Two Ice Age ‘puppies' weren't exactly dogs
The origin of human and dog relationships is surprisingly murky, despite its seemingly strong foundation. Most estimates put the earliest examples of canine companions at around 15,000 years before the present day, but their actual evolutionary split from wolves may have occurred as far back 30,000 years ago. But even then, the line is a bit blurry as to who befriended who, and when.
Take the Tumat puppies, for example. Respectively discovered in 2011 and 2015 at the Syalakh site in remote northern Siberia, some experts have argued these remarkably well-preserved animals offer some of the earliest evidence of dog domestication. However, according to a recent reevaluation detailed in a study published on June 11 in the journal Quaternary Research, the Tumat puppies weren't puppies at all—they were likely wolf cubs. And their last meal points to even more historical revisions.
The canine revision follows genetic analysis and internal examinations conducted by an international research team. Their data suggests the sister cubs were around two months' old when they died (likely during a landslide), and maintained an omnivorous diet similar to today's wolves. Surprisingly, the stomach contents included a meal that included woolly rhinoceros.
With a shoulder height of about five feet, a woolly rhino would have been tough for wolves to take down, leading the study -authors to theorize that the cubs fed on a younger calf that had been hunted by the adults in their pack. Even so, the prey would be impressive by even today's standards, as modern wolves rarely target prey of that size. Knowing this, experts are now beginning to wonder if wolves living thousands of years ago during the Pleistocene were larger than today's examples.
When first discovered, the Tumat cubs were interred near woolly mammoth bones, some of which displayed signs of human processing and cooking. Although there isn't direct evidence linking the early hunters to the wolves, it's possible that the animals were either slightly tamed, or at least trusting enough to hang around waiting for table scraps.
'It was incredible to find two sisters from this era so well preserved, but even more incredible that we can now tell so much of their story, down to the last meal that they ate,' University of York archeologist and study co-author Anne Kathrine Runge said in a statement.
Interestingly, one of the earlier arguments in favor of the siblings being dogs was their fur color. Both animals had black hair, a mutation thought only present in canines. The confirmation of their wolf identity, however, challenges that genetic theory.
'Whilst many will be disappointed that these animals are almost certainly wolves and not early domesticated dogs, they have helped us get closer to understanding the environment at the time, how these animals lived, and how remarkably similar wolves from more than 14,000 years ago are to modern day wolves,' Runge explained.
But as informative as the Tumat siblings are, their true identity means researchers are back to searching for humans' earliest dog relationships.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Two Ice Age ‘puppies' weren't exactly dogs
The origin of human and dog relationships is surprisingly murky, despite its seemingly strong foundation. Most estimates put the earliest examples of canine companions at around 15,000 years before the present day, but their actual evolutionary split from wolves may have occurred as far back 30,000 years ago. But even then, the line is a bit blurry as to who befriended who, and when. Take the Tumat puppies, for example. Respectively discovered in 2011 and 2015 at the Syalakh site in remote northern Siberia, some experts have argued these remarkably well-preserved animals offer some of the earliest evidence of dog domestication. However, according to a recent reevaluation detailed in a study published on June 11 in the journal Quaternary Research, the Tumat puppies weren't puppies at all—they were likely wolf cubs. And their last meal points to even more historical revisions. The canine revision follows genetic analysis and internal examinations conducted by an international research team. Their data suggests the sister cubs were around two months' old when they died (likely during a landslide), and maintained an omnivorous diet similar to today's wolves. Surprisingly, the stomach contents included a meal that included woolly rhinoceros. With a shoulder height of about five feet, a woolly rhino would have been tough for wolves to take down, leading the study -authors to theorize that the cubs fed on a younger calf that had been hunted by the adults in their pack. Even so, the prey would be impressive by even today's standards, as modern wolves rarely target prey of that size. Knowing this, experts are now beginning to wonder if wolves living thousands of years ago during the Pleistocene were larger than today's examples. When first discovered, the Tumat cubs were interred near woolly mammoth bones, some of which displayed signs of human processing and cooking. Although there isn't direct evidence linking the early hunters to the wolves, it's possible that the animals were either slightly tamed, or at least trusting enough to hang around waiting for table scraps. 'It was incredible to find two sisters from this era so well preserved, but even more incredible that we can now tell so much of their story, down to the last meal that they ate,' University of York archeologist and study co-author Anne Kathrine Runge said in a statement. Interestingly, one of the earlier arguments in favor of the siblings being dogs was their fur color. Both animals had black hair, a mutation thought only present in canines. The confirmation of their wolf identity, however, challenges that genetic theory. 'Whilst many will be disappointed that these animals are almost certainly wolves and not early domesticated dogs, they have helped us get closer to understanding the environment at the time, how these animals lived, and how remarkably similar wolves from more than 14,000 years ago are to modern day wolves,' Runge explained. But as informative as the Tumat siblings are, their true identity means researchers are back to searching for humans' earliest dog relationships.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Endangered species deserve a home, too
