Anatolian dogs in nc
We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Anatolian dogs in nc
A bit of an anomoly in the history of Anatolian dog research, a bit of a gap from the early 1930's until 1980, when two significant papers were published on the subject by the same research team - the only one I have read was a 1980 paper on the Turkish dog.
At the moment, there is a gap of 70 years in between the most important papers that have been done on this species. What was the cause of the 60 years gap?
I'd have to guess that the gap was caused by the Turks being the only people to have dogs in the first place, and thus being less likely to get interested in the subject until they became widespread and had a better idea of what they were doing.
It's also likely that in the time between the 1930's and 1980 the population of Anatolian dogs decreased significantly.
The 1930's-1980's gap was caused by the fact that it took a while for the dogs' history to be discovered. There are only two ways to find something out about an animal's history: through history or through genetics.
For instance, if we find something in the DNA of a modern dog and that same thing has not been found in the DNA of any extinct dog, we can be pretty sure that dog was not in existence as long as the DNA suggests. However, if we find a feature in a modern dog that has also been found in an extinct dog, we can be pretty sure that dog existed as long as the DNA suggests.
It took quite a long time for people to figure out the right techniques to do genetics. The first time the technique was used for anything that would become famous was in the 1980's, when geneticists figured out how to use it for animals and plants. However, it was another couple of years before this technique was applied to the study of dogs. It's only about a decade since the first papers started appearing about the genetics of the Anatolian, and yet most of the history of the species has been written before the first genetics papers were published.
Even though the science of genetics had been around for a long time, there are still many things about the history of dogs that are unknown, just because there are no researchers working on this subject.
The most famous research team in the early to mid 20th century was the team at Cambridge University, led by Michael Russell and Eric Taylor. It is likely that most of their findings would have been the same even today if they had the knowledge they had when they began their research. But they did not, because the most important aspects of their research had already been done by other researchers in the previous few years.
At the time they were working, they knew little or nothing about dogs. When they began their research, they thought they would be finding a population of closely related dogs.
Their research began with a population of dogs which lived in Turkey, and they decided to call them "Turkish dogs". In their paper they mention how closely related they are to "Karakaslan" dogs. However, the dogs they mention seem to be related to the dogs that lived around Lake Van, and to other "Karakaslan" dogs, and therefore were actually closer to the Karakaslan dogs than to any Anatolian dogs.
It was very natural for Michael Russell and Eric Taylor to say that the "Turkish dogs" were close to the Karakaslan dogs. They knew that the Karakaslan dogs came from somewhere in the area of Lake Van. They also knew that there were dogs that had been found on the island of Kestanbolu in the vicinity of Lake Van, and they thought these dogs were likely to be of the same stock as the Karakaslan dogs.
However, when they looked at the genetics, they found something very different. They found that the dogs from Kestanbolu and the dogs of Lake Van, though they were originally from the same area, were completely different. In their paper, they refer to the dogs of Lake Van as "Turkish dogs" and the dogs of Kestanbolu as "Aegean dogs".
The research of this period was done by the British researchers, so they were not the first to suggest that the Anatolian dog is not a distinct species, but rather a local variety of the same species as the Karakaslan dog. They were the first to use the term "Anatolian" in relation to the dogs they found in the area around Lake Van. However, in their paper, they used a phrase which suggests that they have some doubts about the theory that they had first suggested.
They say that, when they first began their research, "the theory of two distinct groups of dog in Anatolia being the basis for our investigation was, at the outset, rather persuasive". They also sd that, "in fact, it had been the prevling view for some time".
At the time they wrote their paper, Michael Russell and Eric Taylor had not yet done much research on the Karakaslan dogs, or at least had not done enough to be able to form an opinion about the population of dogs they had found near Lake Van.
It is very likely that, had they known more about the genetic history of dogs, they would have done more research on the dogs they found around Lake Van before they suggested that they were a different species from the Karakaslan dogs. It's not that they doubted the Karakaslan dogs were related to the Anatolian dogs. They just didn't know enough about dogs to be sure.
But they did know about the dogs that were around Lake Van, and they knew they were not the same as the dogs of Kestanbolu. Therefore, they thought they were investigating a different species.
When Michael Russell and Eric Taylor published their paper in the Annals of the Association of American Geographers in 1947, they did not name the dogs they had found, even though they were the first to suggest that they were a different species. They used the term "Turkish dog" to refer to the dogs they had found in Turkey, and the term "An