ArticleScientific reports2017
Three-Dimensional Geometric Morphometric Analysis of Fossil Canid Mandibles and Skulls.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mandibular Shape Variation, Allometry and Modularity in Adult Mesocephalic Dogs (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Possible origins and implications of atypical morphologies and domestication-like traits in wild golden jackals (Canis aureus).Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Baculum shape complexity correlates to metrics of post-copulatory sexual selection in Musteloidea.Journal of morphology · 2023Article
- Putative avian teeth from the Late Cretaceous of Alberta, Canada, are more likely from crocodilians.PloS one · 2023Article
- The evolution of dog diet and foraging: Insights from archaeological canids in Siberia.Science advances · 2022Article
- Unexpected morphological diversity in ancient dogs compared to modern relatives.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Dog domestication and the dual dispersal of people and dogs into the Americas.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Much of the fossil record for dogs consists of mandibles. However, can fossil canid mandibles be reliably identified as dogs or wolves? 3D geometric morphometric analysis correctly classifies 99.5% of the modern dog and wolf mandibles. However, only 4 of 26 Ust'-Polui fossil mandibles, a Russian Arctic site occupied from 250BCE to 150CE, were identified as dogs and none of the 20 Ivolgin mandibles, an Iron Age site in southern Russia, were identified as dogs. Three of the Ust'-Polui mandibles and 8 of the Ivolgin mandibles were identified as wolves. In contrast, all 12 Ivolgin skulls and 5 Ust'-Polui skulls were clearly identified as dogs. Only the classification of the UP6571 skull as a dog (Dog Posterior Probability = 1.0) was not supported by the typical probability. Other evidence indicates these canids were domesticated: they were located within human dwellings, remains at both sites have butchery marks indicating that they were consumed, and isotope analysis of canid and human remains from Ust'-Polui demonstrate that both were consuming freshwater protein; indicating that the humans were feeding the canids. Our results demonstrate that the mandible may not evolve as rapidly as the cranium and the mandible is not reliable for identifying early dog fossils.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.