Russian Tame Fox Experiment

[ducman69]

Was just at the airport and picked up the latest National Geographic.

In it is a great article with updates on the Russian Tame Fox experiment.

Here is an older video which outlines some of the research and results:
Basically though, since the 1960s, two sets of foxes have been selectively bred ONLY based on their friendliness or aggression to humans.

The friendliest of the friendly were bred in group A.

The meanest of the mean were bred into group B.

The foxes that weren't friendly or mean enough unfortunately were sold back into the fur trade, but they are trying instead to sell the friendlier ones just not making the cut as pets to help continue the funding of this experiment (money is very tight as one can imagine).

What they have found so far is that the friendliest foxes were not only behaving just like dogs actively craving human interaction after just fifty years of breeding, but that they were staring to physically change in appearance from undomesticated foxes and the aggressive fox group B. They were starting to adopt varied color patterns, floppy ears, shorter tails that were held up as other foxes never do and wagged at the sight of humans (again not a fox behavior), atypical vocalizations such as barking, larger litters, with overall smaller body sizes and muscle mass and other measurable changes in brain chemistry.

Over the years they have had some kits (pups) that were from the group A friendliest towards humans raised by a group B mother and visa versa still held the same affinities of their breeding and NOT of their raising, showing that there was clearly something going on at the genetic level of domestication.

This is not only interesting with regard to pets and other domestic animals, but to understanding humans as well, which are the most heavily domesticated creatures on the planet. The hope is this could improve understanding of how socialization has affected our biological development as a species, and at some point perhaps being able to isolate the genes to help identify and perhaps treat those with severe anti-social tendencies from an early age. And at some point, cute foxes bred for utmost friendliness may end up making ideal pets.

 

[xlovey]

I've read just about everything about these guys, it's pretty fascinating. They're actually more domesticated than dogs are. The foxes are kept in cages their entire lives, with very minimal human contact, and yet they're still extremely friendly and crave human attention. You put a dog in this same situation, and you would not have a nice doggy. Unfortunately if you want one, you can't live in the US, they won't sell them to us.

 

[goldenkitty45]

Yes - someone on YA had posted that video on the fox experiment and I found it fasinating to say the least. I passed it on (with a few other videos) to a friend of mine who loves foxes.

He thought it was pretty cool. I love the "friendly" foxes - makes you want to own one

There was another one related to this on a color and tamest thing - where the white color seemed to be increased with the tamer foxes. Not sure what it means but it was interesting too.

 

[ducman69]

On that one they found that the genetic trait for adrenaline was related to melanin production.

So those with a predisposition to reduced adrenaline production, and thus less intense fear based instinctive responses, also had either patches of lighter fur or lighter shades to the point of white all together.

It also answered the question about early dog breeding. When wolves were first being domesticated, or perhaps domesticated themselves by only the most human friendly being able to coexist near humans stress free, why the heck did early people care about luxuries such as what color they were for breeding. But turns out that if all they did was breed based only on the most human friendly, the side effects of barking, floppy ears, and different color coats and patterns were automatic since so much is tied together and creates a rapid cascade of change.

So Darwin was definitely wrong that evolution acts very slowly, as in certain circumstances big changes can happen in the blink of an eye based on just a single selection factor.

BUT, what they also talked about in National Geographic is that only a handful of creatures are capable of this rapid domestication change.

HORSES for example took very quickly, but despite numerous attempts with ZEBRA none have ever been domesticated. They can be TAMED through positive reinforcement during infancy with food and exposure, but the next generation will still fear humans, whereas with tame animals, the next generation has no fear and/or is generally friendly towards people with truly domesticated creatures.

 

[rad65]

That's really interesting, it shows how relatively easy it must have been for humans to domesticate wolves into dogs thousands of years ago. I always wondered how that could have happened given evolution's slow rate of movement.

 

[StefanZ]

Originally Posted by xLovey

it's pretty fascinating. They're actually more domesticated than dogs are. The foxes are kept in cages their entire lives, with very minimal human contact, and yet they're still extremely friendly and crave human attention. You put a dog in this same situation, and you would not have a nice doggy.

Yes indeed.

