Could the Fennec fox be the Chihuahua's ancestor? I'm going to have to go with no on that one.
Dog breed origin stories are often like creation stories in religions. They are full of bad information, poor speculation, and it is difficult to find evidence any evidence that is not tautological or really bad hearsay. In golden retrievers, we have the Russian circus dog theory, which has been so clearly disproven, that I am not going to rehash it here. As near as I can tell, though, this has been the only folk story about breed origins that has been disproven. Although the FCI has raised doubts the Dalmatian actually came from Croatia when it claimed that it was the result of crossing pointers and setters with bull and terrier-types in eighteenth century in England, no one has disproven the Croatian dog story. The dachshund is said to have a history going all the way back to Ancient Egypt, where it is pictured on the walls of tomb of one of the pharaohs!
The Chihuahua dog has a similar dubious origins story. Supposedly this breed originated in Mexico as one of the Toltecs’ sacred animals. It is supposedly a Native American dog, like the extinct Tahltan Bear Dog (which did look like a big Chihuahua). And the Pre-Columbian indigenous peoples of the Americas were major dog breeders, breeding all sorts of hairless dogs, wool dogs, and various types of dogs that could be either eaten or as beasts of burden. The Aztecs did have a little dog, called a Techichi, but analysis of the Chihuahua’s DNA suggests that it is of Old World origin, perhaps derived from some European toy dogs and maybe some toy terriers with apple heads. Again, the original story has not yet been disproven, because the DNA analysis looked at only mitochondrial DNA, which only is inherited through the mother. So the fathers of the Chihuahua could have been the Techichi.
However, of all the bizarre theories I’ve read about a dog breed’s origins, this alternative theory about their origins takes the cake. Apparently, the author thinks that the Chihuahua got its small size from hybridization. Now, some theories about dog origins do include hybridization. Charles Darwin was a major proponent of the theory that dogs were derived from a medley of foxes, wolves, coyotes, jackals, and dingoes. In the twentieth century, Konrad Lorenz postulated that dogs were a mixture of wolf and golden jackal in Man Meets Dog This hybridization gave rise to great genetic diversity and new shapes and forms could be brought out of the hybrid soup. However, this theory has been falsified. Dogs come from an East Asian population of wolves, and the wolf is their primary and perhaps sole ancestor.
Now, the problem with this theory of Chihuahua origins is that the author is arguing some things that do not comport with what we already know about world history and the development of all of these dog breeds.
First of all, the only hairless dogs that have ever been proven to exist are American in origin. Even the Chinese crested is American in origin, coming from a kennel where Xoloitzcuinli (Mexican Hairless dogs) were crossed with fuzzy lap dogs. China hadnothing to do with them. The whole dog breeds coming from China to the New World thing is not supported by the evidence. The hairless dog stories are common in popular dog literature, but that part of the theory is still somewhat believable. Luckily, the author recognizes that hairless dogs are not related to Chihuahuas. However, it is possible that the dogs that Chihuahuas were crossed in to make the smaller Xolo dogs. The Xolo is indeed indigenous America breed, although it probably has European dogs in its mitochondrial DNA sequence.
Also, dogs come from East Asian wolves, not Turkey or Mesopotamia. That whole part of the theory is simply wrong. So the Chihuahua isn’t from the Middle East.
In addition, Chihuahuas are terrier-like, perhaps because they were stray dogs of terrier ancestry living in Northern Mexico, and when they were imported to England, they were probably bred with the toy white terrier and the toy Manchester terrier. That would give them a really strong terrier-like temperament.
But the part of the theory that is most wrong. Is that the Chihuaha is descended from the Fennec fox, incorrectly classified here in the old genus Fennecus, which has since been changed to Vulpes, the same genus as the red fox. The foxes in the Vulpes genus live in the Old World and North America, and none of them can interbreed with dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals, and dingo/pariahs. They are simply another genus that has evolved differently from the dogs to the point that they cannot interbreed. A dog breeding with a Fennec is just not possible. None of the foxes in the old world ever could breed with a dog. The other foxes that cannot breed with dogs are the Arctic fox, which may actually be in the genus Vulpes because it can hybridize with red foxes and make infertile hybrids, and the grey foxes (the ancient canids of North America, Central America, and Venezuela and Colombia that can climb trees) cannot breed with them either.
