Morphology‐based diagnostics of “protodogs.” A commentary to Galeta et al., 2021, Anatomical Record, 304, 42–62, doi: 10.1002/ar.24500

In a recent article in this journal, Galeta et al., (2020) discussed eight Pleistocene “protodogs” and seven Pleistocene wolves. Those “protodogs” had been diagnosed in earlier publications, based on skull morphology. We re‐examined the Galeta et al. paper to offer comments on their observed outcomes, and the conclusion of presumed domestication. Of seven metrics that the authors used, five differed statistically between their two groups. However, from more elaborate studies, some of those same metrics had been rejected previously as not valid species‐distinguishing traits. In this respect, we do accept cranium size and wider palate as species‐distinguishing metrics. The physical size of their specimens was much larger than other archaeological specimens that have been accepted as dogs. Additionally, their sample size was small, compared to the number of available specimens, as shown from previous publications by the same group. Thus, we considered statistical differences that were found between groups in their study, and assessed whether the outcomes could have resulted from natural morphological variation. We examined a group of 73 dire wolves ((Aenocyon [Canis] dirus; Perri et al., 2021), using the same methods as used by Galeta et al., (2020). We could segregate two distinct morphological groups in our study, one having outcomes that were identical to the “protodogs” in Galeta et al. (2020). For the specimens of extinct dire wolves to segregate in the same way as the subjects from Galeta et al. indicates that natural variation probably was the driver of their observed outcomes, domestication being an unlikely assumption.