this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2025
113 points (99.1% liked)

Science

5548 readers
234 users here now

General discussions about "science" itself

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

https://lemmy.ml/c/science

https://beehaw.org/c/science

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] calliope@retrolemmy.com 54 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (3 children)

Wow that’s interesting!

The study lays out the case that the domestication process is often wrongly thought of as initiated by humans—with people capturing and selectively breeding wild animals. But the study authors claim that the process begins much earlier, when animals become habituated to human environments.

“One thing about us humans is that, wherever we go, we produce a lot of trash,” says the study’s co-author and University of Arkansas at Little Rock biologist Raffaela Lesch. Piles of human scraps offer a bottomless buffet to wildlife, and to access that bounty, animals need to be bold enough to rummage through human rubbish but not so bold as to become a threat to people.

This has absolutely blown my mind. I don’t think I’ve ever considered that, obviously.

[–] porcoesphino@mander.xyz 3 points 1 hour ago

In that case you might like the PBS Eons video on the domestication of house cats (and it touches on some of the generalised processes):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CYPJzQppANo

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 hours ago

Yeah, if you ever run across the theories of how dogs became so close to us, it started with wolves being willing to take the risks of scavenging near us, and eventually co-evolving (until selective breeding started).

Actively, intentionally domesticating a species is a slow process overall, and it wasn't something that I've seen any specialists suggest would have been the case with dogs, or cats.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

I've felt that dogs have taken the same path. Notice how expressive their facial muscles are? Wolves don't have nearly so many facial muscles. Wild to learn about isn't it?!

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 28 points 7 hours ago

City-dwelling raccoons seem to be evolving a shorter snout—a telltale feature of our pets and other domesticated animals

I wonder if it's softer food.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 15 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

For the new study, she and 16 graduate and undergraduate students gathered nearly 20,000 photographs of raccoons across the contiguous U.S. from the community science platform iNaturalist. The team found that raccoons in urban environments had a snout that was 3.5 percent shorter than that of their rural cousins.

Or maybe people in cities take more photos of “cuter” animals?

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 4 points 4 hours ago

I mean every raccoon in the study was photographed. So this wouldn't explain any difference within that sample.

[–] Voyajer@lemmy.world 9 points 5 hours ago

If they're iNaturalist photo submissions then they're submitting every raccoon (and other animal) they see

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

I don't think someone would notice a 3.5% shorter snout when they took the picture.

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 9 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

If humans are more likely to take photos of racoons they find cute, we'd expect those racoons to have cuter features than the average racoon. It might not be actual change going on, is the point being made.

We don't conciously notice the snout length, just the ones we think are cute are probably slightly more likely to have a shorter snout.

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

My point is that the change in length is only 3.5%, more than someone would notice when deciding to taking a photo.

The 3.5% change in snout length is one sign of domestication starting to happen, not a sign that people will be more likely to take a photo---that idea was just the speculation of a commenter.

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

If it was not noticeably cuter, then it would cause no advantage and the theory falls. (Which is possible, of course.)

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 5 points 6 hours ago

Not individually, but over nearly 20,000 instances.