Abstract
Nineteen species of wild canids interact with humans in the Americas in different ways. The zooarchaeological record of burials, shifts in diet, abundance at sites, and ethnological information document the various kinds of interactions of canids and humans in the Americas. However, none of these native canid species has been domesticated. To understand past and present interactions of canids and humans, and explore the biological attributes of native canids (diet, gestation length, occurrence in captivity, temperament, social system, weight, activity pattern, and relative abundance) in view of their suggested potential for domestication, we selected 163 publications from the zooarchaeological record and ethnological sources from the Americas. The compilation ranged between the years 1823 and 2021. The two species with the highest domestication potential based on their life history, social system, and diet are Canis latrans and Speothos venaticus. For the domestication of a canid species to occur, it is necessary to have the biological attributes to facilitate the process, and for the (human) potential domesticator the worldview consistent with this practice. The latter likely explains the lack of domesticated canids in the Amazon region.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Only a few endemic vertebrate animals were (and still are) domesticated in the Americas: among birds the Muscovy duck Cairina moschata in the Amazon region, and the turkey Meleagris gallopavo in areas of what is today Mexico and the southwest US, and among mammals the llama Lama glama, alpaca Vicugna pacos, and the guinea pig or cui Cavia porcellus, all in the Andean region (Stahl 2008; Larson and Fuller 2014). The oldest mammal to be domesticated, the dog (Canis familiaris), has been on the continent from about at least 10,000 years before present (ybp), as the zooarchaeological record and ancient DNA studies confirm (Leathlobhair et al. 2018; Perri et al. 2019, 2021). Examples of these ancient dogs are Stilwell II (10,190–9,630 ybp, Illinois; Perri et al. 2019) and Koster (10,130–9,700 cal bp, Illinois; Perri et al. 2019) from North America. Dogs probably accompanied early human populations into North America from Asia before 15,000 ybp (Stahl 2012; Van Asch et al. 2013; Perri et al. 2021) and it is possible that dogs were introduced into South America later (Schwartz 1997; Prevosti et al. 2009; Prates et al. 2010a, b; Segura et al. 2021b). In South America, the most ancient record of dogs is from 5600 to 5000 ybp (Loma Alta, Ecuador; Rosamachay, Chile and Peru; Byrd 1976; Macneish and Vierra 1983; Stahl 1984). In some places of South America, such as the Amazon basin, dogs were not introduced until the twentieth century (Koster 2009).
Interactions among canid species are relevant to understand their biology and phylogenetic history. Dogs may have been subjected to genetic introgression of wild populations of Canis latrans and C. lupus (e.g., Frantz et al. 2020; Sinding et al. 2020). Ancient DNA analyses of Koster's dog, one of the oldest records in North America, revealed an affinity with coyotes, with which it may have been mixed (Perri et al. 2019). A dietary study based on isotopes (Monagle et al. 2018) hypothesized that coyotes may have had a special role for Arroyo Hondoans people (New Mexico, US), and the Ute people (Utah, Colorado, US) in the Great Basin kept and tamed coyotes (Stewart 1942). Sinding et al. (2020) found no significant gene flow between ancient and modern American sled dogs and modern American–Arctic wolf populations, in contrast to the reports concerning the genetic exchanges of dogs with the Eurasian wolf (e.g., Leathlobhair et al. 2018; Perri et al. 2019).
There are 19 species of extant native wild canids on the American continent (Sillero-Zubiri 2009) (Fig. 1, Table 1) with a long evolutionary history partially documented in the fossil record (Wang and Tedford 2008; Prevosti and Forasiepi 2018). Since their arrival on the continent, human populations have interacted with native wild canids in direct (e.g., hunting, maintenance in captivity or as pets) and indirect (e.g., habitat change and habitat destruction) ways. However, none of these native wild canid species has been domesticated.
Here, to understand the interactions of canids and humans in the Americas in the past as well as the present, and explore the biological attributes of native canids in view of their suggested potential for domestication, we review 163 publications in the zooarchaeological record and ethnological information from 13 different countries in the Americas.
Methods
Our work included comprehensive literature searches using online available information from databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Scielo, Google scholar, Latindex, Redalyc, DOAJ), and libraries (Biodiversity Heritage library, Library Genesis, Internet Archive), as well as opportunistic annotations from sources found based on consultation with experts and in our own work. We also scanned the reference lists of all publications that we collected looking for additional eligible articles. Our search strategy was carried out using the following terms: Canid domestication, wild canids, American canids (and combinations of canids with different countries), tamed canids, relationship between humans and canids, pet wild canids. Some of the references of works in Spanish were obtained through personal contact from sources not commonly available, contributing thus to circumvent the biases resulting from standard searches that are formally correct but which de facto potentially ignore relevant works (Nuñez and Amano 2021).
We considered relevant all types of publications (e.g., book chapters, dissertations) about ecology of wild canids (see below) and relationship between humans and canids. We included information from different countries, but restricted these to the Americas. We did not limit the search by language or date.
We included 163 publications (i.e., 72 papers, 38 book chapters, 38 complete books, 10 dissertations, and 5 web pages) ranging from the year 1823 (Latcham) to 2021 (Perri et al.). The extensive information was from 13 countries (Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Bolivia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guiana, Mexico, Peru, USA, and Venezuela) and from broader regions (e.g., South America). We also selected general information about wild canids of the America (see below for more details). The bibliography included only 15.3% of grey literature (that cannot be found easily through conventional publications to materials published in traditional journals, and spanned from detailed chronicles and anecdotal experiences to specific information written exclusively about this topic).
We also selected general information about wild canids of the Americas. We used common names of canids exclusively from the “Family Canidae” chapter of the “Handbook of the Mammals of the World” Sillero-Zubiri (2009) (Table 1) throughout this manuscript.
Because historical geographic distribution and abundance data are not available for all species included in this work, and the population numbers (with the exception of Canis latrans) are stable or declining for wild canids, we only used current information on distribution and relative abundance of canids (Table 1). The main sources were the IUCN web page https://www.iucnredlist.org/ (accessed in March 2020), and different chapters and authors (for each species) extracted from the book “Canids: Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs. Status Survey and Conservation Action” Sillero-Zubiri et al. (2009).
Table 2 includes requisites of The Anna Karenina principle (Diamond 1997) and three other attributes that may potentially affect the domestication potential (see below). Biological information about diet, activity pattern, gestation length, and weight of canids (Table 2) were mainly from Sillero-Zubiri (2009) and when such information was not available, we used the “Mammalian Species” series (https://academic.oup.com/mspecies), and “Canids: Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan” Sillero-Zubiri et al. (2009) for each species. Other biological information collected included social system, relative abundance, occurrence in captivity and temperament (Table 2) from different sources ranging from specific literature such as “Mammalian species” series (https://academic.oup.com/mspecies), and “Canids: Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan” Sillero-Zubiri et al. (2009), to papers where this information was anecdotal (e.g., Birdseye 1956). We also used current information from the IUCN web page https://www.iucnredlist.org/ (accessed March 2020) for each species, as well as classic sources including Mivart (1890), Cabrera and Yepes (1960), Ewer (1973), and Nowak (2005).
All the biological information presented in Table 2 was interpreted as categories that served to establish a quantification of the added potential of the species to be domesticated based on their biological attributes (Table 3). Each category has a value, which is maximum (1) if the domestication requisite is completely fulfilled, minimum (0) when the requisite is not fulfilled, and an intermediate value (0.5) when the requirement is moderately fulfilled. Then, we added the numbers and obtained a percentage, considering eight (all requirements fulfilled) equivalent to 100%, and expressed the potential for domestication with this percentage value.
When we considered the requisite diet flexibility, we categorized omnivorous canids (which eat both plant and animal matter) as ‘1’, mesocarnivores (of which the diet consists of 50–70% meat) as ‘0.5’, and hypercarnivorous canids (which have a diet that is more than 70% meat) as ‘0’. We categorized as ‘1’ all canids because they have a short growth rate (i.e., gestation length around 2 months). When we considered the requisite captive breeding, we categorized the canids that live and breed well in captivity as ‘1’, ‘0.5’ when few specimens are kept in captivity or when the mortality rates of cubs are high, and ‘0’ when individuals of the species are not held in captivity. Concerning temperament, we selected the category ‘1’ for tamed species, and ‘0.5’ for docile species or those not particularly cautious. Concerning social structure, we categorized as ‘1’ social canids that live in packs, ‘0.5’, when the basic social unit is a breeding pair, and ‘0’ when canids are solitary. In relation to size, we considered as ‘1’ large canids (weighing more than 10 kg), ‘0.5’, medium-sized canids (weighing 5–10 kg), and ‘0’, small canids (weighing 1–5 kg). When we considered activity pattern, we categorized as ‘1’ canids with diurnal activity, ‘0.5’ canids with crepuscular activity, and ‘0’ canids mostly nocturnal. In relation to relative abundance, we categorized as ‘1’ abundant canids (i.e., species that, because of habits and conspicuousness, occur in very large numbers), ‘0.5’, common canids (i.e., species that occur in large numbers) or rarer canids (i.e., species recorded in low numbers), but less difficult to see because they travel in packs, and ‘0’, canids scarce (i.e., species infrequently encountered). The latter three requisites are related to being more conspicuous or easy to find for humans and more probably domesticated. In this sense, the most conspicuous obtained the greatest value (1).
