# White markings as signs of domestication?



## DuckDodgers (May 28, 2013)

The interesting thing about the Silver Foxes (the study I believe you are referring to) is that the researchers were merely breeding the foxes with the friendliest temperament to see what would happen. While doing this the following generations naturally became friendlier, but along with this came traits such as changes in coloration, floppy ears, etc. They were not breeding for those characteristics, but they came along as a result. Why? People have a variety of speculations. Maybe horses follow a similar pattern...

In the horse world, however, many people love white markings. I know that I'm madly in love with my horse's chrome! If a flashy, "pretty" horse is more likely to be bred than a plainly marked horse with similar characteristics then it would make sense that the offspring of subsequent generations would be flashier than previous ones. Non-flashy horses are still bred, and color/marking genetics is a wonky thing, so we still have numerous solid, unmarked horses. I would be willing to bet that the amount of chrome that we see today would be significantly less if folks weren't so attracted to it. With the obvious exception of the zebra species I can't think of any truly wild horses that have white facial markings, so there may be some truth to the thought.


----------



## DuckDodgers (May 28, 2013)

Just for fun- morphological/physiological changes in the silver fox experiment:

Early in the process of domestication, Belyaev noted, most domestic animals had undergone the same basic morphological and physiological changes. Their bodies changed in size and proportions, leading to the appearance of dwarf and giant breeds. The normal pattern of coat color that had evolved as camouflage in the wild altered as well. Many domesticated animals are piebald, completely lacking pigmentation in specific body areas. Hair turned wavy or curly, as it has done in Astrakhan sheep, poodles, domestic donkeys, horses, pigs, goats and even laboratory mice and guinea pigs. Some animals' hair also became longer (Angora type) or shorter (rex type).

And more fun if you want to read the whole article: Early Canid Domestication: The Farm-Fox Experiment » American Scientist


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

These are always interesting things to ponder over
When you look at the closest wild relative to the horse in existence you see little resemblance to modern day horses other than in breeds classed as prehistoric like the Exmoor and Sorraia (one of the breeds the Spanish brought to the US) they really did seem to blend in with their surroundings which would have been great protection for them
I would think the most changes came about when people started moving horses to non native parts of the world as the Caspian, Camargue, North African Barb, Shetland & Highland are also classed as prehistoric but can be dapple grey and the Shetland any colour but spotted


----------



## Tryst (Feb 8, 2012)

We know that white gene mutations DO occur it he wild. You can find many pictures of pinto moose, white deer, etc. however due to predation and the attention they attract they are much more likely not to survive to adult hood so the chances of them passing on those genes are decreased. In captivity/domestication the effects of predation are almost eliminated so such attrition does not occur due to color pattern, and indeed perhaps even the opposite occurs (we find tuxedo cats more appealing than solid black for example) so through human selection and decrease in mortality the gene frequency for white patterns becomes more prevalent in captivity than in the wild, where most color mutations simply die before they procreate.


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

Selective breeding works both ways. Domestic to wild can also produce blazes and snips, stocking and socks and spots. It can all depend on the part of the world where it happens. If coloring creates a "bulls-eye" on a prey animal he won't be around long enough to breed that color, therefore the coloring there will die out in the wild version of the domestic animal. If a foal can hide bc his coat is the same color as the vegetation, buckskin, for instance, he can survive better than say, blue roan. However, looking at America's mustangs is not a good example bc their predators are pretty low in number, certainly not like the numbers of bears and wolf packs and cougars that used to exist some 300 years ago.
But, if you look at deer, their young are spotted so that they can hide in the dappled light in the forest and avoid being eaten. The white fawns in the wild don't last long, and can only grow up in captivity.
Interesting topic.


----------



## Wallaby (Jul 13, 2008)

muumi said:


> It makes sense that wild animals/horses don't show white markings, as these are not part of their camouflage etc, but what triggers white markings with domestication? Or is it a selection process rather than a natural one? (Where humans like white, and are drawn to the individuals that display it, thus breeding for it?)
> 
> Any knowledge on this?


