Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Bony labyrinth shape differs distinctively between modern wolves and dogs

Abstract

Additional reliable anatomical markers are needed for differentiating archaeological wolves and dogs, to support clarifying the origin(s) of dogs. Candidate structures should have good potential to survive various taphonomic conditions. The petrous bone is one potential differentiating structure, and could be further useful when aDNA cannot be extracted otherwise. The petrous bone houses the bony labyrinth (semicircular canals, vestibule, and cochlea). Across a number of taxa, its intricate shape has been shown to carry indicator taxonomic information, supporting clear distinctions between and among mammalian groups. In this report, we explore the three-dimensional shape of the bony labyrinth of wolves and dogs, using micro-computed tomography and 3D geometric morphometrics. We examined 20 modern Eurasian wolves and 20 modern mesaticephalic dogs with comparable skull lengths. We show that dogs have on average a significantly smaller bony labyrinth than wolves. In shape space, wolves and dogs form significantly different, non-overlapping clusters with dogs having a larger relative size of the lateral semicircular canal, smaller relative size of the vertical canals and oval window, and shorter relative cochlea streamline length, with a more antero-ventrally tilted modiolus. These shape differences are not related to allometric effects. Results of this study warrant examination of preserved archaeological and paleo-ontological petrous bones from the oldest possible dogs and isopatric wolves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Aggarwal R, Kivisild T, Ramadevi J, Singh L (2007) Mitochondrial DNA coding region sequences support the phylogenetic distinction of two Indian wolf species. J Zool Sys Evol Res 45:163–172

  2. Alloing-Séguier L et al (2013) The bony labyrinth in diprotodontian marsupial mammals: diversity in extant and extinct forms and relationships with size and phylogeny. J Mamm Evol 20:191–198

  3. Ameen C et al (2017) A landmark-based approach for assessing the reliability of mandibular tooth crowding as a marker of dog domestication. J Archaeol Sci 85:41–50

  4. Arbuckle BS (2002) Experimental animal domestication and its application to the study of animal exploitation in prehistory. In: Vigne J-D (ed) International conference of archaeozoology. Oxbow books, Durham, pp 18–33

  5. Belyaev DK, Plyusnina IZ, Trut LN (1985) Domestication in the silver fox (Vulpes Fulvus Desm): Changes in physiological boundaries of the sensitive period of primary socialization. Appl Anim Behav Sci 13:359–370

  6. Boitani L, Ciucci P (1995) Comparative social ecology of feral dogs and wolves. Ethol Ecol Evol 7:49–72

  7. Bookstein F (1997) Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  8. Costeur L et al (2017) Prenatal growth stages show the development of the ruminant bony labyrinth and petrosal bone. J Anat 230:347–353

  9. David R et al (2016) Assessing morphology and function of the semicircular duct system: introducing new in situ visualization and software toolbox. Sci Rep 6:32772

  10. de León MS et al (2018) Human bony labyrinth is an indicator of population history and dispersal from Africa. PNAS 115:4128–4133

  11. Drake A, Klingenberg C (2010) Large-scale diversification of skull shape in domestic dogs: disparity and modularity. Am Nat 175:289–301

  12. Drake A, Coquerelle M, Colombeau G (2015) 3D morphometric analysis of fossil canid skulls contradicts the suggested domestication of dogs during the late Paleolithic. Sci Rep 5:8299

  13. Drake A et al (2017) Three-dimensional geometric morphometric analysis of fossil canid mandibles and skulls. Sci Rep 7:9508

  14. Geiger M, Haussman S (2016) Cranial suture closure in domestic dog breeds and its relationships to skull morphology. Anat Rec 299:412–420

  15. Geiger M et al (2017) Neomorphosis and heterochrony of skull shape in dog domestication. Sci Rep 7:13443

  16. Good P (2013) Permutation tests: a practical guide to resampling methods for testing hypotheses. Springer, New York

  17. Gunz P, Mitteroecker P (2013) Semilandmarks: a method for quantifying curves and surfaces. Ital J Mamm 24:103–109

  18. Gunz P, Mitteroecker P, Bookstein FL (2005) Semilandmarks in three dimensions. Modern morphometrics in physical anthropology. Springer, New York, pp 73–98

  19. Gunz P et al (2012) The mammalian bony labyrinth reconsidered, introducing a comprehensive geometric morphometric approach. J Anat 220:529–543

  20. Gunz P et al (2013) Morphological integration of the bony labyrinth and the cranial base in modern humans and Neandertals. PESHE 2:104

  21. Hemmer H (1973) Zur Abstammung des Haushundes und zur Veränderun der relativen Hirngrösse bei der Domestikation. In: Zoologische Beitragen, vol 21, pp 97–104

  22. Hemmer H (2005) Neumuhle-Riswicker Hirsche-Erste planmassige Zucht einer neuen Nutztierform. Naturwissenschaftliche Rundschau 58:255–261

  23. Janssens L, Miller R, Van Dongen S (2016a) The morphology of the mandibular coronoid process does not indicate that Canis lupus chanco is the progenitor to dogs. Zoomorphology 135:269–277

  24. Janssens L, Spanoghe I, Miller R, Van Dongen S (2016b) Can orbital angle morphology distinguish dogs from wolves? Zoomorphology 131:149–158

  25. Janssens L, Verhaert L, Berkowic D, Adriaens D (2016c) A standardized framework for examination of oral lesions applied to a series of Middle)East wolf skulls (Carnivora: Canidae: Canis lupus). J Mamm 97:1111–1124

