Are monkeys domesticating WOLVES?

[Potoooooooo]

http://www.newscientist.com/article...RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.VXXAt9HD-71

Experts have found geladas living in the grasslands of eastern Africa tolerate Ethiopian wolves wandering among them, despite the canines' ability to easily eat members of the troop.

And they believe the strange relationship, which is based on the ability of wolves to catch more rodents when monkeys are present, echoes the way dogs began to be domesticated by humans.

 

[dystopian]

Got to nuke the site from orbit.

 

[Peez]

Got to nuke the site from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

Peez

 

[ronburgundy]

Wrong title. Sounds more like the wolves are domesticating and making use of the monkey's rather than the other way around.

The wolves act low key and non-threatening so the monkeys don't freak out, that way they wolves get more rodents. Meanwhile the monkey's are not doing anything to try and alter the wolf behavior, they are just reacting monkey-like to the wolves intentionally less aggressive behavior.

 

[Bronzeage]

The thing wolves and humans have in common is they both have cooperative family groups. When humans learned to control fire and use it to make meat more palatable, canines learned there was an easy meal in human food scraps. This began the blending of the two cooperative family groups.

When the monkeys start having cook outs, we can look for the wolves to start bringing rats and maybe drinks, too.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Meanwhile the monkey's are not doing anything to try and alter the wolf behavior, they are just reacting monkey-like to the wolves intentionally less aggressive behavior.

Read the piece more carefully, the monkeys certainly alter the behaviour of the wolves:

Only once has Venkataraman seen a wolf seize a young gelada, and other monkeys quickly attacked it and forced it to drop the infant, then drove the offending wolf away and prevented it from returning later.

That being said, I guess "domestication" really only applies when we change the genetic makeup of the animal to change behaviour, like we do with dogs and farm animals for example. This is not what is happening here. Both species show they are intelligent enough to manage well this tricky relationship. It's clearly a bit more than toleration, say a mild form of collaboration but maybe not quite.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Another point is to think of what would happen if one gelada found itself isolated in the middle of a group of Ethiopian wolves. My guess is that the wolves would eat the monkey. If so they are not in any way domesticated. Rather, the wolves are reacting to a particular situation (group of geladas) they somehow know is good for them.

But how did they get to know that to begin with?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Got to nuke the site from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

Peez

Are you two domesticated by rodents?
EB

 

[ApostateAbe]

I think I saw this same phenomenon on a nature show years ago, with the same spin. Headline says "domestication," but article's main text makes it look like a typical symbiotic relationship. To have domestication, the monkeys would need to capture live young from the wolves and selectively breed them. This isn't it.

 

[Bronzeage]

It's the only way to be sure.

Peez

Are you two domesticated by rodents?
EB

We need to consider what the word "domesticate" actually means. It means the animal is at home with humans. In order for an animal to be truly domesticated, which means it is able to live peacefully in close proximity to humans and other animals, there must be an instinctual social structure which allows it to live in a cooperative environment.

Dogs(not exactly wolves, but close relatives) have a social structure so similar to humans, they easily blend in with a human family. No other animal is domesticated to this degree.

Early middle eastern man domesticated the wild cattle transformed them into draft animals. This is a critical step in the development of an advanced technology, because a draft animal leads to plows and wagons, both of which spur invention.

In North America, the situation was much different. It took the Native North Americans only one generation to capture and domesticate the feral horses which were left behind by Spanish explorers, but they never domesticated the American Bison. The bison is a very territorial animal and is prone to attack any other animal, for no apparent reason. Even today, when bison herds are raised for meat, working with these animals is very dangerous.

 

[Speakpigeon]

We need to consider what the word "domesticate" actually means. It means the animal is at home with humans. In order for an animal to be truly domesticated, which means it is able to live peacefully in close proximity to humans and other animals, there must be an instinctual social structure which allows it to live in a cooperative environment.

Dogs(not exactly wolves, but close relatives) have a social structure so similar to humans, they easily blend in with a human family. No other animal is domesticated to this degree.

But why didn't we domesticate apes? Surely, gorillas and such could have made themselves useful.

In North America, the situation was much different. It took the Native North Americans only one generation to capture and domesticate the feral horses which were left behind by Spanish explorers.

That must have been easy enough for them. They had seen the Spanish do it and the horses themselves, while feral as you say, were nonetheless already "primed" so to speak.

but they never domesticated the American Bison. The bison is a very territorial animal and is prone to attack any other animal, for no apparent reason. Even today, when bison herds are raised for meat, working with these animals is very dangerous.

I'm not sure the original bull in the Middle East was so much more agreable to man. Corrida anyone? Rather, it seems possible to me (I have zero knowledge of the subject) that the Native Americans had some cozzy mystical view of the bison that prevented them to try and domesticate it. Somewhat like the Aztecs welcoming the Conquistadors instead of offering them sliced up in sacrifice to their gods.
EB

PS. Wait, I do know something about bisons. A long time ago I read on 18th century French Canada "Indian" Oumpah-Pah and his friend Two-Scalp, plenipotentiary emissary of the French King Louis XV. At some point, Oumpah-Pah explains to Two-Scalp how to move inconspicuously inside a herd of bisons. The sequence definitely proves the indians did revere the bisons.

