> "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > In the relevant manner, how do domesticated animals > differ from hunted > animals? (I know they differ; the question is how?) > Deborah Harrell, can you comment? <snip>
Animals suitable to be domesticated must, in general, have a native hierarchy, which humans can then utilize to their own advantage. In herbivores, this means a socially bonded herd as opposed to a 'gathering of convenience;' in carnivores, a relatively stable pack or strong family structure is required. Humans usurp the alpha position of the herd leader(s) or mother/father. Territorial behavior is also helpful, as migratory herds must be followed or lost - reindeer are the only migrating quasi-domesticated mammals I can think of; geese will cease migrating if sufficient food and protection is available, but hummingbirds depart no matter how much nectar is provided. Desirable features in companion/working animals are sociability, which includes friendliness, curiosity, and adaptability. At least some of these can be bred for, as was shown by a Russian experiment with foxes; I've quoted this one previously, but basically they initially selected foxes least afraid of humans to breed, then their friendliest offspring and so on for ~ 36 generations. They wound up with foxes that wagged their tails, yipped like cubs, and generally demonstrated increasingly juvenile behavior from generation to generation. [<gasp> And we're now on-topic with Himself's essay on neotany!] (Oddly, they also developed varigated coat coloring - think Dalmations vs. wolves, or calico cats vs. leopards.) For food animals, less intelligence and independence are desirable from the human standpoint, so docility was also selected for - domestic sheep vs. bighorn sheep, domestic turkeys vs. wild. Multipurpose animals, used for food or clothing and/or transportation and/or guarding/warning, were allowed to retain more independent behavior (goat vs. sheep). Friendliness is still desirable no matter what, however; even chickens have personalities and can interact rather charmingly with "their" human, and calves are quite inquisitive about what that two-legged crittur is doing. Heck, among fish, family-building cichlids are a lot more fun to have in your aquarium than tetras, because they can recognize *you.* Solitary animals, with minimal family bonding, are much less able to accept human leadership - Tasmanian devils and leopards come to mind. This doesn't mean such animals can't be trained or tamed somewhat: elk can be raised on a ranch, but since their herd structure is short-lived, they cannot be relied upon to respect a human would-be-leader. If considerable effort was made, animals like zebra, cheetah and buffalo might be domesticated, but how is a Cape buffalo superior to a domestic cow? Well, resistance to sleeping sickness comes to mind - ditto for zebra and horse/donkey, but these herbivores are so fiercely unsubmissive that no one has bothered to try. Cheetah are so subspecialized that there is probably no advantage compared to dogs like salukis, unless you just want that elegant look (not that salukis and their near-relatives are less than svelte). In one sentence: domesticated animals were bred from those with a strong social hierarchy or family structure which humans could usurp, with an emphasis on juvenile (and therefore dependent) as well as territorial behaviors, in breeding programs, in addition to the desired characteristics of milk/meat production, strength, swiftness etc. Debbi Quasi-domesticated Herself Maru ;-) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
