this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2025
213 points (99.1% liked)

Science

5561 readers
45 users here now

General discussions about "science" itself

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

https://lemmy.ml/c/science

https://beehaw.org/c/science

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] calliope@retrolemmy.com 106 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (4 children)

Wow that’s interesting!

The study lays out the case that the domestication process is often wrongly thought of as initiated by humans—with people capturing and selectively breeding wild animals. But the study authors claim that the process begins much earlier, when animals become habituated to human environments.

“One thing about us humans is that, wherever we go, we produce a lot of trash,” says the study’s co-author and University of Arkansas at Little Rock biologist Raffaela Lesch. Piles of human scraps offer a bottomless buffet to wildlife, and to access that bounty, animals need to be bold enough to rummage through human rubbish but not so bold as to become a threat to people.

This has absolutely blown my mind. I don’t think I’ve ever considered that, obviously.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 24 points 5 days ago

Yeah, if you ever run across the theories of how dogs became so close to us, it started with wolves being willing to take the risks of scavenging near us, and eventually co-evolving (until selective breeding started).

Actively, intentionally domesticating a species is a slow process overall, and it wasn't something that I've seen any specialists suggest would have been the case with dogs, or cats.

[–] porcoesphino@mander.xyz 19 points 5 days ago

In that case you might like the PBS Eons video on the domestication of house cats (and it touches on some of the generalised processes):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CYPJzQppANo

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

It's a popular theory about why dogs were domesticated so much earlier than everything else. Wolves have a remarkably similar lifestyle to human hunter gatherers, and so early dogs could live either in parallel or in close proximity as conditions demanded. With other creatures, like pigs or horses, humans had to run a program and do so consistently for domestication to work. In some places, semi-feral dogs are still a common sight.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I've felt that dogs have taken the same path. Notice how expressive their facial muscles are? Wolves don't have nearly so many facial muscles. Wild to learn about isn't it?!

[–] Enkrod@feddit.org 13 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Wolves also do not understand pointing, most other human gestures and they can not read human emotions through our faces. Dogs can understand all that. Humans and dogs have co-evolved for such a long time that our species now have a deep instinctual understanding of each other.

[–] moncharleskey@lemmy.zip 5 points 5 days ago

My dogs definitely do not understand pointing! No arguing, they just don't get it, though they could be trained to I'm sure.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 41 points 5 days ago

City-dwelling raccoons seem to be evolving a shorter snout—a telltale feature of our pets and other domesticated animals

I wonder if it's softer food.

[–] porcoesphino@mander.xyz 22 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I'm surprised the article doesn't mention the six decade long silver fox domestication experiment:

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-018-0090-x

They bred the tamest foxes from each generation and started seeing shortened snouts and floppy ears. Although there is some dispute about the initial population from a study in 2019. To my understanding the researchers with the dispute question the existence of domestication syndrome though, so the experiment would still align with the article. And I think there is some dispute over the neural crest cell explanation mentioned in the article too.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 4 points 5 days ago

I just learned about this the other day and it immediately came to mind when I saw this article.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 25 points 5 days ago (3 children)

For the new study, she and 16 graduate and undergraduate students gathered nearly 20,000 photographs of raccoons across the contiguous U.S. from the community science platform iNaturalist. The team found that raccoons in urban environments had a snout that was 3.5 percent shorter than that of their rural cousins.

Or maybe people in cities take more photos of “cuter” animals?

[–] Voyajer@lemmy.world 28 points 5 days ago

If they're iNaturalist photo submissions then they're submitting every raccoon (and other animal) they see

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 8 points 5 days ago

I mean every raccoon in the study was photographed. So this wouldn't explain any difference within that sample.

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I don't think someone would notice a 3.5% shorter snout when they took the picture.

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 13 points 5 days ago (1 children)

If humans are more likely to take photos of racoons they find cute, we'd expect those racoons to have cuter features than the average racoon. It might not be actual change going on, is the point being made.

We don't conciously notice the snout length, just the ones we think are cute are probably slightly more likely to have a shorter snout.

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

My point is that the change in length is only 3.5%, not more than someone would notice when deciding to taking a photo.

The 3.5% change in snout length is one sign of domestication starting to happen, not a sign that people will be more likely to take a photo---that idea was just the speculation of a commenter.

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

If it was not noticeably cuter, then it would cause no advantage and the theory falls. (Which is possible, of course.)

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

On a 5cm snout, 3.5% is less than 2 mm. You not only wouldn't notice it with the naked eye, it's almost a small enough difference to get lost in the noise .

The study is saying they're already seeing these imperceptible differences in racoons they're measuring.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 5 points 5 days ago

Not individually, but over nearly 20,000 instances.

[–] FosterMolasses@leminal.space 11 points 5 days ago
[–] bizzle@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago

My across the street neighbor feeds the racoons cat food. They rip up my garden and antagonize my dogs all night. I tried to scare one away just last night by yelling and waving my arms, but they just stared at me like "yeah ok dude" and went back to their racoon business. They are not afraid of people in the slightest and you could probably pet one if you were so inclined. It sucks 😅

[–] Kn1ghtDigital@lemmy.zip 11 points 5 days ago

If you're cold, they're cold. Let the trash panda inside your house.