The elusive Northern Spotted Owl. The majestic Whooping Crane. Charismatic Florida panthers and beloved Monarch butterflies. These and many other endangered species now face even graver threats in the wake of two recent developments in the world of conservation. On Apr. 7, the billion-dollar biotech firm Colossal announced the 'de-extinction' of the dire wolf, a canine species that vanished in the Late Pleistocene (approximately 13,000 years ago). And on Apr. 17, the Trump administration revealed its intention to weaken decades-old endangered species protections by redefining a key word: harm. This narrower definition effectively rescinds protection of an endangered species' habitat, limiting harm to actions that 'directly' harass, injure or kill organisms. What these two developments have in common is a disregard for the vital connection that exists between species and the places they call home. Habitat refers to the place where an organism naturally or normally lives. Removal of habitat protection opens the door to logging, development and extraction of oil and minerals. The proposed definition of harm could convert fragile wetlands into farmland, migration corridors into freeways and nesting sites into beachfront property — and none of this would qualify as harm to the creatures who live there. A habitat includes the specific resources and conditions that a given species needs to survive — the plants or animals it feeds on, and particular features of topography, soil, climate and water. Some species are especially vulnerable to extinction because they require a very rare or specific type of habitat. Others are at risk because they range across several. Many butterfly species, for example, are reliant on a single host plant for every stage of their life cycle — mating, laying eggs and feeding their young. Even plants closely related to the host plant cannot replace these vital functions, however indistinguishable they may appear to the human eye. Migratory creatures, meanwhile, depend upon many habitats in far-flung geographic locations. A recent study found that approximately half of all migratory species are in decline. Annually, billions of migratory birds crisscross state and national boundaries, with varying degrees of legal protections for the places where they nest, feed or rest. Further erosion of habitat protection could be the death knell for these and other vulnerable species. Were species not so intimately tied to their environments, it might make sense to regard lab-created or genetically engineered organisms, like the recently unveiled dire wolves, as suitable replacements for endangered or extinct species. Conservation would be akin to curating museum or zoo specimens, with living representatives of endangered species, or mere samples of their genetic material, maintained in artificial environments. Disregard for the importance of habitat is evident in the fanfare over Colossal's so-called dire wolves — more accurately, grey wolves with dire wolf DNA spliced into their genome. Consider that in their original Pleistocene environments, true dire wolves preyed upon large herbivorous megafauna that are now extinct: sloths, mastodons, giant bison and camels. By contrast, Remus, Romulus and Khaleesi, the telegenic trio of fluffy white wolves created by Colossal, will live their entire lives in a highly secured, undisclosed site, subsisting on a hand-fed diet of ground meats and kibble. In short, the same flawed logic lies behind the dire wolf 'de-extinction' and the Trump proposal to redefine harm: Both treat species as if they live in a vacuum. Doug Burgum, the Trump-appointed secretary of the Interior, exemplified this sort of thinking when he took to social media to hail de-extinction as the 'bedrock' of future conservation, arguing simultaneously for re-think of endangered species protections: 'It has been innovation—not regulation—that has spawned American greatness,' he said. Citing Colossal's breakthrough, Burgum questioned the need for an endangered species list. Ten days later, the administration moved to weaken endangered species regulation by excluding habitat from the definition of harm. Yet, habitat loss remains the primary culprit of species endangerment and extinction. While these losses can occur naturally through periodic events like fires or earthquakes, the vast majority of habitat degradation, fragmentation and loss stems from human activity: land development, deforestation, large-scale agriculture, air and water pollution, and human-caused climate change, among other factors. Even amid intensified political polarization, endangered species protection is wildly popular, with 84 percent of Americans supporting the Endangered Species Act. In the past month, some 350,000 members of the public weighed in to protest changes to the act. Many offered the commonsense argument that destroying the home of any living being, human or nonhuman, clearly constitutes harm, as surely as a gun pointed to the head. Innovation in conservation science, including cutting-edge genetic techniques aimed at saving species on the brink of extinction, is welcome and should be encouraged. But innovation is no substitute for regulation, any more than a laboratory or zoo is a substitute for the places where animals naturally live. Endangered species face a barrage of threats from human activities. We owe them a place to call home. Lisa H. Sideris is a Public Voices fellow of The OpEd Project and the University of California. Santa Barbara, where she is professor and vice-chair of the Environmental Studies Program. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Humans nearly went extinct 1 million years ago, but we don't know why
If you purchase an independently reviewed product or service through a link on our website, BGR may receive an affiliate commission. A study published in 2023 suggests that nearly 1 million years ago, humanity almost ceased to exist. This potential mass extinction event was discovered by researchers when they began analyzing the genetic data of 3,145 modern humans. The researchers suggest that the ancient population may have been reduced to roughly 1,200 humans. Overall, the researchers believe that there could have been a bottleneck somewhere between 930,000 to 813,000 years ago, which led to a 98.7% reduction of humans on Earth. Unfortunately, narrowing down the exact cause of this bottleneck is still impossible, but it's likely climate changes could have been at the root of the event. Today's Top Deals Best deals: Tech, laptops, TVs, and more sales Best Ring Video Doorbell deals Memorial Day security camera deals: Reolink's unbeatable sale has prices from $29.98 Scientists suspect that when the world transitioned to the middle of the Pleistocene period, and the Earth cooled dramatically, it could have led to prolonged cold periods that killed off most humans. Combine that with droughts and widespread famine, and it would have been a recipe for a mass extinction event capable of wiping out humans. The researchers posit that humans may have been driven into smaller, more isolated communities, where they found themselves competing with each other for survival in the increasingly dangerous and challenging environment. Sadly, fossils from this point in time are scarce, making it hard to uncover information about the event or exactly how close humans came to being extinct. The findings also suggest that around 813,000 years ago, more hospitable climates may have been a big part of what allowed human populations to skyrocket once more. The researchers claim that as the conditions improved, humans may have branched out again, and the bottleneck may have faded. While these findings raise a lot of interesting questions, it's hard to verify all of the claims with the current data that's available. Hopefully new discoveries, like those of extinct human species, will give us more information about that time period and human evolution as a whole. More Top Deals Amazon gift card deals, offers & coupons 2025: Get $2,000+ free See the
