An evaluation of classical morphologic and morphometric parameters reported to distinguish wolves and dogs
An evaluation of classical morphologic and morphometric parameters reported to distinguish wolves and dogs
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.10.012
复制
发表时间：
2019-02-01
影响因子：
1.6
通讯作者：
Lawler, Dennis
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Janssens, Luc;Perri, Angela;Lawler, Dennis
考古狼和最古老的家养狗之间的形态和形态测量骨骼变化通常用于定义物种差异。然而，参考数据通常基于较小的数字，没有可靠的统计支持。我们查阅了所有可能语言的有关这些问题的文献，并通过检查多个收藏中的狼和狗的骨骼来测试许多拟议的物种差异，同时对现有文献进行了广泛的综合。因此，我们创建了大型参考组，评估数据分布和变异性。我们检查了下颌骨的高度、宽度、长度和凸度；头骨在水平面上的接触点；硬腭边缘尾部移位；头骨大小； Carnassials 牙齿尺寸缩小；牙齿、鼻子和头骨高度的微观解剖差异；我们的研究结果表明，头骨长度与尺寸相关；头骨高度；吻部宽度；轨道角； P4 和 M1 近远中直径可以帮助（尽管程度有限）区分最古老的考古犬和狼。根据我们的观察，我们重新评估了最近被报道为旧石器时代狗的大型更新世犬科动物，并得出结论，它们非常适合更新世狼的形态分布。这里提出的研究反映了最近的趋势，即批判性地重新评估有关狼与狗差异的公理假设，并以更合适的方式重新表述早期考古狗的形态和形态测量定义。这些结果对国际社会很重要考古界，因为他们将历史报告置于较新的背景中，并为进一步评估考古狗和狼创建了一个强大的（尽管狭窄）框架。
Morphological and morphometric bone variation between archaeological wolves and the oldest domestic dogs commonly are used to define species differences. However, reference data often have been based on small numbers, without robust statistical support. We consulted the literature on these matters in all possible languages and tested many of the proposed species differences by examining wolf and dog skeletons from several collections, accompanied by an extensive synthesis of existing literature. We thus created large reference groups, assessing data distributions and variability. We examined mandible height, width, length, and convexity; contact points of the skull on a horizontal plane; caudal shifting of the border of the hard palate; skull size; carnassials tooth size reduction; micro-anatomical differences in teeth, snout, and skull height; and snout length and width.Our results show that skull length and related size; skull height; snout width; orbital angle; P4 and M1 mesiodistal diameter can help (albeit to a limited extent) to distinguish the oldest archaeological dogs from wolves. Based on our observations, we re-evaluated recent large Pleistocene canids reported as Paleolithic dogs and concluded instead that they fit well within the morphomentric distributions seen with Pleistocene wolves.The research presented here reflects the recent trend to critically re-evaluate axiomatic assumptions about wolf-dog differences, and to rephrase the morphological and morphometric definition of an early archaeological dog in a more suitable manner.These results are important to the international archaeological community because they place historical reports in a newer context, and create a robust (although narrow) framework for further evaluation of archaeological dogs and wolves.