Morphological differences between putative Paleolithic dogs and wolves: Acommentary to Janssens et al. (2021).
The result's identifiers
Result code in IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00094862%3A_____%2F22%3AN0000146" target="_blank" >RIV/00094862:_____/22:N0000146 - isvavai.cz</a>
Result on the web
<a href="https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ar.24935" target="_blank" >https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ar.24935</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ar.24935" target="_blank" >10.1002/ar.24935</a>
Alternative languages
Result language
angličtina
Original language name
Morphological differences between putative Paleolithic dogs and wolves: Acommentary to Janssens et al. (2021).
Original language description
Janssens et al. (2021, doi: 10.1002/ar.24624) recently commented on our article (Galeta et al., 2021, doi: 10.1002/ar.24500) regarding the morphological differences between putative Paleolithic dog and Pleistocene wolf crania. The authors argued that these differences reflect the normal population variation of wolves, that some of the cranial measurements used do not reflect morphological changes during domestication, and that our canid dataset was small because we inexplicably omitted several specimens we analyzed in our previous publications. In this commentary, we briefly address the issue of within and between morpho-population variability. The results based on our canid sample suggest that the magnitude of morphological differences between distinct morpho-populations (i.e., recent northern dogs and wolves) is at least twice as large as that observed within morpho-populations (between two groups of recent northern wolves segregated by cluster analysis). The morphological differences between putative Paleolithic dogs and Pleistocene wolves are relatively large, which may indicate that they did not likely represent a single Late Pleistocene morpho-population. Finally, we clarified the rationale behind the composition of our 2021 dataset to show that we did not adjust the list of the analyzed specimens. Although the sample size was small, the randomization analysis published in 2021 confirmed that the unbalanced composition of the reference sample did not affect the reliability of the morphological segregation of putative Paleolithic dogs and Pleistocene wolves.
Czech name
—
Czech description
—
Classification
Type
J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database
CEP classification
—
OECD FORD branch
60102 - Archaeology
Result continuities
Project
—
Continuities
V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju
Others
Publication year
2022
Confidentiality
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Data specific for result type
Name of the periodical
The Anatomical Record
ISSN
1932-8494
e-ISSN
1932-8494
Volume of the periodical
305
Issue of the periodical within the volume
12
Country of publishing house
US - UNITED STATES
Number of pages
8
Pages from-to
3422-3429
UT code for WoS article
000787530200001
EID of the result in the Scopus database
2-s2.0-85128846264