However, the South American canids are interesting, and it is the discussion of these wild dogs that causes a great deal of confusion. The Europeans called the smaller species of South American canids foxes. However, these foxes are actually more closely related to the dogs, wolves, coyotes, dingoes/pariahs, and jackals. Marion Schwarz in A History of Dogs in the Early Americas reportst that a crab-eating fox (Cerdocyon thous) may have crossbred with domestic dogs. This species is more closely related to dogs than foxes, and the some indigenous people have kept them as pets, allowing them the opportunity to breed with dogs. Again, this is an anecdote, but it makes more sense that this animal would cross with a dog than the fennec.
This South American "fox" may have interbred with domestic dogs. It is more closely related to dogs than the animals we in the Northern Hemishere think of as foxes.
Messybeast reports some stories about dog and red fox hybrids, but there was never any DNA analysis ever performed on them. They were probably foxlike dogs like this one:
The volpino is named for its fox-like features. Volpe is Italian for fox, and volpino is the diminutive. It is derived from the Latin word for fox, vulpes, which is the scientific name for the genus of red foxes and their close relations. However, these dogs do not have fox ancestors.
So the fennec is not the ancestor the Chihuahua.
I have heard from some sources that long-haired Chihuahuas were crossbreeds originally, having been developed by Ida Garrett (who also created the Chinese Crested) by crossing ‘traditional’ Chis with longhaired toy dogs like the Pomeranian. Since I believe both coat types are commonly interbred, those genes have been spread throughout the entire breed.
I’ve seen photos of South American pottery and such supposedly depicting shorthair Chihuahuas and Xolos that are quite ancient, and I don’t doubt that advanced mesoamerican civilizations were at least as competent at selective dog breeding as the Chinese were.
Ida Garrett wrote a handbook outlining her development of the Chihuahua (titled ‘The Chihuahua’ which was published in 1959 under the name ‘Rev. Kauffman’), which is out of print and hard to find nowadays. Since I haven’t read it, I’m not sure if it proves what I’ve heard, but I have to say, I find it baffling when there is clear historical information available about a breed that gets ignored or discarded by it’s breed clubs in favor of perpetuating rumors and fairy tales. Isn’t part of their purpose to educate their members about the breed and to preserve it’s history?
I have a Chihuahua and was looking for info on it origins. Has any DNA tests been done on the Chihuahuas beyond mitochrondrial DNA test to rule out relation of Chihuahuas to Cerdocyon thous or the Fennec fox? Foxes and dogs do not interbreed now, but is there any possibility that they could have done so in ancient times? I sure can understand why folks might think the Fennec fox is the origin just by looking at the fox. Am wondering about the state of DNA testing on the matter. Thank you.
Dogs are only between 15,000 and 135,000 years old. They can cross with all members of the genus Canis, except black-backed and side-striped jackals. The ancestors of these animals and true foxes diverged millions of years ago. They have different chromosome counts, and very different behavior.
The South American foxes are not true foxes and are related to the dogs in the genus Canis and the African painted dog/painted wolf and the Dhole. Supposedly, a crab-eating fox, which is a South American fox, interbred with a domestic dog. However, I’ve not seen any good documentation of that cross, and I assume that the animal was a mule, a sterile hybrid.
There have been genetic tests on domestic dogs and many members of the dog family. All domestic dogs have an mtDNA sequence that is virtually the same as some wolf populations. Dogs are wolves, including Chihuahuas.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/5755/wolf.html
[...] not as bad as believing chihuahuas are derived from fennec foxes, but this theory has been thoroughly [...]
[...] They were said to be part otter, which is probably the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard (even worse than theory that chihuahuas are derived from fennec foxes!) This story was amended to say that they were part otterhound, which is, at the very least, a [...]
i just finished a report on the fennec. i learned nothing of its origins. where can i learn more?
This a good site: http://www.lioncrusher.com/animal.asp?animal=17
i don’t know… i have a chihuahua and he sure thinks he’s a fox :)
[...] ancestry in a circle and different colored lineages, then could you link it? I thought it was here: A Crazy Theory on Chihuahua Origins Retrieverman's Weblog but I can't find it. I think the link used to be there but it's broken. It was really interesting, [...]
Our female chihuahua can climb our 30 year old eucalyptus tree. She’s done 18 feet up to try and get a squirrel. Her brother has managed to get to 6 feet.
