This is a definite "add" recommendation for library bookshelves, either
home or public. Written by a non-academic, it is not a "fun" book, but
rather, valuable for what it adds to the conversation on the evolution
of dogs. The author may not have made a living in academia, nor obtained
letters to put behind her name, but she is a scholar and scientist
regardless. The book has two sections - it's really two books in one.
The first section covers the author's findings and thinking on canine
evolution. The second is a series of descriptive essays on various
aboriginal wild dog landraces.
I'd like to get two quibbles out of the way first. The author doesn't tell you what her point is until page 121 - nearly the end of the first section! I much prefer to hear the point up front, in the manner of a scientific paper, and then explore the arguments behind the reasoning. So, if you like, skip to page 121-122, and then return to the beginning.
The 2nd quibble starts with a statement in her preface: any theory about the origin of dogs "including the concept I prefer, the Natural Species Hypothesis, is speculation based on inductive reasoning ('educated guesses')". The author then proceeds to characterize theories other than hers as "once upon a time" or "just so" stories, which I found a bit disingenuous. Especially so, as one such theory, that of dogs evolving as humans began to live in villages - is also a theory of the natural evolution of a species.
However, Koler-Matznick has bigger fish to fry, and does a good job of doing so. She spends a lot of time on explaining some of the science behind what she presents, but she does so in a useful fashion. While her book is very current (it contains references to studies as recent as a 2015 publication), it has since been passed by new discoveries and findings. In particular, I'm thinking of the discovery of some 30,000 year old wolf DNA. Which finding, however, supports some of Koler-Matznick's theorizing.
On the very first page, in her preface, Koler-Matznick also gives us this nugget:
"Here are the scientifically-proven facts about the origin of the dog to date:
1. The dog and gray wolf are very closely related.
2. The oldest recognized dog fossils are dated to about 14,000 years ago."
Which is right in the time frame of when man began agriculture, and permanent villages. The Coppingers relied on this fact when they theorized that dogs may have evolved to utilize man's leftovers.
Koler-Matznick, however, is convinced that dog was dog prior to that process. From page 122:
"The dog was never canis lupus. It was a naturally evolved species before it attached itself to humans." And, therein lies a hefty nugget. The recent discovery of ancient wolf DNA supports this idea - in that it indicates that dogs did not descend from grey wolves - but rather grey wolves and dogs are sister species, both descended from a now extinct ancestor. Koler-Matznick has to work hard to present evidence and arguments that dogs did not evolve FROM wolves. Today the genetic records are making that job much easier.
Also though, that thought reveals how Koler-Matznick differs from Coppinger. Coppinger theorized that dogs became dogs because agriculture and permanent dwellings created a new niche. Koler-Matznick theorizes that dog was already nearly dog before then.
In order to back up that point, Koler-Matznick goes into genetics, skull shape, and wild dog behavior. She does a deep dive into the genetics, but it's useful stuff. The skull shape work is original. She relates various characteristics to the use typified by a characteristic - for instance, how dog's tooth shape differs from wolves, and how this likely indicates dogs evolved to take prey in a different fashion. And she examines evidence from the fossil record. Her final key component is the behavior of aboriginal wild dogs - like dingos, and the arctic sled dogs.
Kolner-Matznick has put together a very extensively researched, and well thought out volume.
All in all, the author offers us a very useful addition to the conversation. Highly recommended.
I'd like to get two quibbles out of the way first. The author doesn't tell you what her point is until page 121 - nearly the end of the first section! I much prefer to hear the point up front, in the manner of a scientific paper, and then explore the arguments behind the reasoning. So, if you like, skip to page 121-122, and then return to the beginning.
The 2nd quibble starts with a statement in her preface: any theory about the origin of dogs "including the concept I prefer, the Natural Species Hypothesis, is speculation based on inductive reasoning ('educated guesses')". The author then proceeds to characterize theories other than hers as "once upon a time" or "just so" stories, which I found a bit disingenuous. Especially so, as one such theory, that of dogs evolving as humans began to live in villages - is also a theory of the natural evolution of a species.
However, Koler-Matznick has bigger fish to fry, and does a good job of doing so. She spends a lot of time on explaining some of the science behind what she presents, but she does so in a useful fashion. While her book is very current (it contains references to studies as recent as a 2015 publication), it has since been passed by new discoveries and findings. In particular, I'm thinking of the discovery of some 30,000 year old wolf DNA. Which finding, however, supports some of Koler-Matznick's theorizing.
On the very first page, in her preface, Koler-Matznick also gives us this nugget:
"Here are the scientifically-proven facts about the origin of the dog to date:
1. The dog and gray wolf are very closely related.
2. The oldest recognized dog fossils are dated to about 14,000 years ago."
Which is right in the time frame of when man began agriculture, and permanent villages. The Coppingers relied on this fact when they theorized that dogs may have evolved to utilize man's leftovers.
Koler-Matznick, however, is convinced that dog was dog prior to that process. From page 122:
"The dog was never canis lupus. It was a naturally evolved species before it attached itself to humans." And, therein lies a hefty nugget. The recent discovery of ancient wolf DNA supports this idea - in that it indicates that dogs did not descend from grey wolves - but rather grey wolves and dogs are sister species, both descended from a now extinct ancestor. Koler-Matznick has to work hard to present evidence and arguments that dogs did not evolve FROM wolves. Today the genetic records are making that job much easier.
Also though, that thought reveals how Koler-Matznick differs from Coppinger. Coppinger theorized that dogs became dogs because agriculture and permanent dwellings created a new niche. Koler-Matznick theorizes that dog was already nearly dog before then.
In order to back up that point, Koler-Matznick goes into genetics, skull shape, and wild dog behavior. She does a deep dive into the genetics, but it's useful stuff. The skull shape work is original. She relates various characteristics to the use typified by a characteristic - for instance, how dog's tooth shape differs from wolves, and how this likely indicates dogs evolved to take prey in a different fashion. And she examines evidence from the fossil record. Her final key component is the behavior of aboriginal wild dogs - like dingos, and the arctic sled dogs.
Kolner-Matznick has put together a very extensively researched, and well thought out volume.
All in all, the author offers us a very useful addition to the conversation. Highly recommended.
