I have seen zoo apes with other young animals acting like buddies. This also happens among other zoo fauna. I do not recall ever seeing a non-zoo arboreal ape with a non-ape buddy, nor acting co-operatively with another species while hunting or foraging.
It seems to me that human domestication of fauna and flora must have stemmed from an earlier behavior, but I can't imagine what.
Anyone (except jermybot) have any clues to an earlier partnering/hetero-species allo-parenting behavior? Perhaps apes groom baboon young on occasion? Perhaps arboreal frugivorous shitting selected for specific traits of fig trees, eg. Strangling figs
grow around trees where chimps perch while eating? Shelters enclosed/entrapped prey where they could be safely held and fed, like cages, leading to small animal domestication, but something similar preceded this. Grooming?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

I have seen

Who cares?

"Domestication" changes both the species (plant/animal) and the
people. If people domesticate wheat, for example, that requires
them to, what? Clear land? Produce specialized tools for farming?
Storage?

A cursory glimpse of the "Threshing Floor" in ancient times, it's
importance, gives you an idea of just how is involved...

A great theory on göbeklitepe stipulates that these structures were
built by a proto agricultural society as storage for the wild grains
that grew in the area. The apparent "Religious" aspect would make
sense as protection -- the gods or spirits watching over their bounty
for them, as they were not yet settled people.

Even within historical times, looking at things such as the olive tree, we
see that modern variants are much better suited for exploitation by
humans. The ancient world wasn't all that efficient, much less pre historic peoples.

This is a pattern seen everywhere in Rome. Roman iron production was
so inefficient that in Mussolini's time Roman slag, the waste product of
iron production, was used as a source for iron. Apparently it was easier
to just increase production (set more people to producing) than to
increase productivity.

Most people rule out the notion that paleo humans engaged in selective breeding. There is a popular notion that dogs domesticated themselves.
That, the less aggressive they became they more successful they were
at approaching humans, dining on our garbage.

Today there are 400 "Recognized" dog breeds. In 1900 there were 80.

I'm guessing that there was more genetic diversity in 900 or even 900
BC(E) than there was in 1900. We look at breeds "Indigenous" to the
Americas, for example. There appears to be some continuity, at least in description (physical appearance) but genetically the later European
breeds seem to have swamped them genetically.

Domestication changed them right down to their DNA.

Now take elephants: They are NOT domesticated but the correct use of
the term. They are captured, "Trained" and put to work but they are not domesticated. The animals are taken from the wild. They are not bred.
There's certainly no intentional human influence on breeding.







-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/695497929137569792

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 2:11:48 PM UTC-4, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

I have seen

Who cares?

"Domestication" changes both the species (plant/animal) and the
people. If people domesticate wheat, for example, that requires
them to, what? Clear land? Produce specialized tools for farming?
Storage?

A cursory glimpse of the "Threshing Floor" in ancient times, it's importance, gives you an idea of just how is involved...

A great theory on göbeklitepe stipulates that these structures were
built by a proto agricultural society as storage for the wild grains
that grew in the area. The apparent "Religious" aspect would make
sense as protection -- the gods or spirits watching over their bounty
for them, as they were not yet settled people.

Even within historical times, looking at things such as the olive tree, we see that modern variants are much better suited for exploitation by
humans. The ancient world wasn't all that efficient, much less pre historic peoples.

This is a pattern seen everywhere in Rome. Roman iron production was
so inefficient that in Mussolini's time Roman slag, the waste product of iron production, was used as a source for iron. Apparently it was easier
to just increase production (set more people to producing) than to
increase productivity.

Most people rule out the notion that paleo humans engaged in selective breeding. There is a popular notion that dogs domesticated themselves.
That, the less aggressive they became they more successful they were
at approaching humans, dining on our garbage.

Today there are 400 "Recognized" dog breeds. In 1900 there were 80.

I'm guessing that there was more genetic diversity in 900 or even 900
BC(E) than there was in 1900. We look at breeds "Indigenous" to the Americas, for example. There appears to be some continuity, at least in description (physical appearance) but genetically the later European
breeds seem to have swamped them genetically.

Domestication changed them right down to their DNA.

Now take elephants: They are NOT domesticated but the correct use of
the term. They are captured, "Trained" and put to work but they are not domesticated. The animals are taken from the wild. They are not bred. There's certainly no intentional human influence on breeding.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/695497929137569792

Jermy is thinking way too hard. Sad, innit?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 8:48:57 AM UTC-4, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

I have seen zoo apes with other young animals acting like buddies. This also happens among other zoo fauna. I do not recall ever seeing a non-zoo arboreal ape with a non-ape buddy, nor acting co-operatively with another species while hunting or

foraging. It seems to me that human domestication of fauna and flora must have stemmed from an earlier behavior, but I can't imagine what.

Anyone (except jermybot) have any clues to an earlier partnering/hetero-species allo-parenting behavior? Perhaps apes groom baboon young on occasion? Perhaps arboreal frugivorous shitting selected for specific traits of fig trees, eg. Strangling figs

grow around trees where chimps perch while eating? Shelters enclosed/entrapped prey where they could be safely held and fed, like cages, leading to small animal domestication, but something similar preceded this. Grooming?

No response yet, come on people!!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

[...]

If you honestly believed that you'd have to inform people that
you find thinking "way too hard," there's something else you
got wrong. So, at least your consistent.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/695500485414764544

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)