Friends, you mean they aren’t a cross between a newborn polar bear and a mouse? Why should the breed creation stories that you have heard be considered more real than mine?
I have heard interesting stories from Chihuahua owners – not saying that their stories are true or not – but they are as good as most people’s, I guess.
One man said he has relatives in the Chihuahua area of Mexico, and that there were wild/feral Chihuahuas there.
He said that they were not tame, and that they lived in abandoned rabbit holes, and have puppies in there.
He said rarely did they have two pups in a litter, usually just one, and that the dogs were tiny, but not tamable.
He said they were believed to mostly eat lizzards, although I guess they could eat newborn rabbits out of the rabbit holes?
If true, it make the Chihuahua the only show breed that can live in the wild.
A person who had a Chihuahua, told me that when the DNA from that dog study came out, Chihuahuas were one of the few breeds that weren’t all genetically similar. (Was the other the Norweigian Elkhound?).
It seems that the genetic diverse lines of Chihuahuas could have come from the much talked about crossing of other small dog breeds to get even tinier dogs.
I think American Chihuahuas have changed a lot. I don’t remember there being any long-haired Chihuahuas when I was a kid, now I see more longhaired Chihuahuas than shorthaired ones.
There are photos of mummified Chihuahuas – an they don’t look like show chihuahuas – the photos that I have seen show a Taco Bell type of Chihuahua – the old type, now called the deer type.
Well, I am interested in all breeds of Dogs behaviour because I work with them for a living. And I have to say I think this theory is true. I have studied the behaviour of foxes as well as dogs and Chihuahuas display very similar behaviour to them. I do think way back when thats dogs were cross bread with other species and developed into the terrier types and small dogs we see today, I dont know why it so hard to believe evolution and human genetic interference is an amazing a and complex thing. What I do believe is that dogs today are decendants wholey and partly from wolves and that other species have played an integral part in how they look act behave today.
Why you are wrong: http://wooferhouse.net/Links/MolecularEvolutionOfTheDogFamily/MolecularEvolutionOfTheDogFamily.htm (Check out the chromosome numbers on fennecs and wolves. Not possible).
Why you are wrong part II : http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/dogs-likely-originated-in-the-155101.aspx
Chis were in the same clade as other toy breeds in that study:
http://reinep.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/dog-tree.jpg
All dogs are wolves, except the Sulimov dogs, which are sniffer dogs in Russia that have some golden jackal in them.
Some have suggested that golden jackals may have played a role in developing the Azawakh and Magreb Sloughis of North Africa, but no one has found golden jackal genes in those dogs. There probably are dog genes in golden jackals, for in the wild, golden jackal bitches will mate with domestic dogs. The reverse almost never happens, not even in captivity, which was a problem in developing in the Sulimov dogs.
Chihuahuas look like Fennecs. Sure. But Chihuahuas are derived from wolves.
By your logic, why don’t we say that bull terriers are derived from pigs?
The theory that other species of wild dog played a role dog domestication comes from Konrad Lorenz and Darwin. Lorenz later recanted (Darwin never knew any better).
I’m sorry about this, but you’re wrong. The geneticists figured this out a long time ago.
Owner of Chihuahua mix :
oh ps retrieverman your infomation from wooferhouse was taken from 1993..and that other source you gave from ucla is not proven they just did a study they haven’t proven it wasn’t a known fact they said “likey originated from the middle east” Your not giving proven facts so stop telling everyone else that they are wrong. things change everyday ..climate, people, life . scientists aren’t always correct . science only goes so far, then comes God
Phoebe– this is all weak sauce.
The UCLA study that came out last year was the most in depth study of dog DNA every performed. Chis group with other toy dogs. Get over it.
Also check out the dog phylogenetic tree: http://retrieverman.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/dog-phylogenetic-tree.jpg
Are fennec foxes anywhere related to any dogs, wolves, or coyotes?
That came from Lindblad-Toh’s sequencing of the dog genome.http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7069/abs/nature04338.html
Those are real studies. Not made up crap. This stuff about the fennec fox as the ancestor of the chihuahua is Grade A Bullplop, which floats around on the internet because people are too gullible to look at the facts. It’s a flight of fancy. I might as well say that chihuahuas were introduced to earth by extraterrestrials, because that’s about likely as them deriving from fennec foxes.
