3/11/2005: Domesticated foxes

Undertoad · 03-11-2005, 11:09 AM

In 1959 a Russian scientist set out to create what you're seeing today - and the results may help understand how human intelligence operates.

These ARE foxes - bred specifically for certain traits.

Both Belyaeve and Trut selected foxes for one criterion only – tameness, which was evaluated by the foxes' reactions to their human keepers. If they were vicious, they didn't join the experimental population. If they showed slight fear and friendliness, they did. To ensure that their tameness resulted from genetic selections, the scientists didn't train the foxes and their contact with humans was limited to brief, behavioural tests.

Now, 40 years and 45,000 foxes later, Trut has a unique population of 100 foxes that are docile and eager to please. They snarl fiercely at each other for the attention of their human handler. Each of them is a product of between 30 and 35 generations of selection.

The specially domesticated foxes are not only socially adept, adds Hare, they are regular charmers. "They behave like dogs," he says. "They whine and bark, they wag their tails, they pee for joy, and they just want to cuddle with you."

But don't expect fox kits to be appearing in pet stores any time soon. The foxes have a pungent musk and love to dig and hide food, says Hare. "They would bury your food in your sofa and you would only find it three months later."

The interesting side-effect, the one they didn't count on, was that the domesticated foxes became smarter and more able to "read" humans. Dogs are thought to be smarter than wild wolves because they can interpret human signals such as pointing. But the domesticated foxes are becoming "smart" too:

Researchers put puppies and fox kits through a series of experiments where the animals had to find hidden food, with a human researcher's gestures as the only clue to its location.

Both the puppies and the foxes bred for tameness found the food with about the same level of success. Both did significantly better than foxes bred at the same facility that hadn't been selected for tameness.

The results surprised Brian Hare, the study's lead author, who conducted the research while a Harvard doctoral student.

"I did not think the experimentally domesticated foxes would perform as well as dogs," Hare said. "In fact, I thought that in their failure, it would prove that dogs possessed their unusual ability to use social cues not because they are domesticated, but because this ability was under direct selection. ... Smarter dogs survived better [with humans] and passed on their 'smart genes' to the next generation."

The notion is that we didn't get smart because of 100% natural selection; we became smart because we found a distinct advantage to becoming SOCIAL.

This is a nasty finding for hermits like me!

LabRat · 03-11-2005, 11:43 AM

A-dorable!! and an interesting story, too...

Beestie · 03-11-2005, 11:45 AM

I want one.

Trilby · 03-11-2005, 12:03 PM

Well, Ted Kaczinsky was smart...but he sure wasn't social!

Cute little foxies!

lookout123 · 03-11-2005, 12:21 PM

Ted Kaczinsky, Ted Kaczinsky... was his middle initial "W"? and does he regularly post in The Cellar?

Kitsune · 03-11-2005, 12:51 PM

Ah, poor foxes. I'm torn on this one: while I would love to have one, they're something I would prefer to see in the wild. It doesn't seem right to prevent something that beautiful and intelligent from running free.

But, as my nickname suggests, I can't resist them. Sigh.

Buckethead · 03-11-2005, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Ah, poor foxes. I'm torn on this one: while I would love to have one, they're something I would prefer to see in the wild. It doesn't seem right to prevent something that beautiful and intelligent from running free.

I suspect that these cuddly, nice, selectively bred foxes wouldn't last too long in the wild. Have you ever actually seen a fox in the wild? They seem to have a knack for avoiding being seen by humans, or at least by me. I've seen a total of one in my lifetime.

jinx · 03-11-2005, 01:17 PM

Where are you from, I've seen a bunch. Saw one a couple of months ago (in a pumpkin patch) with both of my kids with me.

Kitsune · 03-11-2005, 01:21 PM

Have you ever actually seen a fox in the wild?

The really depressing part is that I haven't. I've certainly heard them, before, but I've yet to actually see one. Elusive little fuzzballs.

As for survival in the wild, I suspect they would probably do just as well as any domesticated dog or cat does when released, if not a bit better. I'd prefer that foxes maintained their fear of humans because, well, they're extremely cool for the intelligence they hold in evading people, sneaking about, and generally being, well, foxy.

Suggesting that no longer fearing humans has increased their social intelligence goes against what I see to be a fox's true smarts. They're social animals in the wild with each other already -- befriending people would be more harmful to them than good should the trait ever escape beyond the confines of the lab and actually survive.

dar512 · 03-11-2005, 01:28 PM

What surprises me is how little time this took. Not that I have any expertise in this area, but I would have expected something more along the lines of an evolutionary timeline.

