Quote:
Originally posted by Kalkbreath
I agree that scale does play into the degree of domestication .
For instance a cultivated clam (and the zooxanthellae inside) raised at a clam farm would be less domesticated
then say an entirely tank raised clam.
What animals and what plants would you say qualifies as a domesticated life form?
I was watching a show about a company called Nexia which spliced a spider gene into a goat and now the goat produces spider web in its milk. (They use the "goaterweb" to make bullet proof vests and such)
Would this relatively new animal ( one year) be considered a Domesticated animal if they had used a wild goat?
Does domestication require that the adaptation be viewable to the naked eye?
How about cultivated clown fish?
these new breeds of clown fish dont recognize anemones as hosts , they don't fight for territory
they have little imunities
and they look about as different from a wild clown as does a Siberian husky does from a timber wolf.
What constitutes true domestication in your view?
|
Good questions- I will try to work through them one by one.
I consider many animals to be domestics. A first consideration (at least in my mind), is that it is not found naturally in the wild. For example, there are no wild Dachshunds (or similar). Feral animals do not apply. But animals such as certain "types" of goats, cattle, etc. do not exist exist in the wild, but instead were selected by man over time for a specific purpose. In regards to plants, this has a slightly different application. I dont necesasrily consider many domestic plants, but instead variants which have adapted for certain purposes. Again, due to human selection and propogation. This rather leads to the next question/statement. What about the goaterweb? This applies under the catergory of "genetic or mechanical manipulation". They can grow a rat with an ear on it's back nowadays- is that a new species- of course not- it is manipulated. The same is true of this situation. In these cases, the traits demonstrated (goaterweb, ear-rats, etc) will not proliferate without absolute intervention. Same for artificial insemination, in vitro cultrues, and mechanical cross pollination.
Your question of the clownfish I think leads back to acclimitization, rather than domestication. Wild clownfish are exposed to this stimulus from day 1, whereas cultured ones are not. Yet, there are cultured clowns that do take to anemones, and do remain territorial, and so on. Domesticated? Not in my book.
So, you've mentioned huskies a couple times, so let me elaborate on that. Certainly huskies can look and act like wolves, their wild ancestors. So my question is instead, are huskies domesticated? WHo knows. The selwection they have been under to create this "breed" has not been as a companion or aesthetic purpose- it has bveen under a work purpose. Huskies were domesticated to operate and work in extreme environments, and as such, retain much of their wild ancestry. Are huskies domestci? I dont know, but there is a reason many husky breeders strongly advise against letting a husky off lead, or letting them anywher near cats (that you want to keep alive, at least).
Overall, I feel domestication is a result of human selection (artificial or otherwise), which has created a sustainable organism for purpose to those humans. These animals do not exist in this form in the wild, and as such, have certainly undergone a long period of adaptation and selection for that adaptation. For example, cattle were domesticated for their food source, horses for the work capacity. All because certains traits were selected and perpetuated by humans. As to this definition is why I have difficulty accepting you domestic clam theory. These animals have not undergone any discernable change over the wild clams. They have simply adapted to a different environment. The changes that occur do not need to be blatantly visible at all, but must be functional.
Plaese take all this with a bucket of salt- it is only my opinion.