it happen to take place in or around Russia?

It was a gray wolf in Canada.

As for the fine point on radial adaptation, when was your textbook published. I read the book that I read about 20 years ago and it was old by then. I appreciate your fine-tuning but I think we agree that, per se, animals don't evolve something to survive. But a mutation may survive better and that still fits in with natural selection. You either survive and procreate, or you don't. I also agree that evolution could be affected, so to speak, by man only breeding or keeping dogs that can do well with some plant matter. But then, Man is just another part of the environment. And a mutated dog that can handle plant matter might have stood a better chance with Man and therefore live long enough to procreate another generation of omnivorous dogs. So, I still think it is natural selection. In regards to the affects of Man's interest in breeding certain traits, I would think this would "speed up" evolution in that the dogs that wouldn't eat whatever he gave them soon left or were discarded. So, I don't think it's unreasonable to have such a change in 200,000 years.

The edition I have was published in '03.
 

  
And a mutated dog that can handle plant matter might have stood a better chance with Man and therefore live long enough to procreate another generation of omnivorous dogs. So, I still think it is natural selection. In regards to the affects of Man's interest in breeding certain traits, I would think this would "speed up" evolution in that the dogs that wouldn't eat whatever he gave them soon left or were discarded. So, I don't think it's unreasonable to have such a change in 200,000 years.

 
Good point, I didn't think of it that way. I however, still am skeptical to one point... mainly because, wouldn't a dog living with humans still be able to hunt on its own and therefor survive as well as its mutated counterparts? At least, during the period where dogs just "hung" around with people?

coyotes rarely form extended packs

 
True that coyotes don't generally form extended packs, however they will form extended family packs with the adolescents from the previous year.  And upon occasion they will form loose bonds between two packs to facilitate hunting.

I am reminded of another thread going on where a dog that was probably abused and certainly abandoned was hanging this little convenience store. That is, the dog has suffered greatly from a human, but still seeks out a human for companionship and food.

I've heard similar things about Dingos, which is it's own sub-species, now. Canis Lupus Dingus. Not exactly feral, they can live around humans and on their own.
 

So I know that Ron and I agree that dogs by nature are omnivorous, whether or not they have evolved crushing teeth or lateral mastication, these adaptations do not eliminate or preclude the ingesting of plant matter.

 
I'm with you - but I have a little different take on this.  I think that canids are predominantly carnivorous, but, they are not obligate carnivores.  That's the context in which I believe that canids are omnivorous.  They'd rather have rabbit, but those nice juicy blueberries will do if the hunting sucks.  That's really it in a nutshell IMO.
I have seen dogs and coyotes eat vegetable matter, and the proverbial wheat cracker, with gusto.  What impresses me that they are omnivorous is that the coyotes do so with no help from humans.

i think dogs/wolves are omnivorus when they have to be or if its a learned behavior
with my dogs when they were puppies i remeber eatting raspberries/saskatoons/carrots/peas etc and sharing them with the dogs
after the learned how to pick them or dig them up, we would see them out there eatting on their own
or the dogs would eat chop with the horses
my last dog was raised in the city and being she wasnt in a yard with avalible vegitation she never would eat them
i think most pack animals dogs/wolves etc seek out companins whether they be humans or the same species
a story i was told about an older family friend is when he was a kid he would go hiking alot on his own
he lived up in alaska, and he had an older wolf follow him everwhere
they had figured his pack was killed off or he got kicked out, but he followed the boy all over never hurting him
so unless an animal has reason to be afraid of humans why should they be