What Dogs, Bedbugs, and Corn Have in Common Might Surprise You

Share On:

At first glance, domestication appears to be a straightforward idea: humans have altered plants or animals to fulfil particular functions, such as a dairy cow grazing on a farm or a devoted pet pug. However, even for scientists, the term becomes increasingly obscure the further one goes.

Is it domestic to have an indoor/outdoor cat that leaves unwanted “gifts” at the door? What about unwanted cohabitants that thrive in human spaces, such as bedbugs or sewer rats? As evolutionary biologists Elinor Karlsson and Kathryn Lord found when examining foxes bred for tameness in a well-known Russian experiment, these questions reveal a lack of agreement that makes research more difficult.

Via Quora

Were these tame foxes submissive but not entirely reliant on humans? The a lack of an agreed-upon definition for the waterways. According to the Lord of the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, “we don’t have one that is universally accepted.” “Therefore, we frequently do not speak the same language even when we are studying domestication.”

Clarity is necessary because definitions influence how scientists examine the evolution of species in habitats that have been influenced by humans. Some see a mutual relationship between species, while others emphasise human control and genetic change. A population is considered domestic if it develops a dependence on a human-associated niche and becomes incapable of surviving without it, according to Karlsson and Lord’s novel concept.

Via Terminix

A New Definition for Domestication

Via Darwin’s Ark

A population is considered domestic if it develops a dependence on a human-associated niche and becomes incapable of surviving without it, according to Karlsson and Lord’s novel concept. This definition, which was published on May 12 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, moves the emphasis from intentional breeding and other human intent to evolutionary reliance on ecosystems that have been transformed by humans.

The term provides a uniform framework for examining the domestication of all species, from mammals to microorganisms like Lactococcus lactis, which is used to make cheese, by highlighting adaptation to a human niche.

Via Terminix

By offering a precise, quantifiable standard—dependency on people for survival—the method seeks to standardise scientific study. However, because it parallels the idea of obligate synanthropes—species that are completely dependent on human environments—it has generated controversy, with some experts doubting its uniqueness.

The Roots and Ambiguity of “Domestic”

Originating from the Latin meaning “of the home,” the term “domestic” defies easy definition. Do an organism’s ability to exist without humans, its habitat, or the degree of human control all play a role in domestication? This ambiguity complicates scientific discourse and is compared to identifying art—”you know it when you see it.” The distinction between domestic and wild blackberries is blurred, for example, when humans grow a harvest of blackberries while other populations thrive unhindered.

Via Standard Pest Management

Scientists continue to argue about what exactly constitutes a domestic species because of this ambiguity. Some others believe that domestication was human-directed and involved selective breeding for desired qualities, such as Chris Schell, an urban ecologist. Others, such as Carlos Driscoll, a scientist, highlight that the primary marker is genetic differentiation brought about by human activity. According to archaeobotanist Amy Bogaard, domestication is a reciprocal interaction in which animals and people both adapt.

Via Petful

These differing viewpoints underline how difficult it is to come up with a definition that works for everyone. The ambiguity extends to commonplace instances: are cats that hunt on their own, both indoors and outside, considered domestic? What about bedbugs or sewer rats that thrive in human areas without being invited? The issue of what is “domestic” becomes increasingly complicated as human activity changes ecosystems, from farms to garbage piles.

Karlsson and Lord’s definition, which emphasises evolutionary dependence, aims to clear this haze, but detractors contend it may conflict with preexisting ideas or upend preexisting classifications, highlighting the complex, dynamic process of domestication in a world that is becoming more and more influenced by human activity.

Via Bed Bug Scent Detection

Competing Views on Domestication

Because of its complexity, the idea of domestication elicits different interpretations from experts. Domestication, according to Chris Schell, an urban ecologist at UC Berkeley, is a human-driven process in which individuals deliberately breed species for characteristics that meet their requirements, such as increased agricultural yields or docility in dogs.

According to this viewpoint, the foundation of domestication is deliberate human interference. Carlos Driscoll, a biologist at Hood College, on the other hand, focuses on genetic differentiation and contends that a domestic population must differ from its wild counterparts by displaying genetic alterations brought about by human interaction.