God? Why not Waheguru? Pangu, Fuxi and Nüwa? Shiva or Shakti? Is the first Buddha wrong in his theology?
Seriously. Don’t play the God game, because then you’re begging the question of which religion is right.
[...] them that one wonders if any of it is true. The two best cases I can think of are the story that chihuahuas are derived from fennec foxes– based upon nothing more than possessing a superficially similar phenotype– and the [...]
“The Chihuahua does have an uncanny resemblance to a tiny desert animal — Fennecus zerda, or the Fennec fox. Luminous eyes, large erect ears, small feet, and a preference for living in packs of ten to twelve, the Fennec fox shares many characteristics of the Chihuahua. In 1980, the Fennec fox was successfully bred to Chihuahuas — an interspecies cross previously thought impossible.”
http://www.netplaces.com/chihuahua/a-dog-without-borders/ancient-beginnings.htm
Must be related for this to have happened. I think you might be wrong
This is simply not true.
The internet is full of crappy information like this. I went to Google Scholar and verified this claim. It came up blank.
Do you not understand how many millions of years separate Vulpes from Canis? It’s not a trivial number. No one has produced an intergeneric cross in the dog family– except for the possible dog-crab-eating fox hybrid (of which I’m very skeptical). Within the genus Canis, the dog/wolf/dingo/New Guinea Singing dog species, can cross breed with the coyote, the golden jacka, and the Ethiopian wolf or Simien jackal,It cannot crossbreed with the next most related species, which is the dhole and then the African wild dog. Black-backed jackals and side-stiped jackals cannot cross with them either, and they are most distantly related than the dhole and African wild dog– despite the fact that the superficially look like golden jackals and are in the genus Canis.
Even the supposed crab-eating fox is much more closely relted to Canis than it is to Vulpes. What you’re suggesting is almost akin to saying that a human can crossbreed with a squirrel monkey. It simply didn’t happen, no matter what teh internet says.
You perhaps take the prize for the stupidest commentator on this blog. Not a single genetic study confirms what you are saying.
Indeed, the Chihuahua must be almost entirely Western for a recent genome-wide study found that they were most closely related to the Dachshund and Cavalier King Charles spaniel: http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/new-genome-wide-study-sheds-light-on-dog-breed-relationships/
If you think Chihuahuas are derived from Fennec foxes, I know where you can get a 300-pound super wolf:
http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/where-you-can-buy-a-300-pound-super-wolf/
Perhaps you folks who think that a 64 chromosome critter can successfully breed w/ a 78 chromosome critter are just math challenged?
Yes, there are cases of hybridization between related species, such as between a horse (64 chromosomes) and a donkey (62 chromosomes). But, the resultant “mule” w/ 63 chromosomes (32 from the horse and 31 from the donkey), though viable, is sterile. (Even in human beings (46 chromosomes) the duplication of a single chromosome leads to Down’s syndrome (47 chromosomes), w/ its concomitant traits and difficulties.)
But, for the sake of argument, lets assume that a dog (78 chromosomes) is successfully crossed w/ a Fennec Fox (64 chromosomes). The resultant hybrid would, by necessity, have 71 chromosomes (simple math: 39 from the dog, 32 from the Fennec). Yet all Chihuahuas tested to date have the 78 chromosomes typical of Old World dogs/wolves.
The base truth is that in this case you simply have two genetically distinct but distantly related critters with similar physical and behavioral characteristics.
Here’s the deal.
You can get animals with very different chromosome numbers hybridizing. Take the hybrid between the false killer whale and the bottlenosed dolphin– “the wholphin.” This hybrid was also fertile, even though it was intergeneric (different genus), and she had a calf with another bottlenosd dolphin.
Domestic horses and Przewalski’s horse have different chromosome numbers, but the cross between the two is fertile. Domestic and Przewalski’s horses are now considered part of the same species.
That’s because in both of those cases the DNA itself doesn’t vary that much, even if it’s in a different number of chromosomes.
Foxes and dogs are much more distantly related than either of these two examples. They are even more distantly related than horses are from donkeys. It’s almost like saying that humans could hybridize with gibbons.
Humans could hybridize with chimps, bonobos, and gorillas, but these hybrids would be like mules.
The fertility of the Wholphin doesn’t surprise me as not only are both parents of closely related genera (there’s a good deal of disagreement among taxonomists on this btw) but they appear to also have the same number of chromosomes (44).