They don't say how many generations of selection they went through. But over 40 years it'd be ~20 or 30.

So how long before the marines breed an army of ape soldiers?

sandra77 · 03-11-2005, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckethead

I suspect that these cuddly, nice, selectively bred foxes wouldn't last too long in the wild. Have you ever actually seen a fox in the wild? They seem to have a knack for avoiding being seen by humans, or at least by me. I've seen a total of one in my lifetime.

I agree. I don't think they would last long either. They haven't been bred for surviving in the wild.

I have seen several foxes in the wild. We have a field behind our house & have watched a fox out there this winter. I was just watching him come across the field this morning.

Several years ago, a fox had a den with kits that we could watch from the road. They were really cute.

With all that said, I want one too but I think I would rather have a red one.

Sandra

Kitsune · 03-11-2005, 02:59 PM

With all that said, I want one too but I think I would rather have a red one.

They should have plenty of reds. The ones shown, silver foxes, are just a color/pattern variant of a red. I bet they would look kind of strange with the new, white markings, though.

xant · 03-11-2005, 04:11 PM

Respectfully, Kitsune, I think you're missing the point here. For all of UT's declaration that these ARE foxes I think that they truly are not. This is a new thing, just as dogs are not wolves. Wolves still exist, and are still in the wild. Dogs are just not part of that niche any more. So I think it will go with these foxes. They may continue to be called foxes, but they are really Vulpes domesticus now.

FWIW, I love wild foxes too, and have seen a small handful. Best was when I lived in Dublin, CA in a secluded townhouse complex surrounded by lots of trees, and with very few lights around the residences. Went out for a walk one night with my girlfriend and her daughter. We sat on a wall and watched deer come out of the woods and eat, and then walked around until we saw..just for a second..a fox climbing along a wall near the townhouses.

Scared the crap out of the girls. :-)

Beestie · 03-11-2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Have you ever actually seen a fox in the wild?

Saw one in the back yard a few months ago. A red one. Gorgeous animals.

hampor · 03-11-2005, 04:32 PM

The article it said that there had been 30-35 generations of foxes.

And 45,000 foxes. I'm afraid to think about what happened to all of them.

Also, how big was the population that they started with.

Wasn't Stalin really down on evolution?

03-11-2005, 11:09 AM	#1
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	3/11/2005: Domesticated foxes In 1959 a Russian scientist set out to create what you're seeing today - and the results may help understand how human intelligence operates. These ARE foxes - bred specifically for certain traits. Both Belyaeve and Trut selected foxes for one criterion only – tameness, which was evaluated by the foxes' reactions to their human keepers. If they were vicious, they didn't join the experimental population. If they showed slight fear and friendliness, they did. To ensure that their tameness resulted from genetic selections, the scientists didn't train the foxes and their contact with humans was limited to brief, behavioural tests. Now, 40 years and 45,000 foxes later, Trut has a unique population of 100 foxes that are docile and eager to please. They snarl fiercely at each other for the attention of their human handler. Each of them is a product of between 30 and 35 generations of selection. The specially domesticated foxes are not only socially adept, adds Hare, they are regular charmers. "They behave like dogs," he says. "They whine and bark, they wag their tails, they pee for joy, and they just want to cuddle with you." But don't expect fox kits to be appearing in pet stores any time soon. The foxes have a pungent musk and love to dig and hide food, says Hare. "They would bury your food in your sofa and you would only find it three months later." The interesting side-effect, the one they didn't count on, was that the domesticated foxes became smarter and more able to "read" humans. Dogs are thought to be smarter than wild wolves because they can interpret human signals such as pointing. But the domesticated foxes are becoming "smart" too: Researchers put puppies and fox kits through a series of experiments where the animals had to find hidden food, with a human researcher's gestures as the only clue to its location. Both the puppies and the foxes bred for tameness found the food with about the same level of success. Both did significantly better than foxes bred at the same facility that hadn't been selected for tameness. The results surprised Brian Hare, the study's lead author, who conducted the research while a Harvard doctoral student. "I did not think the experimentally domesticated foxes would perform as well as dogs," Hare said. "In fact, I thought that in their failure, it would prove that dogs possessed their unusual ability to use social cues not because they are domesticated, but because this ability was under direct selection. ... Smarter dogs survived better [with humans] and passed on their 'smart genes' to the next generation." The notion is that we didn't get smart because of 100% natural selection; we became smart because we found a distinct advantage to becoming SOCIAL. This is a nasty finding for hermits like me!