Data regarding cultural perception of domestication in different cultures were accessed from several publications, and the most frequently cited herein were Descola (1994, 1996, 2013), Erikson (2000), Stahl (2008, 2012, 2013, 2014), and Ferreira Vander Velden (2009).
To discuss the possibility of the domestication of Dusicyon avus, we collected information from several authors including Prevosti et al. (2009, 2011, 2015), Prates et al. (2010a; b, c), Prevosti and Soibelzon (2012), Prevosti and Martin (2013), Prates (2014), and Prevosti and Forasiepi (2018).
To explore the relationship between humans and canids in the present, we collected information from “Canids: Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan” (Sillero-Zubiri et al. 2009), IUCN web page https://www.iucnredlist.org/ (accessed August 2020) and other recent sources for each species. On the other hand, to explore the relationship between humans and canids in the past, we compiled information from archaeological, ethnological, and paleontological publications in an intensive bibliographic search for both reports of skeletal material and relevant cultural artefacts as well as discussions of the subject (see Table 4).
Biological perspective of canid domestication
Domestication has been defined as a process in which humans assume control over the movement, feeding, protection, distribution, and reproduction of a population of animals, at some point if not right from the start directed at achieving a specific purpose (Clutton-Brock 1994, 2012; Vigne 2011; Zeder 2012, 2014). Many alternative definitions exist in what are continuous interactions, stretching from selection for tameness, voluntary or not, to intensified selection for specific traits (Vigne 2011).
There is a large number of species from the Americas that were not domesticated while their close Eurasian relatives or counterparts were (Diamond 1997). These includes for example the American peccary, similar to the pig, the American bison, similar to the aurochs, water buffalo, yak, gaur and banteng, and the North American bighorn sheep, similar to the Eurasian wild sheep. One should note in this context thought that the European bison has not been domesticated either. Among canids, the large number of American native forms does not include a known, uncontested case of domestication (see below).
Diamond (1997) argued that the adoption of European domesticated animals by American indigenous peoples after 1500 is evidence of a lack of cultural barriers to domestication by those peoples. For example, European horses and dogs were adopted by several groups of indigenous peoples across the continent. Diamond also mentioned the widespread practice of keeping wild animals as pets among indigenous peoples, an old practice maintained through time, seen as an initial stage of domestication (Galton 1865). Diamond (1997) then argued how purely biological reasons must be considered to explain the few domesticated animals on the continent. In this context, he followed Galton (1865) in considering how the list of “requisites” for domestication shows the lack of suitable species on the continent: flexible diet, reasonable growth rate, captive breeding, pleasant disposition, steady temperament, and modifiable social hierarchy (The Anna Karenina principle, see below). Diamond (2002) hypothesized that the Americas were markedly deficient in large land mammals that could have been domesticated by humans. A small mammal such as the cavy or guinea pig was domesticated in South America though, so the relevance of body size for the likelihood of domestication remains speculative.
The Anna Karenina principle states that a deficiency in any one of a number of factors dooms an endeavor to failure. According to it (Diamond 1997), the best candidate species for domestication must be easy to feed and have a flexible diet. Although there are many wild canids whose diet is omnivorous or generalist, they do not have the other requisites needed. In addition, fast growth is a requirement to be economically profitable. As all canids have a gestation period of between 49 and 67 days, they are considered good candidates in this regard (Tables 2, 3). The species must breed well in captivity and have a good temperament and many wild canids from the Americas are docile. This is important because all canids are carnivores and predators, although most of them are small or medium-sized and could not prey on humans. The social structure is an important factor because a species that has a strong, well-defined social hierarchy is more likely to be domesticated; species that can become imprinted by a human as the head of the hierarchy are better suited.
Although other related biological attributes of the species, such as weight, activity pattern (i.e., diurnal, nocturnal) and relative abundance are not enlisted in the Anna Karenina principle (Diamond 1997), they may potentially affect access and visibility to humans and domestication potential. For example, a diurnal canid with larger size, abundant occurrence, traveling in packs, is more visible for humans and thus more likely to become domesticated, than one with contrary features to those just listed. Size was not a hindrance in the domestication of the cavy or guinea pig, but it may have been one in the case of canids.
Cultural perspective of canid domestication
The notable lack of native domesticated animals by indigenous peoples in the Amazon contrasts with the presence of such species in the Andean region of South America and in areas of Central and North America. Stahl (2014) argued that in different Amazonian cultures the particular worldview of nature and surrounding environment precluded processes of animal domestication, as opposed to a high diversity of domesticated plants in the Amazonian region: “The reason that Amazonians ‘fail to domesticate’ animals is not based on the lack of raw material or opportunity; rather, it rests with their shared logic which guides how appropriate relations are conducted between sentient beings (Hugh-Jones 2001). Indigenous Amazonians don’t domesticate animals because it doesn’t make any sense to them.” A rich body of ethnological literature concerning peoples in the Amazon region shows that the keeping of pets should not be seen as a precursor to domestication, as the conception of human-animal interactions is different from that of Europeans (Descola 2013). Among Amazonian peoples (e.g., the Kalapalo [Xingu National Park, Mato Grosso state, Brazil], Maquiritare [Roraima state, Brazil; Bolivar and Amazonas state, Venezuela], Matis [Vale do Javari, Amazonas state, Brazil], Matsés [border in between Peru and Brazil, Amazonia], Matsiguenga [southeastern Peru], Panare [Cedeño, Bolivar state, Venezuela], Yagua [Mariscal Ramón Castilla and Putumayo provinces, Loreto, Peru; Santa Sofía and El Progreso, Colombia], Tucano [Vaupes and Amazonas state, border in between Brazil and Colombia], Txicão [Xingu National Park, Mato Grosso state, Brazil], Wayampi [southeastern border area of French Guiana and Amapá and Pará states in Brazil]), wild pets are obtained by the hunter who killed their mother. Supernatural entities offer animals as prey to hunters, and women raise their young as part of reestablishing a natural balance or compensating for the destructive effects of hunting (Erikson 2000).
The large biogeographic diversity of the Americas is associated with considerable cultural diversity including numerous worldviews and relationships with the surrounding animals. This diversity renders inapplicable any possibility of standardizing the environmental (and temporal) situations under which a process of domestication could have occurred. The cultural influences on the existence and mode of domestication across the continent are not universal.
Alternative perspectives of canid domestication
The presence of domestic dogs since at least 10,000 ybp in the Americas (e.g., Koster, Hinds Cave) and their relationship with humans may have prevented or hindered the intention or initiative to domesticate local wild canids beyond the taming of puppies commonly practiced even nowadays, which in general do not show the gregarious and social customs of the wolves (Segura et al 2021a). The process of domestication in non-dog canids would possibly have represented an unnecessary effort when the domestic dog was already in coexistence.
It has been argued that animal protein in the Amazon region is easily secured in aquatic environments, leading to no need to domesticate animals aside from the Muscovy duck (Sauer 1952). The secure diet available at the edges of rivers, shores, and savannas (Harris 1972) through hunting and fishing promoted increased sedentism, and opportunity for plant experimentation (Stahl 2014).
Another perspective considers dogs as expensive to humans, because of the need to care for them. Although they can eat the same diet as humans, their presence suggests that those humans have an excess of food or at least enough food to feed them. In this sense, it is not for all members of society and not for all societies (Wylde 2017). Perhaps the same notion of cost of investment of time and money is relevant when considering the potential domestication of wild canids.
