I think domesticated is a big term for naming an interaction between two predators. Domestication implies a transformation in the morphology of the domesticated species, this is just mutual tolerance at best.
The tendencies at the start of the domestication process can be varied, yet we can expect that any capacity for tolerance is more likely aid the process rather than hinder it. This is a process that can and does take thousands of years, and if it is happening you are probably not going to expect to see a transformation in morphology (Speciation) during a human lifetime. Once you see tolerance between an ape/monkey and a canine, you certainly wonder whether something is happening.
Also note that something may indeed be happening only to get disrupted due to the many factors at play in an evolutionary process. Domestication is an evolutionary process. Domestication is a term that evokes calculation and intention [1], but given the time scales involved the participants have not a clue what the end product will be let alone be cognisant of the process.
[1] This is may be due to the "domestication" term being applied to plants as well were the process is simpler.
Of course, but apart of tolerance you need also controlled reproduction, selection of specimens with desirable characters (reduce the genetic pool) and changes in morphology. As seen in red fox the later can take only 30 years if the former occur.
Those wolves are non reproductive specimens, not are different than other wolves of its species, thus could be seen as 'domestic' for geladas (like sparrows, spiders or house flies for us), but not domesticated (like canaries or fruit flies). This is not much different than to say that crocodiles are being domesticated by hippopotamuses.
I agree that domestication is a big term. It's more like a symbiotic relationship between the monkeys and the wolves. The article states that the monkeys are herbivores and thus not predators.
You are right, I'm mistaking it with the Hamadryas. Geladas are the interesting mountain monkeys that eat dry grasses.
It seems that solitary wolves enjoy protection from feral dogs within the group of monkeys surveying and thus can concentrate in the chase of rodents (and maybe use also placents and any dead monkey corpse?). Wolves probably understand that monkey bite will do a lot of damage and avoid to put himselves in troubles. Geladas eat a very poor diet, live in a cold place and (as pandas) probably need to preserve the energy so spend it chasing a much faster wolf is a bad movement. Common enemies. Not conflict of interests with diet, long lives and social animals that can remember you; thus: Not need to be unpolite. To start a fight is a lose:lose movement for both.
"Unlike most large canids, which are widespread, generalist feeders, the Ethiopian wolf is a highly specialised feeder of Afroalpine rodents with very specific habitat requirements.[6] It is one of the world's rarest canids, and Africa's most endangered carnivore.[7]"
"Wolves in Bale have been observed to forage among cattle herds, a tactic thought to aid in ambushing rodents out of their holes by using the cattle to hide their presence.[5] Ethiopian wolves have also been observed forming temporary associations with troops of grazing gelada baboons.[31] Solitary wolves will hunt for rodents in the midst of the monkeys, ignoring juvenile monkeys even though these are similar in size to some of their prey. The monkeys in turn tolerate and largely ignore the wolves, although they take flight if they observe feral dogs, which sometimes prey on them. Within the troops, the wolves enjoy much higher success in capturing rodents than usual, perhaps because the monkeys' activities flush out the rodents, or because the presence of numerous larger animals makes it harder for rodents to spot a threat.[32]"
According to another website, in 2008 there was thought to be as few as 500 of the species remaining.
It is also well known that this species regurgitates food for the pups in order to supplement their supply of milk, and other females will assist in providing milk when necessary.
To me, this all adds up pretty clearly. A species about to go extinct, that primarily feeds on rodents, that uses other species to increase the likelihood of success of feeding, but still has trouble feeding itself. They adapt by forming an alliance (or at the very least being much less likely to attack).
This could be an example of how domestication formed, or, domestication could have developed from a completely separate process. The only thing that is clear is that this is an almost-extinct species that uses another species in order to improve its chances of eating.
Funny to see this adjacent to the Kipling article on HN. In Kipling's Jungle Book (fiction), wolves hate monkeys, considering them self-important creatures who never follow throilugh on their grand plans.
...Yawn. That's not even remotely comparable to domestication. There are countless examples of predators having non-feeding-related interactions with prey. Sharks swimming with fish; lions lounging near gazelles; etc, etc. If they're engaging in a cooperative hunting strategy, then that's certainly interesting, but not new or groundbreaking.
Domestication does not have to be deliberate, nor does it need to provide an immediate benefit to the party doing the domestication [1]. This is probably a common misunderstanding of the process. Plus for a little more complexity, we can expect that these aspects (to be deliberate, to provide benefit) can be recognised and emphasized during the domestication process.
[1]. It may be unsettling for us egotistic humans, but the domestication process can be mutual to the extent that it causes Speciation in both parties.
I also believe that Lions that rest near gazelles is a different scenario. If the Lion becomes hungry, it will almost certainly chase the gazelle in the right circumstances. The article made it clear that the wolves are not attacking these primates.
Also, according to the following website, sharks to eat fish. However, it's logical to assume that like the lion, they won't always eat fish if they are full or there is no return of benefit,
http://www.sharks-world.com/what_do_sharks_eat/
This one is fascinating because logically, you'd assume the wolves would attack the primates at any opportunity. It will be fascinating to see if the relationship evolves into one where the wolves defend the primates. Another poster posted the dog taming article. Maybe, just maybe, this group of primates may domesticate these wolves with time.
Yup, yawn! Why is an intelligent community getting their mammalian biology updates from some corporate press release rag? The abstract is here http://jmammal.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/1/129 The last two sentences confirm gitpusher's observation that this is nothing to do with domestication.
> For Ethiopian wolves, establishing proximity to geladas as foraging commensals could be an adaptive strategy to elevate foraging success. The novel dynamics documented here shed light on the ecological circumstances that contribute to the stability of mixed groups of predators and potential prey.
You two are reacting to nothing more than a single objectionable word ("domesticating") in the title. That's a good reason to change the title, but an unfair reason to be so dismissive of the article. It wasn't a bad popular treatment and the story is obviously interesting.
HN generally prefers the most substantive popular article on a story, as opposed to specialized academic papers, except when the specialty is one that the audience here is comfortable with (i.e. computing). A link to the original paper usually appears in the thread for those who are experts or want more.
Cool, thanks for changing it. I'm not quite sure why the slightly rebuking tone of your comment, but no worries.
> the story is obviously interesting.
That's far from obvious. I have a PhD in evolutionary biology and a background in natural history and visit Ethiopia from time to time and yet it seemed to me of interest to that journal's audience but not beyond. Definitely no particular reason to be discussing it here, but of course I'm not against doing so!
If the critical tone is because I was making a negative comment and negative comments are somehow unwelcome on HN, then I object. I don't care what the community guidelines are in that respect if they tell me to be kumbaya positive.
http://blogs.discovery.com/animal_oddities/2012/10/baboons-w...