
New Theory Explains Why Europe's Original Dogs Vanished - curtis
https://gizmodo.com/new-theory-explains-why-europes-original-dogs-vanished-1829863402
======
drb91
The dogs didn’t vanish, they were subsumed into the wider dog gene pool, and
the closest this article gets to recognizing it is that the european dogs
“were replaced in terms of genetic frequency”.

Meanwhile, the original paper’s headline is: “Dogs accompanied humans during
the Neolithic expansion into Europe.” Much more straightforward and leads
directly with the finding rather than an awkward narrative bolted on top.

could we link directly to the paper here?
[http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/14/10/2018028...](http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/14/10/20180286)

------
armenarmen
Any information on which modern breeds are closest to the old European stock?

~~~
thaumasiotes
What would it mean for one modern breed to be "closer" than another to the old
stock?

~~~
drb91
Presumably having more of the genes that remain from the original stock.

That said I’d be pretty surprised if this was significant at the breed
level—most breeds are a fraction of the 11kya mentioned here.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> Presumably having more of the genes that remain from the original stock.

That only makes sense if you believe that all "genes" are equally significant.
By that metric, a hyrax is more similar to an elephant than it is to a marmot.

~~~
swebs
That does not matter. We want to measure closeness, not superficial
similarity. Which species have the most recent common ancestor.

A hyrax _is_ closer to an elephant. It's not even a rodent. Dolphins and
whales aren't fish either, even though they live under water and have fins.

~~~
thaumasiotes
If you want to measure _that_ way, then the idea of one modern breed being
closer to a common ancestor than another modern breed is is total nonsense; by
definition, they're all equally close.

~~~
swebs
No they're not. Look at that Nature article linked above.

