sutton026

T wo recent posts ( The real differences between aurochs and cattle and Is genetic breeding-back possible ) show the differences between wild and domestic, aurochs and cattle and also point out the limitations of “breeding-back”. Since the aurochs is extinct, it would be an interesting test for “breeding-back” to do exactly the same what we do with cattle (taking primitive individuals, crossbreed them and breed them selectively in order to approach the wildtype) but only with a species where the wildtype is still extant so that you can compare the outcome directly to it. Actually, this has been done already and the result is known as the Tamaskan dog. It is a dog breed that was created by crossing wolf-like dog breeds and selecting them towards a wolf-like appearance and the result is actually pretty good. Thus, the Tamaskan dog is a kind of “test” for “breeding-back” with cattle and therefore we are going to have a look at it today.  (Actually, five years ago I already did a post...

I n the post Cattle are modified designer aurochs I explained how “cattle” is just a term for an aurochs that has been modified by millennia of domesticative breeding.  I used Maronesa, Fleckvieh and Heck bulls as examples. Despite an overall similarity that Maronesa and Heck cattle bear to the aurochs, most of the differences between aurochs and cattle apply in both cases. For this post, I want to analyse the Lidia breed, Iberian fighting cattle, in the same way. In case you haven’t read both posts that I just linked here yet I would recommend to have a quick read through them before you continue with this post. The references for the claims below are provided in those articles.  Changes from aurochs to Lidia    Two comparably aurochs-like Lidia bulls on Wikimedia commons The most obvious change from aurochs to Lidia is size. Size is on the one hand probably influenced by endocrinology (as hypothyreodic rats demonstrate) but also by mutations on the dozens, h...

T he Eurasian wild horse subspecies, Equus ferus ferus, was, according to genetic research, not uniform in colour as most large mammals but displayed a number of colour variants. These have been summed up in this post. Paleoartist Maija Karala published a wonderful table on deviantArt showing all colour variants suggested by genetic data and ancient cave art (please do not use without permission):  © Maija Karala On dA, you also find a comprehensive description: https://www.deviantart.com/eurwentala/art/Wild-Horses-3-771025306 I especially like how the leopard spotted pattern has been illustrated, that way it looks really credible for a wildtype animal.  I only have two remarks. As far as I know, the black phenotype suppresses the expression of pangare/countershading, so the black horse should be wholly black, and the chestnut allele e is, as far as the literature that I know, is a mutation in domestic horses that did not show up before the Holocene.  Literature   ...

I have noticed that a lot of genetic terms have been kind of misused in “breeding-back”, and I was guilty of that myself in the past. It should always be paid attention that technical terms are used in the true conventional meaning of the word. In this post I give a little overview over the terms that I have noticed to have been used wrongly (and I used wrongly myself in the past).  Phenotype:  While “genotype” is quite clear, there might be a misunderstanding of what a phenotype actually is. A phenotype is not just the looks or the physical morphology of the animal, but every factual aspect of the living organism – its morphology, its physiology, its behaviour et cetera. So when you talk about a bull with a “good/suitable phenotype” you are also talking about its behaviour and all other aspects. The phenotype is not only influenced by the genotype alone but also environmental and epigenetic factors, and the interesting thing is that there is mutual influence between those fa...

I have been doing posts on the organismic differences between aurochs and cattle lately (go here for an in-depth coverage of these differences, and here for a test of “genetic breeding-back”). Here comes another one, this time applying what I have outlined in the previous articles on particular cattle breeds and individuals. Actually, I have been using a wrong dichotomy in all of my previous posts: cattle and aurochs. There is no distinctive line between these two animal types. Aurochs were snatched out from the wild and slowly transformed into domestic cattle in a fluid process with all kinds of intermediate stages. And in the end, even the most-derived modern domestic cattle would probably still be able to reproduce readily and successfully with aurochs and they still do share many characters in morphology, ecology and behaviour. This is why they are still considered members of the same species by most authors. More precisely and correctly, cattle are  man-made modified design...

I t has become en vogue in contemporary “breeding-back” to claim that their project also involves “genetics” or is based on genetic information, executing “breeding-back” not only on a “phenotypic” basis but on a “genotypic” level, which should lead to a more authentic result. The argumentation is that the original “genes” (simplified language, actually we are talking about alleles) of the aurochs have not been lost during domestication, but split up and mixed with domestic mutations among the modern domestic cattle populations. The goal of “genetic breeding-back” is therefore to trace down these genes among modern cattle and to unite them by crossbreeding and selective breeding in one population. Basically the same as with morphological traits, but more in-depth and concerning the whole organism as genetics are the key determinant for all biological aspects. Therefore, this method should lead to an approximation of the original aurochs and not a mere morphological double. This is the ...