Current and past human interactions with canids in the Americas
There are no definitive records of active domestication of wild canids by humans in the past or at present in the Americas, although these canids do show a disposition to humans. Currently, some wild canids (e.g., Atelocynus microtis, Cerdocyon thous, Chrysocyon brachyurus, Lycalopex fulvipes, L. sechurae, L. vetulus, Urocyon cinereoargenteus, Vulpes macrotis) are captured by local peoples as pets (Asa and Cossíos 20042004; Courtenay and Maffei 2004; Dalponte and Courtenay 2004; Fuller and Cypher 2004; Jiménez and McMahon 2004; List and Cypher 2004; Rodden et al. 2004; Leite-Pitman and Williams 2011) or to sell to zoos or private collections. The latter is the case for A. microtis and C. brachyurus (Leite-Pitman and Williams 2011; Paula and DeMatteo 2015). Some species such as L. culpaeus, L. fulvipes, L. griseus, L. gymnocercus, Canis latrans, C. lupus, Vulpes lagopus, and V. vulpes are hunted and trapped for fur (Angerbjörn et al. 2004; Gese and Bekoff 2004; González del Solar and Rau 2004; Jimenez and Novaro 2004; Lucherini et al. 2004; Macdonald and Reynolds 2004; Mech and Boitani 2004; Silva-Rodríguez et al. 2016).
Some wild canids are hunted for use in magic–religious rituals, fabrication of amulets, handicrafts, and local medicines. For example, in Brazil, farmers hang tails of C. thous in animal sheds to avoid bats with rabies (Courtenay and Maffei 2004) and some body parts of C. brachyurus are used to cure bronchitis and kidney disease, or as treatment for snakebites (Rodden et al. 2004). In Bolivia, farmers believe that sitting on C. brachyurus fur will protect them from bad luck (Rodden et al. 2004). In Peru, L. sechurae are dissected and parts of their bodies (e.g., paws, tails, heads, fat) are used to perform traditional magic-religious rituals or for the treatment of bronchial illness and stomach disorders. They are also used to attract good spirits or energies during premonition rituals or to manufacture amulets, called seguros. In the department of Piura, dried adult animals in a sitting position are offered to tourists for home protection (Asa and Cossíos 2004; Cossíos 2004).
Stahl (2012, 2013), based on zooarchaeological records, suggested that in the past there were intense interactions between humans and endemic foxes in the Americas. Many species of canids (coyotes, foxes, wolves) have been tamed (see Table 2), and presumably crossbred with American dogs by indigenous peoples, as relatively detailed chronicles and anecdotal experiences show (Latcham 1823; Mivart 1890; Allen 1920; Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés 1944; Cabrera and Yepes 1960; Colton 1970; Valadez et al. 2001; Stahl 2013). Some chroniclers and ethnozoologists (Latcham 1823; Allen 1920; Gilmore 1950) have proposed some varieties of pre-Columbian domestic dogs as derived from endemic canids (e.g., from Speothos venaticus or Cerdocyon thous, as more frequently mentioned). Such ideas have been questioned based on genetic evidence and the impossibility of producing litters reproductively viable, although the presence of tamed wild canids that were mistaken with domestic dogs by the early chroniclers is possible (Stahl 2012, 2013). The possibility of interbreeding of dogs and American canids has been considered remote given the difference in chromosome number (Wayne et al. 1987; Vilà and Leonard 2012).
Although most canid burials excavated in the Americas correspond to Canis familiaris (Segura et al. 2021b), there are many burial sites containing wild canids (Table 4). Excavations at the Santa Elena site (8500–7000 ybp, Peru) showed remains of fishing and gathering peoples where dogs are absent, but burials show a remarkable amount of skeletal material of Lycalopex sechurae, the Sechuran fox (Marcos 1988). The offerings included stone objects, carved shell ornaments, and teeth from this species of fox, in some cases contained in little bags. Remains of this fox were also found in dumps, suggesting economic use (Gutierrez Usillos 1998; Stother 2003; Stothert and Sánchez Mosquera 2011), and some skeletal elements had been transformed, as in the case of the left humerus of this species found at the Las Balsas site (Ecuador), used as a flute (Sánchez Mosquera 1996). Inhabitants of the Andean region of Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia practiced hunts and burials of Lycalopex culpaeus (culpeo foxes) for ceremonial purposes (Table 4; Wing 1989; Mendoza 2019), and it was suggested that they may have been tamed by indigenous people in Tierra del Fuego (Hamilton-Smith 1839; Petrigh and Fugassa 2014). In Arroyo Seco 2 (Argentina), pierced canines of this species and from Chrysocyon brachyurus (maned wolf) and L. gymnocercus (pampas fox) were deposited as grave goods (Politis 2012), while in Baño Nuevo 1 (Chile) and Cabo Vírgenes (Argentina), mandibles and scapulae of L. culpaeus showed cuts suggesting economical use for meat consumption or fur exploitation (Trejo and Jackson 1998; Belardi et al. 2011).
In addition, remains of L. gymnocercus were found at Argentinian sites such as the Calera, Nutria Mansa 1, and Cueva Tixi, without exposure to fire or processing cuts (Table 4). Specimens of Dusicyon avus (an extinct fox, see below) were also found at these sites (Mazzanti and Quintana 1997; Bonomo 2005, 2006; Kaufmann and Álvarez 2007; Álvarez 2009). Less frequent in archaeological sites, C. brachyurus was also reported by García Esponda et al. (2001) in La Bellaca 2 (Argentina) describing a mandibular fragment and a lower canine, and by Bonomo (2005, 2006) who found a metatarsal bone in Nutria Mansa 1 (Argentina). Linares (1987) reported fragments (mandible, maxillae and teeth) of C. thous from Carúpano, northeastern Venezuela dated from around 1500 of the current era. Popović et al. (2020) determined that three metacarpals from Colqapata Site (Bolivia), and one isolated radius from Achocalla (Bolivia) belonged to L. griseus, and Plens (2010) reported remains of S. venaticus (Bush dog) from Moraes (Brazil).
In North America, foxes have a long history of exploitation and analyses suggest they were used for a variety of purposes. In terms of noneconomic uses, people on Kodiak (Alaska) may have kept Vulpes vulpes (red fox) as pets (West and Yeshurun 2019). Foxes such as V. vulpes and V. lagopus (arctic fox) were hunted in the past for their fur and meat and possibly for the bone itself, as interpreted based on specimens with cut-marked bones from the Marmes archaeological site in southeastern Washington State (USA), Dorset site of Tayara in Nunavik (Canada), and Uyak Site (Alaska) (Monchot and Gendron 2011; Lyman 2012; West and Yeshurun 2019) (Table 4).
Indigenous peoples of the Channel Islands (California) kept Urocyon littoralis (island foxes) as pets and harvested them to make clothes from their fur. These foxes played a spiritual role, and in some cases were intentionally buried with humans, as burial remains have shown. Thirty-nine intentional burials of island foxes have been recovered from Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, San Nicolas, and San Clemente Islands (Table 4). On the northern islands the burials have been directly associated with human remains, for example, in one of them two fox skulls were associated with a child burial, in other, a fox skull was placed between the pelvises of a man and woman, and in the third, a fox skull was wrapped in a mat with two bone tubes, coated with asphalt and wrapped with rope. In the southern islands, foxes were not directly associated with human remains or with artifacts, but were probably buried after having been skinned for their pelts (Collins 1991; Roemer et al. 2004). Some authors interpreted these relationships between humans and canids as evidence of domestication. Although not thoroughly tested, these findings strongly suggest close human contact with fox populations, furthermore; genetic evidence supports human-induced foxes translocation from the northern to southern Channel Islands (Hofman et al. 2015).
The symbolic importance of Canis latrans (coyote) and C. lupus (wolf) in many cultures across the northern hemisphere can be evidenced in ethnographic and ethnohistorical sources and archaeological remains. The coyote was seen as a trickster, fellow hunter, brave fighter, and a god among the Hopi (Arizona, US), while to Mescalero Apache (New Mexico, US), coyotes have supernatural powers, which make them dangerous (Titiev 1971; Basehart 1974; Schwartz 2011). For Miwok and Yokuts (California, US), coyotes were totemic symbols for lineages, and in some past Mesoamerican civilizations they were presumably considered crafty, intelligent, revengeful, skillful as hunters, and related to the libido and the arts (Valadez et al. 2008a; Byrd et al. 2013; Sugiyama 2014). A study based on diet of several archaeological specimens in Arroyo Hondo Pueblo (New Mexico, US) through isotopes (Monagle et al. 2018) demonstrated that coyotes might have been treated as dogs for Arroyo Hondoans people, based on an overlap in the diet of domestic dogs and wild coyotes.
