Of dogs, wolves, and debate: A reply to Janssens et al. (2021)

Abstract

Canids from the Upper Paleolithic site of Předmostí are central to debates concerning the domestication of dogs as two morphotypes were identified: Pleistocene wolf and Paleolithic dog (Germonpré et al., 2015a). In Prassack et al. (2020), we set out to determine whether specimens previously parsed into these two groups differed significantly in dental microwear textures, a proxy for diet. We did not assume that one group was comprised of dogs, but hypothesized that if they were, they would likely have consumed more bone, leading to microwear surface textures dominated by pitting. We indeed found significantly higher scales of maximum complexity on second lower molar crushing surfaces of the sample identified as Paleolithic dogs by Germonpré et al. (2015a), consistent with larger pits on average and more bone consumption. These results suggest that the two morphotypes identified by Germonpré et al. (2015a) represent ecologically distinct populations. This is in accord with the interpretation of domestication, but, as we noted, the groups could also represent two distinct wild canid populations with differing diets. Janssens et al. (2021) recently criticized our study, questioning our methods of analysis and claiming bias in our interpretation of results. We reply to their issues here, focusing only on those relevant to Prassack et al. (2020).