Cargando…

Can orbital angle morphology distinguish dogs from wolves?

For more than a century, the orbital angle has been studied by many authors to distinguish dog skulls from their progenitor, the wolf. In early studies, the angle was reported to be different between dogs (49°–55°) and wolves (39°–46°). This clear difference was, however, questioned in a more recent...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Janssens, Luc, Spanoghe, Inge, Miller, Rebecca, Van Dongen, Stefan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4742516/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26893534
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00435-015-0294-3
_version_ 1782414206567448576
author Janssens, Luc
Spanoghe, Inge
Miller, Rebecca
Van Dongen, Stefan
author_facet Janssens, Luc
Spanoghe, Inge
Miller, Rebecca
Van Dongen, Stefan
author_sort Janssens, Luc
collection PubMed
description For more than a century, the orbital angle has been studied by many authors to distinguish dog skulls from their progenitor, the wolf. In early studies, the angle was reported to be different between dogs (49°–55°) and wolves (39°–46°). This clear difference was, however, questioned in a more recent Scandinavian study that shows some overlap. It is clear that in all studies several methodological issues were unexplored or unclear and that group sizes and the variety of breeds and wolf subspecies were small. Archaeological dog skulls had also not been studied. Our goal was to test larger and more varied groups and add archaeological samples as they are an evolutionary stage between wolves and modern dogs. We also tested the influence of measuring methods, intra- and inter-reliability, angle symmetry, the influence of variations in skull position and the possibility of measuring and comparing this angle on 3D CT scan images. Our results indicate that there is about 50 % overlap between the angle range in wolves and modern dogs. However, skulls with a very narrow orbital angle were only found in wolves and those with a very wide angle only in dogs. Archaeological dogs have a mean angle very close to the one of the wolves. Symmetry is highest in wolves and lowest in archaeological dogs. The measuring method is very reliable, for both inter- and intra-reliability (0.99–0.97), and most skull position changes have no statistical influence on the angle measured. Three-dimensional CT scan images can be used to measure OA, but the angles differ from direct measuring and cannot be used for comparison. Evolutionary changes in dog skulls responsible for the wider OA compared to wolf skulls are mainly the lateralisation of the zygomatic process of the frontal bone. Our conclusion is that the orbital angle can be used as an additional morphological measuring method to discern wolves from recent and archaeological dogs. Angles above 60° are certainly from recent dogs. Angles under 35° are certainly of wolves.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4742516
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47425162016-02-16 Can orbital angle morphology distinguish dogs from wolves? Janssens, Luc Spanoghe, Inge Miller, Rebecca Van Dongen, Stefan Zoomorphology Original Paper For more than a century, the orbital angle has been studied by many authors to distinguish dog skulls from their progenitor, the wolf. In early studies, the angle was reported to be different between dogs (49°–55°) and wolves (39°–46°). This clear difference was, however, questioned in a more recent Scandinavian study that shows some overlap. It is clear that in all studies several methodological issues were unexplored or unclear and that group sizes and the variety of breeds and wolf subspecies were small. Archaeological dog skulls had also not been studied. Our goal was to test larger and more varied groups and add archaeological samples as they are an evolutionary stage between wolves and modern dogs. We also tested the influence of measuring methods, intra- and inter-reliability, angle symmetry, the influence of variations in skull position and the possibility of measuring and comparing this angle on 3D CT scan images. Our results indicate that there is about 50 % overlap between the angle range in wolves and modern dogs. However, skulls with a very narrow orbital angle were only found in wolves and those with a very wide angle only in dogs. Archaeological dogs have a mean angle very close to the one of the wolves. Symmetry is highest in wolves and lowest in archaeological dogs. The measuring method is very reliable, for both inter- and intra-reliability (0.99–0.97), and most skull position changes have no statistical influence on the angle measured. Three-dimensional CT scan images can be used to measure OA, but the angles differ from direct measuring and cannot be used for comparison. Evolutionary changes in dog skulls responsible for the wider OA compared to wolf skulls are mainly the lateralisation of the zygomatic process of the frontal bone. Our conclusion is that the orbital angle can be used as an additional morphological measuring method to discern wolves from recent and archaeological dogs. Angles above 60° are certainly from recent dogs. Angles under 35° are certainly of wolves. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2015-12-30 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4742516/ /pubmed/26893534 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00435-015-0294-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Janssens, Luc
Spanoghe, Inge
Miller, Rebecca
Van Dongen, Stefan
Can orbital angle morphology distinguish dogs from wolves?
title Can orbital angle morphology distinguish dogs from wolves?
title_full Can orbital angle morphology distinguish dogs from wolves?
title_fullStr Can orbital angle morphology distinguish dogs from wolves?
title_full_unstemmed Can orbital angle morphology distinguish dogs from wolves?
title_short Can orbital angle morphology distinguish dogs from wolves?
title_sort can orbital angle morphology distinguish dogs from wolves?
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4742516/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26893534
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00435-015-0294-3
work_keys_str_mv AT janssensluc canorbitalanglemorphologydistinguishdogsfromwolves
AT spanogheinge canorbitalanglemorphologydistinguishdogsfromwolves
AT millerrebecca canorbitalanglemorphologydistinguishdogsfromwolves
AT vandongenstefan canorbitalanglemorphologydistinguishdogsfromwolves