In Mexico, coyote remains were preserved in Moon Pyramid and caves (Teotihuacan), and in sites such as Santa Cruz Atizapan (Toluca), Zultepec-Tecoaque (Tlaxcala), Cañón de las Tinajas (Durango), and Malpaís Prieto (Michoacan). Coyote remains in other countries include those found in Tipu (Belize) and Grasshoper Ruin (Arizona, USA) (Table 4; Olsen 1968; Emery 1999; Valadez et al. 2008a; Valadez and Rodríguez 2009; Schwartz 2011; Sugiyama et al. 2013; Sugiyama 2014; Manin et al. 2015). Some of these remains were interpreted as natural accumulations, others as materials to manufacture clothes and offerings related to human burials (Valadez et al. 2008a; Schwartz 2011; Sugiyama et al. 2013; Sugiyama 2014; Manin and Evin 2020). In Santa Cruz Atizapan, Teopancazco, and Grasshopper Ruin sites, remains of Urocyon cinereoargenteus (gray fox) were also found (Olsen 1968; Rodríguez Galicia 2006; Valadez and Rodríguez 2009; Valadez 2017).
Wolves were important hunters and respected figures in some American cultures (Titiev 1971; Basehart 1974; Schwartz 2011). Among the Zuni (New Mexico, US), wolves played an important mythic role and likely evoked a fearful respect (Schwartz 2011). The Huichol people (Nayarit, Mexico) believed that wolves taught them how to hunt deer, with the peyote cactus considered the heart of the deer. Before going hunting, the Zuni made offerings and sang to wolves (Sugiyama 2014). For Teotihuacan peoples (Mexico), the wolf was a symbol of war and it was represented wearing a feather headdress. Wolves were related to religious ceremonies for the elite of the Teotihuacan society (Valadez et al. 2008b).
The wolf was more frequently found than other canids in the archaeozoological record and always associated with extraordinary deposits (Manin and Evin 2020). Wolves were found in Teotihuacan, (Table 4) in Teopancazco, and in the Sun, Quetzalcoatl, and Moon pyramids (Rodríguez Galicia 2006; Sugiyama and López Luján 2007; Schwartz 2011; Sugiyama et al. 2013; Sugiyama 2014; Valadez 2017). In the latter, the burials were considered an assertion of state power and militarism and contained human remains considered elite (Sugiyama and López Luján 2007; Schwartz 2011). In Burial 2, archaeologists found a complete and well-preserved skeleton of a wolf inside a wooden cage, probably buried alive (Sugiyama and López Luján 2007). The most surprising offerings in Burial 3 were 18 heads of decapitated pumas and wolves (Table 4) (Sugiyama and López Luján 2007). Another site in Mexico, Zultepec-Tecoaque, included a fragment of mandible (Valadez et al. 2008b), and in Santa Cruz Atizapan researchers found a left metatarsal worked by hand and converted into a punch, indicating an association with human activities (Valadez and Rodríguez 2009). Two complete individuals were included as offerings in the ancient city of Tenochtitlan, richly adorned with ornaments crafted from precious stones and metals, sacrificial flint knives, wooden ear muffs and nose rings, belts made of shells, necklaces of green stone beads, shell pendants and anklets, and gold and copper bells (López Luján and Chávez Balderas 2010; López Luján et al. 2012). In Hunchavin, Chiapas, a juvenile wolf of estimated four months of age was recovered based on a left mandible with deciduous and adult teeth, right maxilla, a fragment of pelvis and hind limbs (Valadez et al. 2008b; Valadez 2014; Sosa Rodríguez 2017).
The interaction with Dusicyon avus
Many authors considered the possibility that this now extinct canid had been domesticated. Dusicyon avus was a medium-sized canid with an estimated body mass of 10–14 kg. It lived in Uruguay, southern Brazil, and the Pampean and Patagonian regions of Argentina during the Late Pleistocene and Holocene, inhabiting open areas (e.g., grass steppe, shrub steppe) under a wide range of climatic conditions (Prevosti and Forasiepi 2018; Prevosti et al. 2015). It could have had a more carnivorous diet that the living Lycalopex culpaeus (culpeo fox) (Prevosti et al. 2009), hunted mainly medium-sized rodents, armadillos, and juveniles of larger ungulates (Prevosti and Martin 2013).
Several specimens of D. avus were recovered from archaeological sites (Table 4). In some places, such as Cueva Tixi (Argentina), remains of this fox were found without signs of human intervention (Mazzanti and Quintana 1997), while at other sites, such as Tres Arroyos 1 (Chile), there was evidence of consumption (Borrero 2005), though the latter does not seem to be common (Prevosti et al. 2011; Prates 2014). This fox was used for ritual purposes, usually deposited as grave goods in mortuary contexts or used as material for ornaments; for example, its teeth were utilized in confection of necklaces (Prates 2014; Prevosti et al. 2015). In two sites of Argentina, Loma de los Muertos, and Río Luján, D. avus was associated with mortuary contexts. Moreover, Prates (2014) inferred that a specimen from Loma de los Muertos, which showed no trauma marks in its skeleton, was intentionally buried, as a human would have been (Prevosti et al. 2011). The practice of burying animals was almost exclusively restricted to certain domestic species, especially dogs. For this reason, the special treatment of the fox suggests the possibility that it was part of the social structure, kept in captivity, and tamed as pets (Prates et al. 2010c). As this species is extinct, we cannot know if D. avus fulfilled all the biological “requisites” of the Anna Karenina Principle to be domesticated as enunciated by Diamond (1997). The archaeological record surely suggests that a close human-animal relationship did occur.
Species with potential to be domesticated
Most wild canids from the Americas are currently tamed or integrated into indigenous societies to different degrees, as some species would be behaviorally suitable for domestication, although they rarely adjust to the other “requisites” proposed by Diamond (1997). Those species, although docile or tamable, are difficult to reproduce in captivity, or the wild populations are at a low density and not easy to see (Tables 2, 3). However, taming wild canids in the Americas without an active domestication process is a highly common practice among indigenous populations and people in rural regions. Taking into account all the suggested requisites for domestication (Diamond 1997), the species with the most potential to be domesticated are Canis latrans and Speothos venaticus (93.75% and 75%, respectively, Table 3, Fig. 2).
Coyote (Canis latrans): biological characteristics and cultural aspects
The coyote (Canis latrans) is one of the species with a life history that fulfils most of the domestication “requisites” (Table 3, Fig. 2). It is a medium-sized canid of wide distribution that uses almost all available habitats, including urban areas (Kays 2018). They are mesocarnivores (i.e., with diets mostly composed of vertebrates but incorporating some consistent amount of insects, fruits or other non-vertebrate items) (Prevosti and Soibelzon 2012), but also generalists as they can eat a wide variety of food items (Sillero-Zubiri 2009). The basic social unit is an alpha pair, although they can form packs but are less social than wolves (Gese and Bekoff 2004). The coyote is easily tamed as a pup (Stewart 1942). However, young coyotes have more severe fights between 25 and 35 days of age than wolves or dogs at the same age (Bekoff 1974).
Coyotes were important elements in indigenous peoples mythology (e.g., Flathead [western Montana, US], Crow [southern Montana, US], and other Great Plains peoples [Canada, US]) (Gese and Bekoff 2004), and parts of their bodies were worn as ceremonial clothing (Valadez et al. 2008a). In folktales of some indigenous peoples in the United States southwestern and Plains regions, coyotes are seen as tricksters, probably due to their intelligence and adaptability. However, American coyote characters vary widely from group to group (Watts 2007).
The reasons why coyotes have not been domesticated are unknown. These could include the spiritual vision indigenous peoples had of them, the high level of pup aggression and breeding difficulty, their elusive nature (Bekoff 1977), and/or the fact that indigenous peoples had already raised dogs from wolves. Nevertheless, coyotes may have contributed genetic material to the ancient dog populations in the Americas (Adams et al. 2003; Dobney and Larson 2006; Vilà and Leonard 2012), such as an ancient DNA analysis of the oldest record in North America, the Koster’s dog, revealed (Perri et al. 2019).
Bush dog (Speothos venaticus): biological characteristics and cultural aspects
Some aspects of the life history of the bush dog are similar to those of the wolf, such as their friendly behaviour in captivity as well as social and hypercarnivorous habits. These characteristics (Table 3, Fig. 2) make the bush dog a suitable candidate to have been domesticated by the Amazonian peoples based on Diamond’s “requisites”. Remarkably, the morphology and size of the bush dog suggest possible paedomorphic transformations in their evolutionary development within canids (Biben 1983; Wayne 1986a, b; Segura 2014; Segura et al. 2021a), which have been suggested for the differentiation of dogs and wolves (Wayne 1986a; Wayne and Ruff 1992; Sánchez-Villagra et al. 2017).