Via Reddit

These quantifiable genetic changes, whether in plants like maize or animals like cats, are essential to Driscoll’s definition of domestication. Archaeobotanist Amy Bogaard of the University of Oxford, on the other hand, believes that domestication is a reciprocal connection between species.

She emphasises how organisms and humans both adapt to live together, with humans changing methods to support them and animals like sheep changing their behaviours. These conflicting theories—interspecies interactions, genetic change, and human selection—showcase the difficulty in coming up with a single, accepted definition.

Via National Geographic

Although each viewpoint focuses on a different aspect of domestication, it is unable to cover the entire spectrum of situations, from purposefully bred animals to opportunistic urban pests like rats. When researching tame foxes, researchers like Kathryn Lord and Elinor Karlsson observed that this lack of agreement makes research more difficult. Since different definitions influence our understanding of species’ development in settings influenced by humans, their study emphasises the necessity of a common framework to manage these complications.

Redefining Domesticity – Evolution Over Control

A definition of domestication that puts evolutionary adaptation ahead of human control is put out by Elinor Karlsson and Kathryn Lord. Regardless of intentional human breeding, they contend that a population is considered domestic if it has developed to depend on a human-created niche and is unable to survive without it. For instance, the bacterium Lactococcus lactis, which is essential to the creation of cheese, is domestic since it only occurs in human-driven environments.

Via National Geographic

Similarly, there are no known wild populations of Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus), which thrive in urban sewers and trash heaps and are completely dependent on human settings. On the other hand, “human exploiters” such as blackberries, cows, and horses profit from human closeness but are not included in this definition because they are capable of surviving on their own.

This method, which was published on May 12 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, moves the emphasis from human intention to evolutionary results, involving species as different as bedbugs and dogs. By highlighting reliance on human niches, such as houses, farms, or landfills, it offers a quantifiable standard for research on domestication.

Via Bed Bug Lawyers

However, some challenge its uniqueness by seeing strong parallels to the idea of compelled synanthropes. Others are concerned that it would upset current classifications since reclassifying bedbugs as domestic could make earlier studies more difficult. Notwithstanding these reservations, Lord and Karlsson’s paradigm seeks to integrate scientific research by emphasising how evolution is influenced by human-modified surroundings.

This definition redefines what it means to be domestic in a world increasingly shaped by human presence by highlighting the significant, frequently unintended, influence that humans have on species as they alter ecosystems.

Via PetsRadar

Strengths and Critiques of the New Framework

There are proponents and opponents of Elinor Karlsson and Kathryn Lord’s concept of domestication, which defines domestic populations as those that have developed to rely on niches associated with humans. Carlos Driscoll, a Hood College biologist, commends its emphasis on populations rather than entire species, drawing a comparison between domestication and the various pathways that lead to cancer, which have comparable outcomes.

This method acknowledges that only some populations within a species may be domestic, allowing for a nuanced study. Because it avoids oversimplifying species-wide classifications, Eben Gering, an evolutionary biologist at Nova Southeastern University, also sees benefits in the population-based approach.

Via A-Z Animals

Gering, however, challenges its novelty, pointing out that it is quite similar to the current idea of obligatory synanthropes—species that are completely dependent on human habitats, such as sewer rats or bedbugs. Gering and other critics worry that expanding the definition of “domestic” to encompass these creatures would interfere with ongoing research because earlier findings might not fit this new nomenclature.

Here’s the One Thing Dogs, Bedbugs, and Corn All Share

Carlos Driscoll, a scientist, says, “Nature is messy,” summarising the difficulty of defining domestication in a world where human impact makes it difficult to distinguish between wild and domestic. A promising framework for scientific clarity is provided by Elinor Karlsson and Kathryn Lord’s proposed definition, which emphasises evolutionary adaptation above human control and states that domestic populations are those that have evolved to rely on human-associated niches.

Via Casper mattress

It emphasises how humans are a driving force behind evolutionary change by designating dogs, maize, and even bedbugs as domestic while leaving out horses and honeybees. However, not everyone is satisfied with this definition, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Critics such as Eben Gering contend that it may complicate existing studies because it overlaps with preexisting ideas such as obligate synanthropes.