Please tell me that this statement from wikipedia is wrong, misunderstood or lost in translation.
Many scientists believe that humans adopted orphaned wolf cubs and nursed them alongside human babies.[8][9]
The claim is referenced through books, so I have no idea about the veracity of the claim and the sources.
Whats the straight dope?
Nursed as in using a cloth nipple dunked in milk from a goat, mare, ewe or cow; what’s wrong with that? AIUI, training a baby of any species is much easier than training an animal that’s been captured as an adult.
(and by the way, is there a word for “female goat”?)
Why do you want to be told that?
Anyway, I won’t tell you that because it isn’t true. Women always have, and still do, breastfeed orphaned animals. In most societies they are far to valuable to let them die. If the thought of that squiks you out for some reason then do not look at this link (possibly, very mildly, NSFW). Since we know that it is the rule for women to breastfeed orphaned animals, and we know that, for example, Aborigines breastfed wild-caught dingo pup, it would be absolutely inconceivable if women did *not *regularly breastfeed wolf pups.
Nanny.
What happens when the wolf/dingo starts teething? 
The mythic foundation of Rome has it exactly the other way around from OP, BTW.
Regularly?!!! :eek:
I am sure it has happened occasionally in the history of the human race, and I will take your word for it that in many societies it is common for women to breastfeed orphaned domesticated animals of economic value, but wolf cubs are neither domesticated nor economically valuable.
Dingos, of course, are already dogs, albeit feral for many, many generations, rather than wolves.
I also question the claims that the original domestication of dogs involved women suckling wolf cubs (which I have certainly never heard before). It is an utterly extravagant hypothesis, and it is virtually impossible to imagine how it might be either confirmed or falsified by any evidence. Much more plausible "just so stories" about the domestication of dogs are readily available. There is little reason even to think that the domestication of dogs was something that early humans did deliberately. Neither the possibility of domesticating animals, nor the economic value of having domestic dogs, are likely to have been obvious to early humans. More likely, dog domestication simply arose naturally out of the way scavenging wolves interacted with human hunter gatherer bands. Once that had happened, the possibility and value of domestication would have become more obvious, so it is more reasonable to think that other types of animal were later domesticated deliberately.
It is worth noting that [foxes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox) have recently been experimentally domesticated in Russia, and quite without human women having to suckle the puppies. It only took a few generations of selective breeding.
I think the Wikipedia article referenced in the **OP** is almost certainly misinterpreting its sources.We Armenians have a different word… 
They are born with teeth.
First off, dogs, wolves and dingoes are all the same species, all three are different subspecies. Dingoes are no more dogs than they are wolves.
Secondly, as you note, dingoes are domesticated wolves, the oldest breed known. They arrived in Australia ~5, 000 ybp, but the subspecies is at least 1, 00 years older than that. Yet dingoes never breed near humans. There is a very strong hormonal drive for the bitches to isolate themselves and they always go to great pains to hide their nesting dens. There has never been an example of unconfined dingoes breeding near humans. As a result, up until 150 years ago, all domestic dingoes were wild caught pups. Some would possibly have been caught as pups old enough to eat solids, but according to Rolles they were caught at the suckling stage and breast fed. The same strong aversion to nesting near humans is displayed by wolves.
So, what does this tell us? Well we can pretty much assume that all domestic wolves were likewise suckled by humans. It was only after they became sufficiently genetically aberrant to lose their inclination to isolated nesting that this suckling would have ceased, Since we know that wolves were first domesticated ~10, 000 ybp and dingoes arrived in Australia 5, 00 years after that, we know that there was at least a 5, 000 year period between the domestication of the wolf and the cessation of human suckling. In that time period all domestic wolves were presumably suckled.
So yeah, all the evidence, albeit inferential, says that for thousands of year wolves were regularly suckled by humans.
As for the claim that wolves were not valuable, I can only point to the efforts that Aborigines went through to capture, nurse and raise dingoes. For a long stretch of the domestication process wolves would have been just as valuable and required the same nursing.
I just explained that, hope it helps.
Those foxes are in cages.
How well do you think it might have worked if the vixens were able to nest as their hormones dictated?
Why do you think this?
And how do you explain the need for humans to suckle dingoes if they wanted domestic dogs?
Actually, on the BBC’s new series Human Planet a few weeks ago they showed a South American culture where women routinely nurse orphaned animals whose parents the menfolk of the village have killed for food. Many of the animals had no economic value (i.e. they weren’t later killed for food, or sold on), and were just being kept as pets.
Are female breasts even able to take the bite of such animals?
Well we’ve already established that it occurs, and provided photographic evidence for that fact.
So what do you reckon? 
Current thinking, as I understand it, is that domestication of dogs involved selecting for the ones that were most gentle/least aggressive/least afraid of humans. Nursing would certainly server as a strong selective pressure for placid, gentle pups!
That is a huge, quite unwarranted assumption. All that your remarks about dingos show is that suckling puppies is one possible way to domesticate “wolves.” It does not show it is the only way such domestication can occur, and it does nothing to answer why it should have ever occurred to early humans either that wolves could be domesticated or that it would be a worthwhile thing to try to do, let alone that suckling puppies would be a good way to do it. (Unlike the first humans to domesticate dogs, Australian Aboriginies do not have to discover that dogs can domesticated, or that domestic dogs can be useful.)
Doesn’t Google Images answer this question for you?
What is so hard to grasp here? Wikipedia lists several theories of domestication; in the absence of written history or time travel, we can’t know anything for sure. But the theory you have so much trouble with is a current, multi-cultural, documented practice.
Do I WANT to know? Oops, I’m not in the “masticating while breastfeeding” thread.
I am not convinced as most seemed too posed. And secondly there was a goat, a kitten and a baby. No wolves.
I don’t know, some people have some bizarre overreaction to the concept of human breast milk. They even call it “breast milk”, as if it makes it magically different from all the other milk.
I honestly don’t see what’s so weird about this – you find a wolf pup – an adorable, blind bundle of cuteness. Like this one. Your choices are:
[ol]
[li]Nurse it [/li][li]Kill it[/li][li]Let it starve to death[/li][/ol]
The kind of technology required to easily nurse it using some other animals milk, has only recently become available.
I think the proposal that people didn’t routinely nurse any animal infants they ran into when there was milk available is the extraordinary proposal that requires justification. Now, why, exactly, wouldn’t they?
Cite?
Domestic dogs are born without teeth.
Been exactly four years. Any answers whether it was a common or just an occasional practice?
