Anybody have a clue what "domesticated" actually means?

[polonga]

Hi everyone. This is my first post on this site.

Does anyone know the exact meaning of "domesticated" in the context of animal breeding?

I've been wondering this for a while, having encountered a number of sources claiming, or seeming to imply, that the Ball Python (and in some cases _Morelia viridis_ (the Green Tree Python) and other snake species) have been bred in captivity to such an extent that they have become almost domesticated (or "semi-domesticated," or something to that effect). The sources all seemed to assume the reader was already familiar with the definition of "domesticated," though, which invariably led me to some confusion. (Some of theses sources were clearly more — or less — reliable than others.) One particular subject of my uncertainty is whether breeding for traits such as funky colour morphs, dwarfism/gigantism, etc. (which seems to be the chief, indeed perhaps only, purpose of captive breeding among pythons and boas) really counts as "domestication." There seems to be little emphasis on breeding pythons for intelligence, increased toleration of humans, etc.

Examples of animals that are widely accepted as domesticated include dogs, cats, horses, camels, sheep, goats, mules, sheep, cattle, and pigs. The popularity of keeping wild animals (including snakes and lizards) as pets is probably too recent a phenomenon for captive breeding to have produced truly domesticated forms yet, although it is possible that the "DNA revolution" and resulting advances in genetic engineering may have sped up the process considerably. OTOH, the extensive black markets in wild-caught exotic animals, including snakes, may prevent captive breeding from having as much of an effect on pet and other captive populations as it might otherwise.

The earliest known domesticated animal, dating to prehistoric times, is the dog, probably originally bred (primarily, anyhow) from the Eurasian Grey Wolf. Dogs were most likely first bred for the purpose of helping hunter-gatherer humans in their efforts at hunting: they were first domesticated c. 15,000 years ago or more, so the earliest breeders of dogs would have been hunter-gatherers, not yet having developed agriculture (which led to the breeding of livestock animals).

It is true that reptiles and other non-mammals have been domesticated. The best known examples are (in the livestock and other agricultural uses category) chickens, turkeys, and honeybees, and (in the pet category) goldfish and . I don't know of any examples of non-avian domesticated reptiles.

I hope this proves a subject of interest, and TIA to anyone who can answer my question!

-polonga

[redshepherd]

If you go by most dictionary definitions of domestication, "to tame; generations of breeding that make it unable to survive in the wild, creating a human dependency to live", then all snakes aren't domesticated.

BP can instinctively survive in their natural habitat just fine, the only problem being the bright morphs make them easy prey LOL. That's why we have to create setups IMITATING their natural habitat and natural needs, because they're not domesticated.

[polonga]

If you go by most dictionary definitions of domestication, "to tame; generations of breeding that make it unable to survive in the wild, creating a human dependency to live", then all snakes aren't domesticated.

BP can instinctively survive in their natural habitat just fine, the only problem being the bright morphs make them easy prey LOL. That's why we have to create setups IMITATING their natural habitat and natural needs, because they're not domesticated.

A good point, redsherpherd (one of the main reasons I've never kept a pet snake is the fear that I wouldn't be any good at it). I was thinking of the more specific definitions used by biologists to decide when an animal (or, for that matter, other life form) is officially "domesticated." This clearly is not totally objective, as there is a lot of disagreement on questions like when domesticated dogs first appeared. (The 15 kya approximation I gave was a low-end estimate: some say it was a lot earlier. Of course, they only have fossils and rather sparse information about the hunter-gatherer societies of the time to work with!) You're right, the colour morphs are mostly still adapted for living in the wild in their natural ranges, which is a major reason that keeping a snake, even a perhaps "semi-domesticated" one (whatever that means!), as a pet is so much harder than keeping, say, a dog. One threat to survivability (or, uh, whatever) in snakes bred for funky colours, etc., is inbreeding, which increases the risk of genetic diseases, deformities, disabilities, etc. A lot of herpetologists and other zoologists believe that inbreeding is a major threat to species like the Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) that are sparsely populated (and thus have less genetic mixing than would really be preferable...remember, wildlife can't just go on okcupid.com to meet their soulmates!) in much of their range. Although it hasn't been proven, many herpetologists who have studied rattlesnakes in New England believe they have become immunocompromised as a result of excessive inbreeding. Other threats attributed to inbreeding include the existence of (non-fertile) intersex individuals among the Golden Lanceheads (Bothrops Insularus) endemic to Isla Queimada Grande. Quirky characteristics of this sort, though not always threatening to the population, are common on small islands due to the limited breeding pool. Even the invasive Brown Treesnakes (Boiga irregularis) on Guam may be starting to see the effects of this phenomenon. (Another oft-cited example: the startling rate of "madness" in European Royal families in the Middle Ages, especially those who refused to marry anyone else who wasn't also royalty.)

Personally, I'd like to see more breeding of Ball Pythons (and other relatively "people-friendly" snakes, for that matter) for traits like intelligence, tolerance of humans, and ability to survive in domestic habitats. The morphs that regularly occur in nature are more than beautiful enough for me.

-polonga

[voodoolamb]

The most current genetic research indicates dogs did not evolve from the eurasian grey wolf. Grey wolves and dogs diverged from a now extinct common ancestor.