The benefits of the presence of domestic hunting dogs among the Amazonian peoples include the addition of food items only possible to reach with the help of the dog (Varner and Varner 1983; Schwartz 1997). However, apart from some occasionally tamed specimens, there are no reliable records showing that the bush dog has been actively domesticated. One hypothesis to explain this is the susceptibility of this species to diseases of the domestic dog (Uhl et al. 2019), but the Amazonian peoples spent thousands of years without domestic dogs and without taming (or domesticating) the bush dog. Alternatively, its low density and elusive natural behaviour in an environment such as the Amazon rainforest or subtropical forests may have prevented its domestication (Beisiegel and Zuercher 2005; Sillero-Zubiri 2009).
The lower carnassial teeth of S. venaticus differ from the canid common pattern; the inner cusp of the talonid is missing, resulting in this part of the tooth forming a subsidiary blade and not a basin, emphasizing the cutting surfaces over grinding surfaces. These dentition features suggest a highly predacious habit with diminished importance of vegetable foods in the diet, i.e., an exclusively carnivorous diet (Ewer 1973; Zuercher et al. 2004; Beisiegel and Zuercher 2005). Maybe the lack of feeding flexibility related to anatomical dental restriction present in this species could have precluded domestication, as better candidates are omnivorous and generalist animals that are easy to feed.
The coexistence and close relationship between the Amazonian peoples and the bush dog (Speothos venaticus) are important and well documented (Descola 1994; Schwartz 1997; Zuercher et al. 2004). The bush dog is a species with a social structure, small size, and cooperative hunting in the tropical forest and open savannas (Table 2, Beisiegel and Zuercher 2005), with documented good experiences in reproduction in captivity (Chebez 1999; Zuercher et al. 2004). Indigenous peoples have occasionally kept bush dogs as pets and hunting dogs, emphasizing their superior hunting abilities when pursuing burrowing prey, especially paca and armadillos (Zuercher et al. 2004). Early naturalists reported small “dogs” that hunted in groups and were easily tamed and integrated by indigenous Amazonians (Wallace 1889; Rivière 2006), which according to Stahl (2013) could refer to the bush dog. However, other informants reported that bush dogs were difficult or impossible to domesticate because of their fierceness. Quechua peoples from eastern Ecuador still maintain a deeply spiritual and mystical vision of bush dogs (they have spiritual ‘owners’) for which they are reluctant to capture or kill bush dogs because it would be equivalent to stealing or killing a neighbour’s hunting dog (Zuercher et al. 2004). Many indigenous peoples consider the bush dog to be one of the best hunters in the forest, sometimes singing songs to their own dogs in hopes of passing on the bush dog’s skills (Descola 1996; Schwartz 1997).
Cultural reasons may have contributed to the impossibility of an active domestication of the bush dog. They could be esoteric or mystical, part of the indigenous worldview of the bush dog, which is partially in agreement with the conception of Stahl (2014). The lack of flexibility in its diet could be a strong biological reason, in agreement with the conception of Diamond (1997). A variety of possible causes could have precluded the bush dog domestication, despite its apparent favorable characteristics.
Final considerations
The relationship that occurs during domestication can be conceptualized as resulting from the interactions between biological aspects and the human’s intellectual construction and action about the environment. Both, intertwined, are essential to facilitate the domestication process of a canid species. The Anna Karenina Principle (Diamond 1997) provides a comparative guide for biological plausibility (Tables 2, 3). However, domestication also requires a human worldview consistent with this practice (Ingold 2000), apparently absent in human societies from the Amazon (Stahl 2014). Humans have the inclination to tame, nurture, and live with almost all species of vertebrate animals (Clutton-Brock 2012), perhaps as part of what has been called biophilia (Wilson 1990). If domestication involves the domain of culture (human, active, creative) over nature (animal, objectified), some human societies in the Americas cannot conceive this idea (Ferreira Vander Velden 2009; Stahl 2014). In these societies (e.g., Achuar, distributed around the border in between Ecuador and Peru, Amazonia), the systems of logic clearly preclude animal domestication (Stahl 2014) because they do not view animals as being subordinated to humans (Ferreira Vander Velden 2009). In this sense, domestication as a cultural and biological combination does not occur when one of two components fails. However, there are other important processes and relationships between humans and animals to recognize and consider when investigating the relations of humans and canids, as shown on the American continent.
An area of potential interest when considering canid-human interactions in the Americas is comparative mythology as studied by cultural evolution approaches. This subject has great potential to reveal historical patterns that mirror biological phenomena or suggest hypotheses on the history of human-animal interactions (Thuillard et al. 2018).
References
Adams JR, Leonard JA, Waits LP (2003) Widespread occurrence of a domestic dog mitochondrial DNA haplotype in southeastern US coyotes. Mol Ecol 12:541–546
Allen GM (1920) Dogs of the American Aborigines. Bull Mus Comp Zool Harv Univ 73:433–517
Álvarez MC (2009) Análisis de los restos faunísticos del sitio Calera (Sierras Bayas, Partido de Olavarría). Relac Soc Argent Antropol 34:29–51
Angerbjörn A, Hersteinsson P, Tannerfeldt M (2004) Arctic fox Alopex lagopus. In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Hoffmann M, Macdonald DW (eds) Canids: foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN Species Programme, Gland, pp 117–123
Asa C, Cossíos ED (2004) Sechuran fox Pseudalopex sechurae. In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Hoffmann M, Macdonald DW (eds) Canids: foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN Species Programme, Gland, pp 69–72
Basehart HW (1974) Mescalero Apache subsistence patterns and socio-political organization. Garland Publishing, New York, USA
Beisiegel B, Zuercher GL (2005) Speothos venaticus. Mamm Species 783:1–6
Bekoff M (1974) Social play and play-soliciting by infant canids. Am Zool 14:323–340
Bekoff M (1977) Canis latrans. Mamm Species 79:1–9
Belardi JB, Carballo MF, L’heureux GL (2011) Nuevos resultados arqueológicos en Cabo Vírgenes (Santa Cruz, Argentina): el sitio Cabo Vírgenes 20. Magallania 39:279–292
Biben M (1983) Comparative ontogeny of social behaviour in three South American canids, the maned wolf, crab-eating fox and bush dog: implications for sociality. Anim Behav 31:814–826
Birdseye C (1956) Observations on a domesticated Peruvian desert fox, Dusicyon. J Mammal 37:284–287
Bonomo M (2005) Costeando las llanuras. Arqueología del litoral marítimo pampeano. Sociedad Argentina de Antropología, Buenos Aires
Bonomo M (2006) Un acercamiento a la dimensión simbólica de la cultura material en la región pampeana. Relac Soc Argent Antropol 31:89–115
Borrero LA (2005) Taphonomy of late Pleistocene faunas at Fuego-Patagonia. J S Am Earth Sci 20:115–120
Byrd KM (1976) Changing animal utilization patterns and their implications: southwest Ecuador (6500 BC–AD 1400). PhD dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville
Byrd BF, Cornellas A, Eerkens JW, Rosenthal JS, Carpenter TR, Leventhal A, Leonard JA (2013) The role of canids in ritual and domestic contexts: new ancient DNA insights from complex hunter–gatherer sites in prehistoric Central California. J Archaeol Sci 40:2176–2189
Cabrera A, Yepes J (1960) Mamíferos Sud-Americanos. Ediar, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Chebez JC (1999) Los que se van: mamíferos. Albatros, Buenos Aires
Clutton-Brock J (1994) The unnatural world: behavioural aspects of humans and animals in the process of domestication. In: Manning A, Serpell JA (eds) Animals and human society: changing perspectives. Routledge, London, pp 23–35
Clutton-Brock J (2012) Animals as domesticates: a world view through history. MSU Press, Michigan
Collins PW (1991) Interaction between island foxes (Urocyon littoralis) and Indians on islands off the coast of southern California: I. Morphologic and archaeological evidence of human assisted dispersal. J Ethnobiol 11:51–81
Colton HS (1970) The aboriginal Southwestern Indian dog. Am Antiq 35:153–159