03-11-2005, 11:43 AM	#2
LabRat twatfaced two legged bumhole Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,143	A-dorable!! and an interesting story, too... __________________ Strength does not come from how much weight you can lift, or how many miles you can run. It comes from knowing that you set a goal, and rose to the challenge. Strength comes from within.

03-11-2005, 11:45 AM	#3
Beestie -◊\|≡·∙■·∙≡\|◊- Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Parts unknown. Posts: 4,081	I want one. __________________ ♠ ♥ ♣ ♦

03-11-2005, 12:03 PM	#4
Trilby Slattern of the Swail Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 15,654	Well, Ted Kaczinsky was smart...but he sure wasn't social! Cute little foxies! __________________ In Barrie's play and novel, the roles of fairies are brief: they are allies to the Lost Boys, the source of fairy dust and ...They are portrayed as dangerous, whimsical and extremely clever but quite hedonistic. "Shall I give you a kiss?" Peter asked and, jerking an acorn button off his coat, solemnly presented it to her. —James Barrie Wimminfolk they be tricksy. - ZenGum

03-11-2005, 12:21 PM	#5
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	Ted Kaczinsky, Ted Kaczinsky... was his middle initial "W"? and does he regularly post in The Cellar? __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

03-11-2005, 12:51 PM	#6
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	Ah, poor foxes. I'm torn on this one: while I would love to have one, they're something I would prefer to see in the wild. It doesn't seem right to prevent something that beautiful and intelligent from running free. But, as my nickname suggests, I can't resist them. Sigh.

03-11-2005, 01:17 PM	#8
jinx Come on, cat. Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: general vicinity of Philadelphia area Posts: 7,013	Where are you from, I've seen a bunch. Saw one a couple of months ago (in a pumpkin patch) with both of my kids with me. __________________ Crying won't help you, praying won't do you no good.

03-11-2005, 01:21 PM	#9
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	Have you ever actually seen a fox in the wild? The really depressing part is that I haven't. I've certainly heard them, before, but I've yet to actually see one. Elusive little fuzzballs. As for survival in the wild, I suspect they would probably do just as well as any domesticated dog or cat does when released, if not a bit better. I'd prefer that foxes maintained their fear of humans because, well, they're extremely cool for the intelligence they hold in evading people, sneaking about, and generally being, well, foxy. Suggesting that no longer fearing humans has increased their social intelligence goes against what I see to be a fox's true smarts. They're social animals in the wild with each other already -- befriending people would be more harmful to them than good should the trait ever escape beyond the confines of the lab and actually survive.

03-11-2005, 01:28 PM	#10
dar512 dar512 is now Pete Zicato Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago suburb Posts: 4,968	What surprises me is how little time this took. Not that I have any expertise in this area, but I would have expected something more along the lines of an evolutionary timeline. They don't say how many generations of selection they went through. But over 40 years it'd be ~20 or 30. So how long before the marines breed an army of ape soldiers? __________________ "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." -- Friedrich Schiller

03-11-2005, 02:59 PM	#12
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	With all that said, I want one too but I think I would rather have a red one. They should have plenty of reds. The ones shown, silver foxes, are just a color/pattern variant of a red. I bet they would look kind of strange with the new, white markings, though.

03-11-2005, 04:11 PM	#13
xant Belt Conveyor Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 65	Respectfully, Kitsune, I think you're missing the point here. For all of UT's declaration that these ARE foxes I think that they truly are not. This is a new thing, just as dogs are not wolves. Wolves still exist, and are still in the wild. Dogs are just not part of that niche any more. So I think it will go with these foxes. They may continue to be called foxes, but they are really Vulpes domesticus now. FWIW, I love wild foxes too, and have seen a small handful. Best was when I lived in Dublin, CA in a secluded townhouse complex surrounded by lots of trees, and with very few lights around the residences. Went out for a walk one night with my girlfriend and her daughter. We sat on a wall and watched deer come out of the woods and eat, and then walked around until we saw..just for a second..a fox climbing along a wall near the townhouses. Scared the crap out of the girls. :-) Last edited by xant; 03-11-2005 at 04:14 PM.

03-11-2005, 04:32 PM	#15
hampor Colloquialist Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: SiliValley Posts: 75	Generation XXXV The article it said that there had been 30-35 generations of foxes. And 45,000 foxes. I'm afraid to think about what happened to all of them. Also, how big was the population that they started with. Wasn't Stalin really down on evolution?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)