 

[Bronzeage]

But why didn't we domesticate apes? Surely, gorillas and such could have made themselves useful.

In North America, the situation was much different. It took the Native North Americans only one generation to capture and domesticate the feral horses which were left behind by Spanish explorers.

That must have been easy enough for them. They had seen the Spanish do it and the horses themselves, while feral as you say, were nonetheless already "primed" so to speak.

but they never domesticated the American Bison. The bison is a very territorial animal and is prone to attack any other animal, for no apparent reason. Even today, when bison herds are raised for meat, working with these animals is very dangerous.

I'm not sure the original bull in the Middle East was so much more agreable to man. Corrida anyone? Rather, it seems possible to me (I have zero knowledge of the subject) that the Native Americans had some cozzy mystical view of the bison that prevented them to try and domesticate it. Somewhat like the Aztecs welcoming the Conquistadors instead of offering them sliced up in sacrifice to their gods.
EB

PS. Wait, I do know something about bisons. A long time ago I read on 18th century French Canada "Indian" Oumpah-Pah and his friend Two-Scalp, plenipotentiary emissary of the French King Louis XV. At some point, Oumpah-Pah explains to Two-Scalp how to move inconspicuously inside a herd of bisons. The sequence definitely proves the indians did revere the bisons.

The domestication of apes had to wait until the development of college athletic programs.

The Bison was revered by the Plains tribes because it allowed them to live rather well. Bison were a great natural resource. Even so, as far as is known, no one ever milked a bison.

Domestication of animals is a critical step in technological advancement. Without a draft animal, the wheel has little use. It's just a wheelbarrow. The North Americans had no draft animal, so there was no great incentive to build bigger and better carts, which drives development of metallurgy.

It's interesting to speculate how history would be different if ancient Egyptians had made it to North America, with a few chariot horses and cows on board. The Cherokee may have discovered Spain.

 

[ronburgundy]

Read the piece more carefully, the monkeys certainly alter the behaviour of the wolves:

Only once has Venkataraman seen a wolf seize a young gelada, and other monkeys quickly attacked it and forced it to drop the infant, then drove the offending wolf away and prevented it from returning later.

Actually, that shows that the wolves almost never went after the monkeys in the first place, so no need to alter the wolves behavior. Also, the monkeys were merely reflexively reacting to the immediate threat already being presented by that particular wolf. That shows no attempt to alter the wolves future behavior in general. In contrast, the wolves are not merely reacting to the monkeys, but rather acting in a planful manner by being "low-key" in order to alter the way the all they monkeys might react to them. It shows far more planning, and attempt at behavior modification via altering stimuli on the part of the wolves, whereas the monkeys are dong nothing but either reacting or not reacting to whatever immediate threat the wolves choose to show.

That being said, I guess "domestication" really only applies when we change the genetic makeup of the animal to change behaviour, like we do with dogs and farm animals for example. This is not what is happening here. Both species show they are intelligent enough to manage well this tricky relationship. It's clearly a bit more than toleration, say a mild form of collaboration but maybe not quite.
EB

Sure, let's avoid "domestication", but there is behavior modification of another species in order to gain a personal benefit, and its the wolves doing it.
I'd argue that the monkeys are only showing toleration, by merely reacting to whether the wolves show a threat. This is no different to whether any wild animal reacts to another based upon that other animals threatening actions. The wolves are being more planful and altering their own behavior in advance because they anticipate that it will alter the way that the monkeys react to them, and thus allow the wolves to benefit.

 

[Bomb#20]

Meanwhile the monkey's are not doing anything to try and alter the wolf behavior, they are just reacting monkey-like to the wolves intentionally less aggressive behavior.

Read the piece more carefully, the monkeys certainly alter the behaviour of the wolves:

Only once has Venkataraman seen a wolf seize a young gelada, and other monkeys quickly attacked it and forced it to drop the infant, then drove the offending wolf away and prevented it from returning later.

That being said, I guess "domestication" really only applies when we change the genetic makeup of the animal to change behaviour, like we do with dogs and farm animals for example. This is not what is happening here. Both species show they are intelligent enough to manage well this tricky relationship. It's clearly a bit more than toleration, say a mild form of collaboration but maybe not quite.
EB

I think I saw this same phenomenon on a nature show years ago, with the same spin. Headline says "domestication," but article's main text makes it look like a typical symbiotic relationship. To have domestication, the monkeys would need to capture live young from the wolves and selectively breed them. This isn't it.