Consorte-McCrea A (2011) Conservation of the maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus): Carnivore and people relationships in the southeast of Brazil. PhD Dissertation, University of Kent
Cossíos ED (2004) Relaciones entre el zorro de Sechura, Pseudalopex sechurae (Thomas), y el hombre en el Perú. Ecol Apl 3:134–138
Cossíos ED (2010) Lycalopex sechurae (Carnivora: Canidae). Mamm Species 42:1–6
Courtenay O, Maffei L (2004) Crab-eating fox Cerdocyon thous. In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Hoffmann M, Macdonald DW (eds) Canids: foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN Species Programme, Gland, pp 32–38
Dalponte JC (2009) Lycalopex vetulus (Carnivora: Canidae). Mamm Species 847:1–7
Dalponte J, Courtenay O (2004) Hoary fox Pseudalopex vetulus. In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Hoffmann M, Macdonald DW (eds) Canids: foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN Species Programme, Gland, pp 72–76
de Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés G (1944) Historia general y natural de las indias Islas y tierra firme del mar océano. Guarania, Asunción
Descola P (1994) In the society of nature: a native ecology in Amazonia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Descola P (1996) La selva culta: simbolismo y praxis en la ecología de los Achuar. Ediciones Abya-Yala, Ecuador
Descola P (2013) Beyond nature and culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Diamond J (1997) Guns, germs, and steel: the fates of human societies. Norton & Company, New York
Diamond J (2002) Evolution, consequences and future of plant and animal domestication. Nature 418:700–707
Dobney K, Larson G (2006) Genetics and animal domestication: new windows on an elusive process. J Zool 269:261–271
Emery KF (1999) Continuity and variability in Postclassic and colonial animal use at Lamanai and Tipu, Belize. In: White CD (ed) Reconstructing ancient Maya diet. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp 61–82
Erikson P (2000) The social significance of pet-keeping among Amazonian Indians. In: Podberscek AL, Paul ES, Serpell JA (eds) Companion animals and us: exploring the relationships between people and pets. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 7–26
Ewer RF (1973) The carnivores. Cornell University Press, Ithaca
Ferreira Vander Velden F (2009) Sobre cães e índios: domesticidade, classificação zoológica e relação humano-animal entre os Karitiana. Avá Rev Antropol 15
Frantz LAF, Bradley DG, Larson G, Orlando L (2020) Animal domestication in the era of ancient genomics. Nat Rev Genet 21:449–460
Fuller TK, Cypher BL (2004) Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus. In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Hoffmann M, Macdonald DW (eds) Canids: foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN Species Programme, Gland, pp 92–97
Galton F (1865) The first steps towards the domestication of animals. T Ethnol Soc Lond 3:122
García Esponda C, Acosta A, Loponte D, De Santis L (2001) Registro de Chrysocyon brachyurus (Carnivora: Canidae) en contextos arqueológicos en el Noreste de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Mastoz Neot 8:159–163
Gese EM, Bekoff M (2004) Coyote Canis latrans. In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Hoffmann M, Macdonald DW (eds) Canids: foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN Species Programme, Gland, pp 81–86
Gilmore RM (1950) Fauna and ethnozoology of South America. Bull Smithson Inst Bur Am Ethnol 6:345–464
González del Solar R, Rau J (2004) Chilla Pseudalopex griseus. In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Hoffmann M, Macdonald DW (eds) Canids: foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN Species Programme, Gland, pp 56–63
Gutierrez Usillos AG (1998) Interrelación hombre-fauna en el Ecuador Prehispánico. PhD Dissertation, Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Hamilton-Smith C (1839) The natural history of dogs. In: Jardine W (ed) The naturalists library, vol 1. WH Lizars, Edinburgh
Harris DR (1972) The origins of agriculture in the tropics. Am Sci 60:180–193
Hoffmann M, Sillero-Zubiri C (2016) Vulpes vulpes. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/23062/46190249. Accessed 6 Aug 2020
Hofman CA, Rick TC, Hawkins MTR, Funk WC, Ralls K, Boser CL, Collins PW, Coonan T, King JL, Morrison SA, Newsome SD, Sillett TS, Fleischer RC, Maldonado JE (2015) Mitochondrial genomes suggest rapid evolution of dwarf california channel islands foxes (Urocyon littoralis). PLoS ONE 10:e0118240
Hugh-Jones S (2001) An experiment with an experiment. In: Gregor TA, Tuzin D (eds) Gender in Amazonia and Melanesia: an exploration of the comparative method. University of California Press, Oakland, pp 245–278
Ingold T (2000) The perception of the environment: essays in livelihood Dwelling and Skill. Routledge, London
Jiménez JE, McMahon E (2004) Darwin’s fox Pseudalopex fulvipes. In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Hoffmann M, Macdonald DW (eds) Canids: foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN Species Programme, Gland, pp 50–55
Jiménez JE, Marquet PA, Medel RG, Jaksic FM (1991) Comparative ecology of Darwin’s fox (Pseudalopex fulvipes) in mainland and island settings of southern Chile. Rev Chil Hist Nat 63:177–186
Jimenez JE, Novaro AJ (2004) Culpeo Pseudalopex culpaeus. In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Hoffmann M, Macdonald DW (eds) Canids: foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN Species Programme, Gland, pp 44–49
Kaufmann C, Álvarez MC (2007) La arqueofauna del sitio Calera (Sierras Bayas, región pampeana): un abordaje a los aspectos rituales del descarte de huesos de animales. Arqueol Pampas 2:745–764
Kays R (2018) Canis latrans. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/3745/163508579. Accessed 6 Aug 2020
Kelly BT, Beyer A, Phillips MK (2004) Red wolf Canis rufus. In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Hoffmann M, Macdonald DW (eds) Canids: foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN Species Programme, Gland, pp 87–92
Koster J (2009) Hunting dogs in the lowland Neotropics. J Anthropol Res 65:575–610
Lang RW, Harris AH (1984) The faunal remains from Arroyo Hondo Pueblo, New Mexico: A study in short-term subsistence change. Arroyo Hondo Archaeological Series. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe
Larson G, Fuller DQ (2014) The evolution of animal domestication. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 45:115–136
Latcham RE (1823) Los animales domésticos de la América precolombiana. Library of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge
Leathlobhair MN, Perri AR, Irving-Pease EK, Witt KE, Linderholm A, Haile J et al (2018) The evolutionary history of dogs in the Americas. Science 361:81–85
Leite Pitman MRP, Williams RSR (2004) Short-eared dog Atelocynus microtis. In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Hoffmann M, Macdonald DW (eds) Canids: foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs: status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN Species Programme, Gland, pp 26–31
Leite-Pitman MRP, Williams RSR (2011) Atelocynus microtis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/6924/12814890. Accessed 6 Aug 2020
Linares OJ (1987) Evidencias de domesticación en cánidos precolombinos el Oriente de Venezuela. Bol Asoc Venez Arqueol 4:38–48
List R, Cypher BL (2004) Kit fox Vulpes macrotis. In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Hoffmann M, Macdonald DW (eds) Canids: foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs: status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN Species Programme, Gland, pp 105–109
López Luján LL, Chávez Balderas X (2010) Al pie del Templo Mayor: excavaciones en busca de los soberanos mexicas. In: López Luján L, McEwan C (eds) Moctezuma II: tiempo y destino de un gobernante. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México, pp 294–320
López Luján LL, Chávez Balderas X, Zúñiga-Arellano B, Aguirre Molina A, Valentín Maldonado N (2012) Un portal al inframundo: ofrendas de animales sepultadas al pie del Templo Mayor de Tenochtitlan. Estud Cult Náhuatl 44:9–40
Lucherini M, Pessino M, Farias AA (2004) Pampas fox Pseudalopex gymnocercus. In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Hoffmann M, Macdonald DW (eds) Canids: Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN Species Programme, Gland, pp 63–68
Lyman RL (2012) Human-behavioral and paleoecological implications of terminal Pleistocene fox remains at the Marmes site (45FR50), eastern Washington State, USA. Quat Sci Rev 41:39–48
Macdonald DW, Reynolds JC (2004) Red fox Vulpes vulpes. In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Hoffmann M, Macdonald DW (eds) Canids: foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs: status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN Species Programme, Gland, pp 129–136