I don't think that it is even possible to breed snakes for things like intelligence and ability to survive in "domestic" habitats due to reptile physiology.

[Vipera Berus]

It can be argued ether way as I shall attempt to demonstrate.

The dictionary definition includes several aspects so depending on which one you use animals such as cats and horses can be removed from the domesticated animal list. Here are a few that are relavant.

1. "to tame (an animal), especially by generations of breeding, to live in close association with human beings as a pet or work animal and usually creating a dependency so that the animal loses its ability to live in the wild."
2. "To accustom to household life or affairs."
3. to convert (animals, plants, etc.) to domestic uses; tame.

Tame has the following definitions - "without the savageness or fear of humans normal in wild animals; gentle, fearless, or without shyness, as if domesticated" and "changed from the wild or savage state; domesticated"

If you go off these then horses and cats and several other animals generally considered domesticated can be removed from the list right off the bat as they can survive fine in the wild. That said by using those definitions you can consider many animals domesticated if you keep them as pets because if they don't have fear of humans and are accustomed to household affairs then they are tame and a domestic animal.

It depends entirely on what definition you use and how they are generally viewed by joe average. A little thought is also required, if I said show me a wild Bactrian camel you would actually in all probability show me what could be described as a feral Bactrian camel. The never captive bred camel has a genetic difference between it and the domestic one that is about as much as seperates us from chimpanzees as well as a visibly different body shape and several different features including different genetics to domestic Bactrian camels incuding salt tolerance.

links to my point about camels - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Bactrian_camel and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactrian_camel

[paulh]

IMO, increased toleration of humans goes along with captive breeding. As the more tolerant of humans, the more likely to breed in captivity. On the other hand, captive raised snakes (and dogs and cats) are more tolerant of humans than wild caught adults. So separating the effects of heredity and environment can be difficult.

Captive breeding also tends to dumb down a species. Look at the intelligence of domestic turkeys vs. wild turkeys, for example.

[redshepherd]

Captive breeding and domestication aren't the same thing at all. Many threatened species are captive bred for species conservation and then released into the wild, for example.

I don't think people can technically refer to dogs and cats as "captive bred", because they're domesticated species. The term captive bred is reserved for breeding of undomesticated animals, like snakes.

[PitOnTheProwl]

Common society of domesticated would be dogs and cats, anything else is usually exotic....

[wolfy-hound]

Domesticated usually involves changing the animals to the point of being a separate species. Dogs and cats can survive in the wild, but they would be feral, even if it is the 10th generation of feral cat, it's still not a wild species.

The different definitions of "domesticated" from the dictionary is because it is used as a term in different ways. As in, you may say a house husband is 'domesticated' because he stays home and does household chores and cooks and therefor does the "domestic" duties... but this doesn't mean he is a created species of human that can't survive in the wild. Similar for the definition that refers to foreign or domestic product. So we have to be careful about applying the term properly. (yay English)

A domestic horse is a different species from the last living wild horse, the Przewalski's horse. Domestic horses(and also the feral mustangs) are offspring from tarpan species, that man bred exclusively for use by humans. A similar method led to pretty much all domesticated species.

Farm turkeys are not wild turkeys. Some breeds of domesticated turkey could live in the wild with some reintroduction though, just like dogs, cats, cattle, horses, goats, etc.

Snakes will most likely never be a domesticated species. Their nature does not lend them to being altered to be useful to humans. Wild snakes accumulated to humans do their 'jobs' just as well. Random people throughout the ages have kept captive reptiles. But they have never bred them for a purpose that altered them from the wild counterpart. Choosing tame individuals and captive breeding them and treating them well is enough to have a good pet/breeder.

[Coluber42]

Another point is that many of the animals we now consider "domesticated" are so different from their wild ancestors that we aren't even totally sure what their wild ancestors even were. In general, they are adapted to provide specific resources (meat, wool, eggs, milk, etc) or perform specific tasks to the point of becoming at least as distinct from their wild relatives as a different subspecies or species. They have different behavior, often different dietary needs even. Dogs innately and instinctively watch and care about and respond to social cues from humans in a way that wolves don't, for example.

As far as domesticating snakes goes? In this case, we would be talking about breeding snakes to be companion animals for humans. Some possible desirable traits might be being less shy and defensive, always using the same spot as a toilet, and a tolerance for lower temperatures and humidity. After that, maybe a shift toward eating more frequent smaller meals (after all, if you want to train an animal, you have to be able to reward it for doing what you want), seeking out human interaction, or even behaviors that communicate the animal's needs or emotional state to humans, which their wild cousins don't need because they don't benefit from sharing that information.

Needless to say, that "wishlist" for domesticating a wild species includes a lot of things that take a *very* long time to happen - it's not just a handful of generations of selective breeding. It might not take that many generations to wind up with individuals who were distinctly more outgoing and curious, or better at things like puzzle feeders. But breeding for a python the same size as a ball that can digest and remain just as active in a 68 degree house, while seeking out human contact and with distinct signals for when it's hungry, thirsty, cold, hot, etc, might take awhile.

An interesting long-running experiment with foxes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ...icated_Red_Fox