There's a really good book on this -as it relates to dogs- out there, but of course, I cannot remember the title of it.
..I believe it maaaay be this one: Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior & Evolution: Raymond Coppinger, Lorna Coppinger: 9780684855301: Amazon.com: Books
[if the link doesn't work - I've been noticing that sometimes they don't, it's "Dogs: a startling new understanding of canine orgin, behavior, and evolution" by Raymond and Lorna Coppinger - it's a GREAT book in it's own right! Very interesting+thought provoking]

Anyway, somewhere there have been studies done that proved/suggested that there's a link between melanin [markings/coloring] and serotonin levels. It seems that white markings can indicate a higher level of domesticat-bility [aka, the animal with said white markings has a higher chance of being easily domesticated/tamed, vs being inherently more domesticated] due to higher seratonin levels in the brain [the animal calms down easier to human contact and is more "willing" to work with the human].

It's not just white markings though, basic coat color also plays a part. But, it's been pretty convincingly [to me at least!] proven that animals with a white chest spot [on animals like dogs/cats/etc, horses...that's a little hard to tell. haha!] are inclined to be friendlier than those without chest spots. 
Of course, nature vs nurture is huge as well. Patricia McConnell in "For the Love of A Dog" [also a 'must read' for humans! haha Though 'dog' is in the title, she got her Ph.D working with horses and most of her thoughts can easily translate between species AND lead to a greater awareness of 'self' on the human's part - REALLY good book] covers the topic of nature/nurture quite thoroughly and hilariously! An animal with white markings isn't going to be bounding up to predator in the woods due to it's white markings, the white markings -combined with good nurture- just improve that animal's chance of becoming a 'tame' creature/friendly creature.


----------



## KigerQueen (Jun 16, 2013)

You can also look at donkeys as well. In the wild Donkeys dont have white markings, but most that are bred by humans have them.

the american Burro









African Wild Donkey
http://www.theequinest.com/images/african-wild-***.jpg

Domestic donkey


















And because i love Wild horses here is the Asian wild horse.


----------



## FrostedLilly (Nov 4, 2012)

I think it comes down to natural selection. Animals that have white are easier to see by predators. I suppose it would be the other way around for predator animals; they are easier to see by their prey. And just for fun, here is a pinto moose.


----------



## CLaPorte432 (Jan 3, 2012)

Never in my life have I seen a pinto moose! How COOL! And with blue eyes.

I want one.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

It does come down to exactly those points - natural selection doesn't like animals that are outside the norm for their species, and human selection does. 

With the foxes, I suspect that because they weren't breeding them for traits that would help them survive in the wild, they inadvertently allowed the white spotting mutations to continue in their breeding stock, if that makes sense? While they weren't selecting for it, as they were breeding for temperament, they also weren't selecting against it, which allowed it to continue.

Another point to consider is that yes, we do have a lot of breeds where chrome is desirable and appears frequently, but we also have a lot of breeds where white is not desirable, is actively discouraged, and selectively removed from the gene pool. Look at Friesians for example.

A final note is that white markings on wild animals is only bad for their survival if it is against the norm for that breed and doesn't suit the conditions. There is an equine family member with a high incidence of white markings within the population. When they don't have white, this relative of the horse is actually dun, just like every other relative of the horse that hasn't been bred to be anything but dun. Can anyone tell me what it is?


----------



## CLaPorte432 (Jan 3, 2012)

Zebra? *scratches head*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

Indeed. The group over at The Quagga Project have been selectively breeding to take away the white stripes, and under the white, Zebras are actually dun, not black.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

^^^^^Facinating
I thought the moose was a bit creepy though


----------



## dressagebelle (May 13, 2009)

The zebra actually makes a lot of sense. Having seen quite a few zorses, none of them had white stripes, and a majority are dun. Hm interesting. I love that moose!


----------



## KigerQueen (Jun 16, 2013)

I suddenly want to take up moose breeding XD that was a beautiful animal


----------



## muumi (Oct 17, 2011)

Chiilaa said:


> Indeed. The group over at The Quagga Project have been selectively breeding to take away the white stripes, and under the white, Zebras are actually dun, not black.


Wow, thanks for sharing this, its insanely interesting to find out that both the black and the white sits on top of dun!


----------



## CLaPorte432 (Jan 3, 2012)

Chiilaa said:


> Indeed. The group over at The Quagga Project have been selectively breeding to take away the white stripes, and under the white, Zebras are actually dun, not black.


Wow, that was a complete guess. :shock:

:lol:

:clap:


----------