Macneish RS, Vierra RK (1983) The preceramic way of life in the thorn forest riverine ecozone. In: Prehistory of the Ayacucho Basin, Peru, vol 4, pp 48–129
Manin A, Evin A (2020) Canis spp. identification in central Mexico and its archaeological implications. Toward a better understanding of the ecology and the cultural role of canids in ancient Mesoamerica. In: Boudadi-Maligne M, Mallye J-B (eds) Relations homes—canidés de la préhistoire aux périodes modernes. Ausonius éditions, Bordeaux, pp 94–114
Manin A, Pereira G, Lefèvre C (2015) El uso de los animales en una ciudad tarasca posclásica: estudio arqueozoológico del sitio de Malpaís Prieto (Michoacán, México). Archaeobios 9:28–42
Marcos JG (1988) Real Alto: La historia de un centro ceremonial Valdivia: Primera parte. Biblioteca Ecuatoriana de Arqueología, Corporación Editora Nacional, Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral, Centro de Estudios Arqueológicos y Antropológicos, Quito, Guayaquil, Ecuator
Massoia E, Chebez JC (1993) Mamíferos silvestres del archipiélago fueguino. Literature of Latin America, Buenos Aires
Mazzanti DL, Quintana CA (1997) Asociación cultural de fauna extinguida en el sitio arqueológico Cueva Tixi, Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina. Rev Esp Antropol Am 27:11–22
Mech LD, Boitani L (2004) Grey wolf Canis lupus. In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Hoffmann M, Macdonald DW (eds) Canids: foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs: status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN Species Programme, Gland, pp 124–129
Mendoza VV (2019) Acercamiento al manejo del zorro andino (Lycalopex culpaeus) en el altiplano Norte de Bolivia. Análisis arqueozoológicos en los períodos Formativo-Wancarani y Horizonte Medio-Tiwanaku Management of the andean fox (Lycalopex culpaeus). Archaeofauna 28:185–196
Mivart SG (1890) Dogs, jackals wolves and foxes. A monograph of the Canidae. RH Porter, London
Moehrenschlager A, Sovada M (2004) Swift Fox Vulpes velox. In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Hoffmann M, Macdonald DW (eds) Canids: foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs: status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN Species Programme, Gland, pp 109–116
Monagle V, Conrad C, Jones EL (2018) What makes a dog? Stable isotope analysis and human-canid relationships at Arroyo Hondo Pueblo. Open Quat 4:6. https://doi.org/10.5334/oq.43
Monchot H, Gendron D (2011) Fox exploitation by the paleoeskimo at the tayara site, Nunavik. Arctic Anthropol 48:15–32
Nowak RM (2005) Walker’s carnivores of the world. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
Nuñez MA, Amano T (2021) Monolingual searches can limit and bias results in global literature reviews. Nature Ecol Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01369-w
Olsen SJ (1968) Canid remains from grasshopper ruin. Kiva 34:33–40
Paula RC, DeMatteo K (2015) Chrysocyon brachyurus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/4819/88135664. Accessed 6 Aug 2020
Perri A, Widga C, Lawler D, Martin T, Loebel T, Farnsworth K, Kohn L, Buenger B (2019) New evidence of the earliest domestic dogs in the Americas. Am Antiq 84:68–87
Perri A, Feuerborn TR, Frantz LAF, Larson G, Malhi RS, Meltzer DJ, Witt KE (2021) Dog domestication and the dual dispersal of people and dogs into the Americas. PNAS 118:6e2010083118
Petrigh RS, Fugassa MH (2014) Molecular identification of Nematodirus spathiger (Nematoda: Molineidae) in Lama guanicoe from Patagonia, Argentina. Helminthologia 51:79–82
Plens CR (2010) Animals for humans in life and death. Mus Arqueol Etnol 20:31–52
Politis GG, Barrientos G, Scabuzzo C (2012) Los entierros humanos del arroyo seco 2. In: Politis G, Gutiérrez MA, Scabuzzo C (eds) Estado Actual de la Investigaciones en el sitio Arroyo Seco 2 (Partido de Tres Arroyos, provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina). INCUAPA, Buenos Aires, pp 329–370
Popović D, España VM, Ziółkowski M, Weglenski P, Baca M (2020) Molecular species assignment and dating of putative pre-Columbian dog remains excavated from Bolivia. J Archaeol Sci 31:102273
Prates L (2014) Crossing the boundary between humans and animals: the extinct fox Dusicyon avus from a hunter-gatherer mortuary context in Patagonia (Argentina). Antiquity 88:1201–1212
Prates L, Berón M, Prevosti FJ (2010a) Los perros prehispánicos del Cono Sur. Tendencias y nuevos registros. In: Berón M, Luna L, Bonomo M, Montalvo C, Aranda C, Carrera Aizpitarte M (eds) Mamül Mapu: Pasado y presente desde la Arqueología Pampeana. Buenos Aires, Libros del Espinillo, pp 129–142
Prates L, Prevosti FJ, Berón M (2010b) First records of prehispanic dogs in southern South America (Pampa-Patagonia, Argentina). Curr Anthropol 51:273–280
Prates L, Di Prado V, Mange E, Serna A (2010c) Sitio Loma de los Muertos: Múltiples ocupaciones sobre un médano del este de Norpatagonia (Argentina). Magallania 38:165–181
Prevosti FJ, Forasiepi AM (2018) Evolution of South American Mammalian Predators during the Cenozoic: Paleobiogeographic and Paleoenvironmental Contingencies. Springer Nature, Switzerland
Prevosti FJ, Martin FM (2013) Paleoecology of the mammalian predator guild of Southern Patagonia during the latest Pleistocene: ecomorphology, stable isotopes, and taphonomy. Quat Int 305:74–84
Prevosti F, Soibelzon LH (2012) Evolution of the South American carnivores (Mammalia, Carnivora): a paleontological perspective. In: Patterson BD, Costa LP (eds) Bones, clones, and biomes: the history and geography of recent neotropical mammals. Oxford University Press, Chicago, pp 102–122
Prevosti FJ, Tonni EP, Bidegain JC (2009) Stratigraphic range of the large canids (Carnivora, Canidae) in South America, and its relevance to quaternary biostratigraphy. Quat Int 210:76–81
Prevosti FJ, Santiago F, Prates L, Salemme M (2011) Constraining the time of extinction of the South American fox Dusicyon avus (Carnivora, Canidae) during the late Holocene. Quat Int 245:209–217
Prevosti FJ, Ramírez MA, Schiaffini M, Martin F, Udrizar Sauthier DE, Carrera M, Sillero-Zubiri C, Pardiñas UFJ (2015) Extinctions in near time: new radiocarbon dates point to a very recent disappearance of the South American fox Dusicyon avus (Carnivora: Canidae). Biol J Linn Soc 116:704–720
Rivière P (2006) The Guiana Travels of Robert Schomburgk, 1835–1844: explorations on behalf of the Royal Geographical Society, 1835–1839. Ashgate Publishing Limited, UK
Rodden M, Rodrigues F, Bestelmeyer S (2004) Maned wolf Chrysocyon brachyurus. In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Hoffmann M, Macdonald DW (eds) Canids: foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs: status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN Species Programme, Gland, pp 38–43
Rodríguez Galicia B (2006) El uso diferencial del recurso fáunico en Teopancazco, Teotihuacan, y su importancia en las áreas de actividad. PhD Dissertation, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Roemer GW, Coonan TJ, Munson L, Wayne RK (2004) Island fox Urocyon littoralis. In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Hoffmann M, Macdonald DW (eds) Canids: foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs: status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN Species Programme, Gland, pp 97–105
Sánchez Mosquera AM (1996) Fauna vertebrada del sitio Las Balsas, provincia del Guayas, Ecuador. Bol Arqueol 5:72–92
Sánchez-Villagra MR, Segura V, Geiger M, Heck L, Veitschegger K, Flores D (2017) On the lack of a universal pattern associated with mammalian domestication: differences in skull growth trajectories across phylogeny. Roy Soc Open Sci 4:170876
Sauer CO (1952) Agricultural origins and dispersals. The American Geographical Society, New York
Schwartz M (1997) A history of dogs in the early Americas. Yale University Press, USA
Schwartz CW (2011) Ritual use of canids at prehispanic La Quemada, Zacatecas, México. PhD Dissertation, Arizona State University
Segura V (2014) Ontogenia craneana postnatal en cánidos y félidos neotropicales: funcionalidad y patrones evolutivos. PhD Dissertation, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. https://doi.org/10.35537/10915/34776
Segura V, Cassini GH, Prevosti FJ (2021a) Evolution of the cranial ontogeny in South American Canids (Carnivora: Canidae). Evol Biol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-020-09529-3
Segura V, Geiger M, Monson TA, Flores D, Sánchez Villagra MR (2021b) Biological and cultural history of domesticated dogs in the Americas. Anthropozoologica (In press)
Sillero-Zubiri C (2009) Family canidae. In: Wilson DE, Mittermeier RA (eds) Handbook of the mammals of the world. Lynx Editions, Barcelona, pp 352–447
