Abstract
Domestication has been defined by Rattner and Boice (1975) as the removal of organisms from some natural selective pressures over generations. However this definition is not entirely satisfactory for it could as easily apply to certain zoo animals as to animals that are conventionally considered to be domesticated. The latter fulfil a variety of functions for man and it is the conscious genetic selection for adaptation to these functions that today largely distinguishes domestic animals from the inmates of a modern zoo, which are also being protected from some pressures of natural selection that would operate in their natural habitats. Additionally most domestic animals are more docile than most zoo animals. However domestication must be distinguished from tameness, which is defined as the elimination of the tendency to flee in the presence of man. Tameness may be learnt through early association with man, e.g. imprinting of young animals on to man, or it might occur through lack of contact with man. Several species of animals on the Galapagos Islands do not flee from man, probably due to the fact that they have not been hunted. Furthermore, domestication can involve many different sorts of relationships with man, from the intimate relationship between a pet dog and its owner to the loose association found, say, on an ostrich farm or extensive sheep farm. In either event the species concerned is able to fulfil the goal desired by the owner and to breed successfully in the environment supplied by man. In some cases reproductive success is now completely dependent on man’s intervention, as in the case of the bulldog, the non-broody strains of fowl, and some broad breasted strains of turkeys in which the males are unable to copulate successfully.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Further Reading
Experimental studies on the process of domestication (additional to those mentioned in the text).
Boice, R. (1977), Burrows of wild and albino rats: Effects of domestication, out-door raising, age, experience and maternal state, J. Camp. Physiol. Psychol., 91, 649–661.
Connor, J.L. (1975), Genetic mechanisms controlling the domestication of a wild house mouse population (Mus. Musculus L.) J. Camp. Physiol. Psychol., 89, 118–130.
Fox, M.W. (1976), Effects of domestication on prey catching and killing in beagles, coyotes and F2 hybrids, App. Anim. Ethol., 2, 123–140.
Leopold, A.S. (1944), The nature of heritable wildness in Turkeys, Candor, 46, 133–197.
Vines, G. (1981), Wolves in dog’s clothing, New Scientist, 91, 648–652.
Domestic and feral populations in the wild.
Hall, S.J.G. (1979), Studying the Chillingham wild cattle, Ark, 6, 72–79.
McBride, G., Parer, I.P. and Foenander, F. (1969), The social organisation of feral domestic fowl, Anim. Behav. Monogr., 2, 125–181.
Wood-Gush, D.G.M., Duncan, I.J.H. and Savory, C.J. (1978), Observations on the social behaviour of domestic fowl in the wild, Biol. Behav., 3, 193–205.
Feist, J.D. and McCullough, D.R. (1975), Reproduction in feral horses, J. Reprod. Fert. Suppl., 23, 13–18.
Feist, J.D. and McCullough, D.R. (1976), Behaviour patterns and communication in feral horses, Z. Tierpsychol., 41, 337–371.
Tyler, S.J. (1972), The behaviour and social organisation of the New Forest Ponies, Anim. Behav. Monogr., 5, 85–196.
Grubb, P. and Jewell, P.A. (1966), Social grouping and home range in Feral Soay sheep, Symp. Zool. Soc. Land., 18, 179–210.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1983 D.G.M. Wood-Gush
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wood-Gush, D.G.M. (1983). Domestication. In: Elements of Ethology. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5931-6_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5931-6_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-0-412-23170-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-5931-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive