So cows, as a domesticated animal, have been around for quite a while. My question is this: In what region did cows come from, and how come there aren’t any wild cows today? Horses are domesticated, but there are still wild horses in parts of the world, so why not cows?
Depending on which authority you refer to there are 2 or 3 species of cattle. There are wild representatives of at least one species, and commensal representatives of another that may or may not be ‘wild’ depending on your definition.
The European ox (Bos taurus) is thought to be descended from B. primigenius, which became extinct about 350 years ago. These creatures ranged over much of Europe. There have been attempts to recreate B. primigenius by selective breeding of cattle with recent B. primigenius ancestry. This has resulted in herds of something that looks like the ancestral animal. Actual genetic or behavioural properties are purely speculative.
The Asian ox (B. zebu) is believed to be descended from the Indian wild ox (B. namadicas). Again, this critter has gone the way of the Dodo in the wild. However given the semi-feal nature of cattle over much of India it is thought that many Brahman herds are imply domesticated Indian ox, with very little behavioural, appearance or genetic change. The wild animals simply wandered into the domestic herds and stayed put because people protected them from predators and fed them during droughts.
The Bali ox (Bos javanicus) still exists in small wild herds throughout Indonesia. The domestic herds show very little alteration form the ancestral species.
According to every authority I’ve seen, there are no wild horses left anywhere in the world. There are feral horses on every inhabited continent, and there Przwalski horses in semi-feral states in parts of Eastern Europe and Asia, but these aren’t wild horses any more than are zebras. The mustangs and other ferals are just escapees, and there are feral cattle on every continent as well… Przwalski horses are genetically distinct from domestic horses to the point of having a different chromosome count. While the ability to freely interbreed means that domestic horses probably have some Przwalski heritage, it’s widely agreed that Przwalski horses aren’t ancestral to gee gees. Whatever the ancestor of the domestic horse is, it is long gone.
Tangential question: Are there any wild camels? Or have they all been domesticated?
Again, there are two or three species of camel, one or two species of two-humped bactrian and the single humped dromedary. There are tiny numbers of wild bactrian camels left but wild dromedary are no more.
Australia has the purest breeds of wild camels. Many are captured and sent to the Middle East for racing, their meat and other purposes.
Australia has feral camels, not wild camels. From that site “Subsequently an estimated 12,000 camels were imported and ultimately released into the wild…” These are just domestic camels that have escaped and bred, not wild camels.
Australia also has the world’s largest herd of Java cattle, both European and Indian cattle and herds of horses all living outside human contact. But these are all ferals and not wild animals. Genetically and behaviourally they are no different from unhandled domestic stock. There are no wild dromedaries or wild European ox despite the presence of these herds.
What’s the difference between a “wild” animal and a “feral” one?
female: cow
male: bull
collective terms: cattle, bovines
“Feral” means domesticated animals that have escaped (or been set free) and are living wild. I guess “wild” would mean never domesticated…
Grim
In light of both the OP, and the later question about camels it’s necessary to distinguish between wild ‘never domesticated’ and wild ‘feral’. Feral animals are domesticated animals that have lost contact with people. There are feral dogs for example in most large cities, but no one would consider them to be wolves, which are true wild dogs.
If we use a general defintion of wild that encompasses mustangs and feral cattle, then the OP question becomes meaningless. There are huge herds of wild cattle on every continent on the planet. Of course these are ferals and don’t in any way answer the question of where cattle come form.
Similarly the question was whether there are any wild camels, or if they have all been domesticated. All dromedaries have been domesticated. Some domestic stock have gone feral, as has happened in Australia, but given that the question was whether they were all domesticated the presence of feral herds isn’t all that relevant.
Hm. It appears, then, that there are some speciation (for lack of a better word) changes that domesticated animals go through, yes? If so, what is the mechanism? Is it from humans cross-breeding their livestock, which is my suspicion? But then, are there genetic differences between domesticated and wild Asian elephants? What does domestication mean? Are the lions in zoos domesticated? And if there are no genetic changes after domestication, then, are there any practical differences between wild and feral animals?
Woo, what a can of worms.
One important distinction between wild and feral animals is that there exists a lage subclass of behaviours which are inherited from generation from generation yet not genetic. Ie: they are learned by each generation. When an animal is domesticated, it loses some of these traits. When they become feral, some of these traits are independantly rediscovered and some are gone forever. Furthermore, some mew and unique traits also appear.