This cages does have one extra point here. They arent made to make it nice and cosy for these foxes. Unlike cages in the better of cat shelters, for example.
The cages are made solely to make it conventient in cleaning the cages and surroundings.

Thus, a friendly human coming is practically the only possiblility for the foxes for any positive change, for any shadow of pleasure... To take a walk and rest their poor paws.

No wonder they do copy and cooperates.

 

[StefanZ]

That above said, I agree foxes seems to be quite easy to domesticate, perhaps even without breeding programs.

I did read some time ago about a fox farm here in Sweden about 70 years ago. Foxes for fur. HOW the foxes had it there, wasnt written clearly. It is perhaps best not to know. But it is apparently the owners werent of the worst sort.
So for example, they had 4 foxes of a "wrong" colour, practically unsaleable. But they did kept them, had them for fun and showing.
Imagine, a commercial producer keeping several useless animals? No sir, they must be fond in their foxes. Liked them.
They had also at least two tame foxes behaving like pets, being their pets.

One saved motherless common wild fox from the forest. The other one of the caged fur fox.
I presume none of these two ended as fur - they were surely kept as pets and for showing to guests.

 

[xlovey]

Fur farm foxes are genetically very different from wild foxes, probably because fur farmers have been if nothing else accidentally breeding for tameness (it's pretty hard to breed something if it's trying to rip your face off). The domesticated foxes actually aren't very different generically from fur farm foxes, it's just that the genes that are different make a huge difference. In the particular case that you're talking about, the foxes could have been more tame than usual, I don't know, but typically fur farm foxes are far from domesticated. However, some people do keep foxes that are just a few generations removed from fur farms, they just have to put forth a lot of effort to tame them.

In regards to Darwin being wrong, there's actually a more widely accepted theory nowadays that says something along the lines of a species will go through periods of not evolving at all, it's only when something changes and the species must evolve or face extinction that they go through a periods of rapid evolution. I'm no genetics expert, this is just what I've heard, and this experiment makes a good case for it.

 

[arlyn]

Actually, there is a US distributor of domestic Siberian foxes from the Institute of Cytology and Genetics in Russia, and you can also buy them directly from the institute.
They are beautiful animals.

 

[mrblanche]

Originally Posted by rad65

That's really interesting, it shows how relatively easy it must have been for humans to domesticate wolves into dogs thousands of years ago. I always wondered how that could have happened given evolution's slow rate of movement.

Just a minor point.

There is no "evolution" involved in the domestic dog or the domestic cat. The domestic dog is still genetically a wolf, and the domestic cat is still genetically the little African wildcat, as another National Geographic project showed. They both have been bred for characteristics that are favorable to us, but they both can still interbreed with their root stock, which shows them to be the same species still.

Evolution involves the drift from one species to another species that is genetically different and unable to return to the root stock. There is, of course, arguments that such a drift can never be proven, since it takes place over such an immense length of time.

As an example, both the wolf and the fox are evolved from the same root stock, but are no longer capable of interbreeding.

 

[rad65]

Originally Posted by mrblanche

Just a minor point.

There is no "evolution" involved in the domestic dog or the domestic cat. The domestic dog is still genetically a wolf, and the domestic cat is still genetically the little African wildcat, as another National Geographic project showed. They both have been bred for characteristics that are favorable to us, but they both can still interbreed with their root stock, which shows them to be the same species still.

Evolution involves the drift from one species to another species that is genetically different and unable to return to the root stock. There is, of course, arguments that such a drift can never be proven, since it takes place over such an immense length of time.

As an example, both the wolf and the fox are evolved from the same root stock, but are no longer capable of interbreeding.

I know domestication isn't evolution. I was merely stating that given evolution as a yardstick for the amount of time it takes a species to change, domestication of dogs happened very quickly since many of the more wolf-ish traits are strongly instinctual and non-desirable in domesticated dogs. I was saying breeding those out of wolves took less time than I thought.

 

[xlovey]

Originally Posted by Arlyn

Actually, there is a US distributor of domestic Siberian foxes from the Institute of Cytology and Genetics in Russia, and you can also buy them directly from the institute.
They are beautiful animals.