Silva-Rodríguez E, Farias A, Moreira-Arce D, Cabello J, Hidalgo-Hermoso E, Lucherini, M, Jiménez J (2016) Lycalopex fulvipes. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/41586/107263066. Accessed 6 Aug 2020
Sinding MS, Gopalakrishnan S, Ramos-Madrigal J, De Manuel M, Pitulko VV, Kuderna L, Feuerborn TR, Frantz LAF, Vieira FG, Niemann J, Samaniego Castruita JA, Carøe C, Andersen-Ranberg EU, Jordan PD, Pavlova EY, Nikolskiy PA, Kasparov AK, Ivanova VV, Willerslev E, Skoglund P, Fredholm M, Wennerberg SE, Heide-Jørgensen MP, Dietz R, Sonne C, Meldgaard M, Dalén L, Larson G, Petersen B, Sicheritz-Pontén T, Bachmann L, Wiig Ø, Marques-Bonet T, Hansen AJ, Gilbert MTP (2020) Arctic-adapted dogs emerged at the Pleistocene-Holocene transition. Science 368:1495–1499
Sosa Rodríguez AP (2017) Recuperación y análisis de registros históricos de convivencia de comunidades humanas con el lobo mexicano (Canis lupus baileyi) del Sur-Sureste de México. PhD Dissertation, Universidad de Ciencias y Artes de Chiapas
Stahl PW (1984) Tropical forest cosmology: the cultural context of the early valdivia occupations at loma alta (Ecuador). PhD dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Stahl PW (2008) Animal domestication in South America. In: Silverman H, Isbell WH (eds) The handbook of South American archaeology. Springer, New York, pp 121–130
Stahl PW (2012) Interactions between humans and endemic canids in Holocene South America. J Ethnobiol 32:108–128
Stahl PW (2013) Early dogs and endemic South American canids of the Spanish Main. J Anthropol Res 69:515–533
Stahl PW (2014) Perspectival ontology and animal non-domestication in the Amazon Basin. In: Rostain S (ed) Antes de Orellana: Actas del 3er Encuentro Internacional de Arqueología Amazónica. IFEA, Quito, pp 221–231
Stewart OC (1942) Culture element distributions: XVIII Ute-Southern Paiute. University of California Press, Berkeley
Stother KE (2003) Expression of Ideology in the Formative Period of Ecuador. In: Quilter J (ed) Archaeology of Formative Ecuador. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, pp 337–421
Stothert KE, Sánchez Mosquera AS (2011) Culturas del Pleistoceno final y el Holoceno temprano en el Ecuador. Bol Arqueol PUCP 15:81–119
Sugiyama N (2014) Animals and Sacred Mountains: how ritualized performances materialized state-ideologies at Teotihuacan, Mexico. PhD Dissertation, Harvard University
Sugiyama S, López Luján L (2007) Dedicatory burial/offering complexes at the Moon Pyramid, Teotihuacan: a preliminary report of 1998–2004 explorations. Ancient Mesoam 18:127–146
Sugiyama N, Valadez R, Pérez G, Rodríguez B, Torres F (2013) Animal Management, preparation and sacrifice: reconstructing burial 6 at the Moon Pyramid, Teotihuacan, México. Anthropozoologica 48:467–485
Thuillard M, Le Quellec J, d’Huy J (2018) Computational approaches to myths analysis: application to the cosmic hunt. Nouv Myth Comp 4:1–32
Titiev M (1971) Old Oraibi: a study of the Hopi Indians of third mesa. Kraus Reprint Co, New York
Trejo V, Jackson D (1998) Cánidos patagónicos: identificación taxonómica de mandíbulas y molares del sitio arqueológico Cueva Baño Nuevo-1 (Alto Ñirehuao, XI Región). An Inst Patagon 26:181–194
Trut LN (1999) Early Canid Domestication: The Farm–Fox Experiment: Foxes bred for tamability in a 40-year experiment exhibit remarkable transformations that suggest an interplay between behavioral genetics and development. Am Sci 87:160–169
Trut LN, Plyusnina I, Oskina IN (2004) An experiment on fox domestication and debatable issues of evolution of the dog. Russ J Genet 40:644–655
Uhl EW, Kelderhouse C, Buikstra J, Blick JP, Bolon B, Hogan RJ (2019) New world origin of canine distemper: Interdisciplinary insights. Int J Paleopathol 24:266–278
Valadez R (2014) Un perro de raza desconocida de Hunchavin, Chiapas, México. Antropol Bol 52:1–11
Valadez R (2017) Cánidos del centro de barrio de Teopancazco. In: Manzanilla LR (ed) El uso de los recursos naturales en un centro de barrio de Teotihuacan: Teopancazco. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Coyoacán, pp 131–183
Valadez R, Rodríguez B (2009) Los restos zoológicos de Santa Cruz Atizapán. In: Sugiura Yamamoto Y (ed) La gente de la ciénaga en tiempos antiguos. La historia de San Cruz Atizapán. Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, pp 195–229.
Valadez R, Padilla AB, Galicia BR, Rodríguez FV, Jiménez KO (2001) Una quinta raza de perro prehispánica ouna segunda especie de lobo mexicano? AMMVEPE 12:149–159
Valadez R, Blanco A, Rodríguez B (2008a) El coyote (Canis latrans) dentro del universo mesoamericano. Rev Asoc Mex Med Vet Espec Peq Especies 9–21
Valadez R, Blanco A, Rodríguez B (2008b) El lobo y el mundo prehispánico. Cómo Ves Rev Div Cienc UNAM 117:16–19
Van Asch B, Zhang AB, Oskarsson MCR, Klütsch CFC, Amorim A, Savolainen P (2013) Pre-Columbian origins of native american dog breeds, with only limited replacement by european dogs, confirmed by mtDNA analysis. Proc R Soc B 280:20131142
Varner JG, Varner JJ (1983) Dogs of the conquest. University of Oklahoma Press, USA
Vigne JD (2011) The origins of animal domestication and husbandry: a major change in the history of humanity and the biosphere. C R Biol 334:171–181
Vilà C, Leonard JA (2012) Canid phylogeny and origin of the domestic dog. In: Ruvinsky A, Ostrander E, Sampson J (eds) The genetics of the dog. CABI, Oxfordshire, pp 1–9
Wallace AR (1889) A narrative of travels on the Amazon and the Rio Negro. Ward Lock, , London
Wang X, Tedford RH (2008) Dogs: their fossil relatives and evolutionary history. Columbia University Press, New York
Watts LS (2007) Encyclopedia of American Folklore. Facts on File Library of American Literature, USA
Wayne RK (1986) Limb morphology of domestic and wild canids: The influence of development on morphologic change. J Morphol 187:301–319
Wayne RK (1986) Cranial morphology of domestic and wild canids: the influence of development on morphological change. Evolution 40:243
Wayne RK, Ruff CB (1992) Domestication and bone growth. In: Hall BK (ed) Bone: a treatise. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 105–131
Wayne RK, Nash WG, O’Brien SJ (1987) Chromosomal evolution of the Canidae. Cytogenet Genome Res 44:134–141
West CF, Yeshurun R (2019) Foxes and humans at the Late Holocene Uyak Site, Kodiak, Alaska. Arctic Anthropol 56:39–51
Wilson EO (1990) Biophilia. Harvard University Press, USA
Wing ES (1989) Human use of canids in the central Andes. In: Eisenberg J, Redford K (eds) Advances in neotropical mammalogy. Sandhill Crane Press, Gainesville, pp 265–278
Wylde M (2017) The Inca dogs and their ancestors. PhD Dissertation, University of Florida
Zeder MA (2012) The domestication of animals. J Anthropol Res 68:161–190
Zeder MA (2014) Domestication: definition and overview. In: Smith C (ed) Encyclopedia of global archaeology. Springer Reference, pp 2184–2194
Zuercher GL, Swarner M, Silveira L, Carrillo O (2004) Bush dog Speothos venaticus. In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Hoffmann M, Macdonald DW (eds) Canids: foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs: status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN Species Programme, Gland, pp 76–80
Acknowledgements
We thank David Flores and Francisco Prevosti for the critical revision of this manuscript, Tesla Monson and Madeleine Geiger for discussions on canids in the Americas, Philippe Erikson for sharing bibliography, and Judith Recht for corrections of English language and for useful editorial suggestions. We also thank two anonymous reviewers who provided precise comments that helped us much to considerably improve this article, and Frank Zachos for editorial work. This research was supported by SNF grant 31003A_169395 to M.R.S.–V.
Funding
Financial support was provided by the Swiss National Science Foundation Grant No. 31003A_169395 to MRSV.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
VS and MRSV designed the work, conducted the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data and prepared the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Ethics approval
No ethical approval was required.
Consent to participate
All authors and institutions have approved this participation.
Consent for publication
All authors and institutions have approved this publication.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Handling editor: Frank E. Zachos.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Segura, V., Sánchez-Villagra, M.R. Human-canid relationship in the Americas: an examination of canid biological attributes and domestication. Mamm Biol 101, 387–406 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42991-021-00129-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42991-021-00129-y