Aha, I see. I suppose it only makes sense for, as one example, the social behavior of domesticated animals to differ from wild ones. Knowing that, then, I suppose feral and wild animals stay in separate packs, even after several generations?
Not so much a can of worms Earthling, more a mess produced by inconsistent taxonomy.
The biggest problem is deciding what defines a species. There is unfortunately no clear answer. Przwalski horses and domestic horses freely interbreed despite clearely being separate species. Cattle and bison freely interbreed despite clearly being separate genera. But then Chihuahuas and wolves are the same species despite being able to freely able to interbreed.
So if we have two animals as different as aurochs and highland cattle should we call them different species even if they can interbreed? Even if the differences are just due to selective breeding over the last 2000 years?
So officially we have speciation occurring due to domestication in some animals like cattle, but not in dogs, where the differences between wild strains and domestic would appear far greater.
No consistency.
Outcrossing with other species has been used to explain some of the domesticate differences. But when looking at dogs and wolves there don’t appear to be any genes that aren’t found in some wolves, so there has been no outcrossing. The differences are strictly due to selective breeding.
Amongst cattle I’m not sure. Certainly B Taurus/B. zebu hybrids are ancient, so there should be a genetic difference between these breeds and the wild ancestors. But whether the ancestors should have been considered species rather than simply races is at least debatable.
Exactly what species should be considered truly domesticated and which wild is of course unclear. Wild elephants have always been captured an introduced to domestic herds, so they are almost certainly genetically identical. However elephants have been bred in captivity for a long time in close contact with people. They have also been extensively trained. So they probably qualify as domestic.
Lions on the other hand have never lived in close contact with people. Training also tends to be fairly rudimentary. Given the short period of time lions have been bred in captivity I doubt they qualify as domestic.
Cats blur the line even further. They have been in contact with people a long time, but training is almost nil. They have also wandered constantly in and out of a feral state. For much of their history it was probably only one parent that was domesticated. So cats are probably like Indian cattle in that they are commensal wild animals rather than domesticates.
Confused now?
Hard to say, given that truly wild animals rarely exist beside domesticated strains these days. However of the few cases I do know that’s not true. Feral dogs occasionally join wolf packs. Crossbreeding is very common. Domestic donkeys immediately take up with wild donkeys.
Amongst animals that don’t from packs it’s even more noticeable. Domestic cats freely mate with wild cats. Dogs with coyotes.
Certainly I know of no evidence of wild packs remaining separate from ferals in any way.
A side point would be that some animals (like the common dog) when allowed to go feral breeds to something (in this case a short-earred yellow dog) that may point to its ancient (now extinct) ancestor.
Also, wild animals (say wolves) are polluted by feral animals who interbreed with them. A modern wolf may carry dog genes, while 500 years ago may not have.
The same is true of other animals.
I know what you mean, but interestingly there are no ‘dog genes’ as far as anyone can tell. Dogs are the result of selective breeding of wolves, with no input form other species. Allowing for some odd recent mutations any gene a dog has is found in wolves already.
Not sure about this. Dingoes ddn’t breed back to this in a feral state. They always existed in this form. The exact origin of Carolina dogs is obscure, but it seems likely that they too always existed in that form. The same applies to other ‘yellow dogs’ such as the Basenji and Indonesian ridgeback. This seems to be a common ancient breed of domestic dog.
Are there any indisputable examples of a domestic breeds reverting to yellow dogs in the wild with no jackal/coyote input?
So are humans wild or domesticated?
(If I’m domesticated, I’m looking to go feral. Who’s with me?)
What humans have done over the centuries to domesticate wild animals usually boils down to achieving certain desirable goals. Make the animals friendlier to humans, make them easier to work with/tame, make them less likely to run off, get a more desirable size, fur, milk, etc. One common effect in doing this appears to be prolonging the juvenile state. I.e., many domestic dogs show traits that young dogs have but that adult dogs grow out of. (I don’t think this was a knowing goal, just a common effect of the process.) Such animals are easier to deal with.
Since lions in zoos have not been bred for such traits and even haven’t been captive bred all that long, they are not domesticated.
“Genetic change” is too broad to really address. I am genetically different from my parents, siblings, etc. in some ways. But not as different as unrelated species. Domesticated animals have the genes for certain characteristics and not others compared to their wild ancestors. But on the scale of body shape/color/tameness.
spoke-: 51% of humans are domesticated and 49% are feral. At least, that’s what Mrs. FtG believes. 
Jared Diamond’s “Guns Germs and Steel” has a nice bit about this not to mention also being a damn fine book.