  26. Janssens L et al (2019) An evaluation of classical morphologic and morphometric parameters reported to distinguish wolves and dogs. J Arch Sci Rep 23:501–533

  27. Jeffery N, Spoor F (2004) Prenatal growth and development of the modern human labyrinth. J Anat 204:71–92

  28. Kruska D (1986) How fast can total brain size change in mammals? J Hirnforsch 28:59–70

  29. Kruska D (1988a) Effects of domestication on brain structure and behavior in mammals. Human Evol 3:473–485

  30. Kruska D (1988b) Mammalian domestication and its effect on brain structure and behavior. Intelligence and evolutionary biology. Springer, New York, pp 211–250

  31. Lam Y, Chen X, Pearson O (1999) Intertaxonomic variability in patterns of bone density and the differential representation of bovid, cervid, and equid elements in the archaeological record. Am Antiq 64:343–362

  32. Lam Y, Pearson O, Marean CW, Chen XJ (2003) Bone density studies in zooarchaeology. J Archaeol Sci 30:1701–1708

  33. Lebrun R, De León M, Tafforeau P, Zollikofer C (2010) Deep evolutionary roots of strepsirrhine primate labyrinthine morphology. J Anat 216:368–380

  34. Lüpz P (1974) Biometrische Untersuchungen an den Schädelbasis des Haushundes. Zool Anzeitungen 192:383–413

  35. Lyman R (1984) Bone density and differential survivorship of fossil classes. J Anthropol Archaeol 3(4):259–299

  36. Manoussaki D et al (2008) The influence of cochlear shape on low-frequency hearing. PNAS 105:6162–6166

  37. Masschaele B et al (2013) A 240 kV micro-CT setup optimized for research. J Phys Conf Ser 463:012012 (IOP Publishing)

  38. Mitteroecker P, Gunz P (2009) Advances in geometric morphometrics. Evol Biol 36:235–247

  39. Nummela S (1995) Scaling of the mammalian middle ear. Hear Res 85:18–30

  40. Perier A, Lebrun R, Marivaux L (2016) Different level of intraspecific variation of the bony labyrinth morphology in slow-versus fast-moving primates. J Mamm Evol 23:353–368

  41. Pietsch M et al (2017) Spiral form of the human cochlea results from spatial constraints. Sci Rep 7(1):7500

  42. Rohlf F (1990) Morphometrics. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 21:299–316

  43. Rohlf F, Marcus LF (1993) A revolution morphometrics. Trens Ecol Evol 8:129–132

  44. Schweizer A et al (2017) Size variation under domestication: conservatism in the inner ear shape of wolves, dogs and dingoes. Sci Rep 7:13330

  45. Scott J (1950) The social behavior of dogs and wolves: an illustration of sociobiological systematics. Ann N Y Acad Sci 51:1009–1021

  46. Slatter D (2003) Textbook od small animal surgery. Saunders, Philadelphia

  47. Spoor F, Zonneveld F (1998) Comparative review of the human bony labyrinth. Am J Phys Anthropol 107:211–251

  48. Spoor F et al (2007) The primate semicircular canal system and locomotion. PNAS 104:10808–10812

  49. Thalmann O et al (2013) Complete mitochondrial genomes of ancient canids suggest a European origin of domestic dogs. Science 342:871–874

  50. Trut L, Oskina I, Kharlamova A (2009) Animal evolution during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model. BioEssays 31:349–360

  51. Von den Driesch A (1976) A guide to the measurement of animal bones from archaeological sites: as developed by the: Institüt fur Palaeoanatomy, Domestikanzionsforschung und Geschichte der Tiermedizin, University Munich. Cambridge Peabody Museum Press, Cambridge

  52. Wayne R, Vilà C (2001) Phylogeny and origin of the domestic dog. Genet Dog 1:13–21

  53. Zeder M (2012) The domestication of animals. J Anthropol Res 68:161–190

  54. Zeder MA, Emshwiller E, Smith BD, Bradley DG (2006) Documenting domestication: the intersection of genetics and archaeology. Trends Genet 22:139–155

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Manu Dierickx from Ghent University for helping with the making of CT scans in dogs. Several dog skulls were provided by Museos, a private osteology museum owned by Luc Tyteca, and The University of Ghent, Faculty of veterinary medicine, Department of anatomy, under supervision of Paul Simons, both are thanked for allowing us to scan their collections. Christiane Funk and Frieder Mayer from the Naturkundemuseum Berlin are thanked for access to wolves. Many thanks go also to Heiko Temming and David Plotzki for help with CT scanning. Dominique Adriaens is thanked for helping with genetics. Dennis Lawler is thanked explicitly for linguistic assistance. The reviewers and editor are thanked for accepting this article and their helpful suggestions.

Funding

The study was funded by the Max Planck Institute, no specific grant number.

Author information

Correspondence to L. A. Janssens or A. Stoessel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest for any of the authors.

Ethical approval

No animals were involved, skulls were from existing collections. No humans were involved.

Human and animal rights statement

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals, performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Janssens, L.A., Gunz, P., Stenger, T.E. et al. Bony labyrinth shape differs distinctively between modern wolves and dogs. Zoomorphology 138, 409–417 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00435-019-00445-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Inner ear
  • Cochlea
  • Semicircular canals
  • Geometric morphometrics
  • Wolf
  • Dog
  • Domestication