But if driving away the misbehaving wolf reduces its rodent catch and its proximity to the other wolves, as seems likely, that will reduce its chance of propagating its genes; and that means the monkeys are indeed selectively breeding the wolves for less aggressive behavior. That they're doing it unconsciously without any eye on future wolf generations is neither here nor there. When humans selectively bred wolves into dogs thousands of years ago we probably weren't doing it on purpose either. Surely it was only after we had bred dogs safe enough to keep around us that we observed the correlation between the behavior of specific dogs and their pups, and got the idea to cull based on expectations about future offspring rather than expectations about how the animal in front of us was going to behave.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Symbiotes likewise coevolve to be more tolerant of each other.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Domestication of animals is a critical step in technological advancement. Without a draft animal, the wheel has little use. It's just a wheelbarrow. The North Americans had no draft animal, so there was no great incentive to build bigger and better carts, which drives development of metallurgy.

At some point nobody had any draft animal.

Also many parts of the world had them at some point without necessarily going into business.

It's interesting to speculate how history would be different if ancient Egyptians had made it to North America, with a few chariot horses and cows on board. The Cherokee may have discovered Spain.

On the other hand, the Incas and Aztecs (and others in Central and South America?) seem to have been at some point on their way to some kind of development, only to be stopped in their tracks by either some mysterious systemic failure for one and by the conquistadors for the other. Either way they fell, but they had started. So what started them?

Isn't doing historical speculation just a wild goose chase?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

But if driving away the misbehaving wolf reduces its rodent catch and its proximity to the other wolves, as seems likely, that will reduce its chance of propagating its genes; and that means the monkeys are indeed selectively breeding the wolves for less aggressive behavior. That they're doing it unconsciously without any eye on future wolf generations is neither here nor there. When humans selectively bred wolves into dogs thousands of years ago we probably weren't doing it on purpose either. Surely it was only after we had bred dogs safe enough to keep around us that we observed the correlation between the behavior of specific dogs and their pups, and got the idea to cull based on expectations about future offspring rather than expectations about how the animal in front of us was going to behave.

Yes, I agree it's a real possibility.


I wouldn't be definitive though. The wolves may have learned the trick as part and parcel of being wolves in Ethiopia, rubbing shoulders with various species and feeling their way around the savannah or the hills. The monkeys are themselves dangerous animals, perhaps too tricky for the wolves to put on their menu beyond the occasional catch. The story may have begun with single wolves occasionally risking themselves, carefully, in the middle of the monkeys, not for attacking a monkey but for catching rodents and therefore not being aggressive towards the monkeys. They would have learned and prospered, because of the surplus rodents, and they would have taught their young and later it would have been families and gradually bigger groups doing it, yet always controlled in their behaviour by the group of monkeys.

The wolves could have evolved as a result, becoming somehow less aggressive towards the monkeys, while the monkeys themselves would have remained the same. So, not necessarily co-evolution. And domestication still seems to me too strong a word.
EB

 

[Bronzeage]

At some point nobody had any draft animal.

Also many parts of the world had them at some point without necessarily going into business.

It's interesting to speculate how history would be different if ancient Egyptians had made it to North America, with a few chariot horses and cows on board. The Cherokee may have discovered Spain.

On the other hand, the Incas and Aztecs (and others in Central and South America?) seem to have been at some point on their way to some kind of development, only to be stopped in their tracks by either some mysterious systemic failure for one and by the conquistadors for the other. Either way they fell, but they had started. So what started them?

Isn't doing historical speculation just a wild goose chase?
EB

"Some kind of development" is not wild speculation, in any sense of the word.

It is a little more complicated than tying a rope around a cow's neck and dragging her home.

The South American lama is a suitable to be a light pack animal, but can't pull a wagon or support the weight of a man. It was more valuable for its wool than as a beast of burden. There are factors other than a good draft animal, but the absence of such puts a real limit on technological development, in the same way a lack of metal ores would put a limit on the development of a blacksmithing technology. No one would bother to build a forge because once people learn how to build a fire hot enough to cook over. There's no reward for figuring out how to make it hot enough to melt metal.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The thing wolves and humans have in common is they both have cooperative family groups. When humans learned to control fire and use it to make meat more palatable, canines learned there was an easy meal in human food scraps. This began the blending of the two cooperative family groups.

When the monkeys start having cook outs, we can look for the wolves to start bringing rats and maybe drinks, too.

For the drink from the monkeys you may have to wait quite a while.

Chimps like to drink alcohol (and smoke tobacco). Domesticated chimps have shown more moderation than some humans, limiting themselves to a small drink after first making the bad experience of getting smashed. Just today, the BBC also reported chimps in the wild, looking for naturally occurring alcoholic liquid created by the fermentation of the sugar contained in the sap of trees. They can sometimes drink the equivalent of a bottle of wine. Their taste for the stuff probably results from the fact that they have a gene allowing their guts to process alcohol.

So the chimp could bring the drinks, but maybe not yet the monkeys, which I'm just guessing here, probably don't have a similar gene.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

So the chimp could bring the drinks, but maybe not yet the monkeys, which I'm just guessing here, probably don't have a similar gene.
EB

I had a friend who's dog loved beer so was his drinking partner. But most animals seem to have no problem consuming alcohol.

Alcohol drinking monkeys.


Other animals that enjoy getting tipsy.