As far as anybody can tell Sibfox, the distributor, has never sold a fox to anybody. Plus there are several things about them that are extremely suspicious, e.g. a faulty contract, their address being a mail-forwarding service (therefore if you send them your money and it turns out to be a scam, you'll never be able to find them). I don't think the institute will sell directly to the US. They may have a contract with Sibfox, plus they don't think Americans care for our pets properly.... However, they could have changed their mind since then.

 

[mrblanche]

Originally Posted by rad65

I know domestication isn't evolution. I was merely stating that given evolution as a yardstick for the amount of time it takes a species to change, domestication of dogs happened very quickly since many of the more wolf-ish traits are strongly instinctual and non-desirable in domesticated dogs. I was saying breeding those out of wolves took less time than I thought.

This is true. In addition, the domestic cat "domesticated" itself pretty quickly, as far as anyone can tell. Again, it was probably breeding amongst those cats most amenable to human contact.

The various species of birds on Hawaii or other animals on other islands can give us some idea of actual evolution, but even that is an iffy example. If evolution exists (and all the logical evidence indicates it does), it moves so slowly that we have never seen it in the span of time man has been on earth, capable of noting it.

 

[ducman69]

It depends on how you define evolution IMO, and whether you acknowledge subsets like macro and microevolution.

From what I understand, macroevolution is simply looking at microevolution over an extended timescale, and we know microevolution can be reproduced and observed and by extension sufficient genetic drift would eventually produce infertile hybrids between branches and eventually become incompatible. And even if a species didn't branch, I think most would agree that evolving into new forms would count even with no living ancestors to compare to. Otherwise, how else would you coin that? *shrugs*

 

[ducman69]

Originally Posted by rad65

I know domestication isn't evolution. I was merely stating that given evolution as a yardstick for the amount of time it takes a species to change, domestication of dogs happened very quickly since many of the more wolf-ish traits are strongly instinctual and non-desirable in domesticated dogs. I was saying breeding those out of wolves took less time than I thought.

Exactly, and that was the point the researchers were making is that they found that a single simple selection factor can produce a cascade of genetic changes in an animal as the genes are interlinked.

From what I understand, before this it was thought that changes would occur only in isolation, so coats and ears and size wouldn't all change merely based on unrelated favorable mutations such as selecting for docility.

In any case, I really want a friendly fox as a pet now....

 

[goldenkitty45]

I'd rather call it "adaptation" - because the basic animal doesn't "evolve" into another animal.

 

[ducman69]

Originally Posted by GoldenKitty45

I'd rather call it "adaptation" - because the basic animal doesn't "evolve" into another animal.

What happens though when there are millions upon millions of small adaptations that are different between two branches of a species that are separated by niches that each pursue (say one highland mountains, and another the valley hunting different prey)?

A gray wolf and a chihuahua wouldn't fit the same niche for example, and eventually isn't it possible they'd become different enough that cross breeding would be exceedingly rare (lol, imagine a male gray wolf trying to woo the taco bell dog), offspring would become infertile, and eventually not viable at all with sufficient genetic drift?

After all, we're talking about not just a few adaptations over a few hundred years, but all the adaptations adding up over millions, with some changes likely occurring in "spurts" such as with the fox experiment.

 

[goldenkitty45]

If you do DNA they really are not different - just in the looks. IMO its hard to believe how one "dog" was changed to others, but in reality all dogs can be bred to each other no matter what the size. Of course that would kill some dogs, but genetically its possible.

Therefore its not evoluation - its just a matter of changing the size and looks over the years till you get what you have today.

 

[EnzoLeya]

Oh my gosh that is just crazy. I have been trying to keep up with that experiment, but haven't heard about the latest info you put on here. I cannot believe they are changing in physical appearance. That is insane! Thanks for sharing that!

 

[destiny4u]

caging a fox or any wild animal is sick and cruel even caging a domestic pet perm is horrible thign to do.


there is reasons why foxes are not common pets try to foster some for a release program and u will find out they are very very hard to keep in the house for many reasons. I have personal experience with a lot of wildlife as a friend worked in wildlife rhab and nothing comes close to being pets like our cats and dogs.