The fertility of the horse/Przewalski hybrid is a surprise as an odd number of chromosomes (in this case 65) almost always scotches meiosis. I can’t help but wonder if this is a one-off as occasionally happens w/ mules.
In the case of the purported dog/Fennec cross, not only would you have that extra chromosome but many of the other chromosomes would probably not have appropriate match-ups for the purpose of fertilization.
Just ran across this posting which helps explain the Przewalski/horse quandary:
“Przewalski’s horse (with 66 chromosomes) and the domesticated horse (with 64 chromosomes) are capable of mating to produce fertile offspring. The domesticated horse has 2 less chromosomes because one chromosome pair resulted from the end to end fusion of two separate chromosomes.
Humans also are the result of a similar process in an ape ancestor (humans have 46 chromosomes, chimps, bonobos and gorillas have 48; human chromosome 2 looks exactly like two chromosomes fused).
Why the fusion became fixed in domesticated horses and humans was due to chance in a very small initial population (the fusion is only weakly deleterious to the affected individual, resulting in a higher incidence of spontaneous abortions in the offspring). All you need is a certain amount of inbreeding in the offspring (which you are going to get in a small breeding population) to fix it.
About 1% of cases of trisomy 21 (Down’s syndrome) are due to a similar fusion of chromosome 21 to another chromosome (usually chromosome 14) in one of the parents, who has 45 chromosomes (and is phenotypically normal). Offspring can either have 45 chromosomes (with the fused chromosome from one parent and chromosome 21 from the other) or 46 chromosomes (fused chromosome and two chromosomes 21, one from each parent, and therefore “trisomy 21″).
Conceivably, if two individuals with the fused chromosome (with 45 chromosomes) mate, a rare event, the offspring could have just 44 chromosomes and be normal, and therefore humans could evolve to have just 22 pairs of chromosomes.” (Comment by bachfiend at http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/468485-chromosomal-mutations-and-offspring/comments?page=1)
Very interesting, thanks! However, I am not completely convinced. I know very little about the DNA of dogs or foxes but I have been observing and living with many dogs. This also includes the Chihuahua. Chihuahua’s have one interesting characteristic that I find interesting and perhaps worth pondering; their like their own kind and while accepting other K9′s, will always gravitate to each other first. Other dog breeds are tolerated but not completely embraced and simply as another curiousity, I ask if you ever seen a wolf pall around with a fox or visa versa?
There are lots of dogs that relate differently toward others of their own general type. Golden and Labrador retrievers like to be with each other, as do herding breeds of the collie type.
Wolves normally kil foxes, although Adolph Murie in The Wolves of Mt McKinley found that those wolves tolerated foxes. They only did so in order to have the foxes dig the dens that the wolves stole.
Behavior is interesting but it does not trump DNA.
BTW, the fox conection is also a much more romantic theory! So what, alow some of us to enhance our otherwise redundent life’s with a little freelance emagination.
Could the Chihuahua have developed as another, completely unrelated sub spiecie?
Well, the small dogs are on their way to becoming reproductively isolated enough that over time they will become their own species.
Domestic dogs are mostly derived from Middle Eastern wolves, and Middle Eastern wolves share the small dog gene with the toy breeds. The small dogs were actually among the first types to develop from then ancestral wolf. There aren’t toy wolves in the Middle East, but there are wolves that weigh only 25 pounds.
The history of chihuahuas is really not clear. One theory goes that they are derived from the techichi and alco of the advanced Mexican civilizations, but another theory goes that they are primarily derived from European toy breeds that were brought over. A recent genetic DNA analysis shows that they are most closely related to dachshunds and Cavalier King Charles spaniels, which strongly suggests that these dogs are primarily European in origin, even if they might have some ancestral techichi-type ancestors. http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/new-genome-wide-study-sheds-light-on-dog-breed-relationships/
My guess is the Spanish brought over lots toy spaniels, the proto-Papillons, and these heavily crossed with the techichis.
The xoloitzcuintli or Mexican hairless is probably almost entirely European, too– except that it has been confirmed that the dominant hairless dogs of Latin America actually derive from a mutation that first appeared in Mexico thousands of years ago.
There are no pure Native American dogs anywhere. Even these companion dogs have heavily mixed European dogs until they are almost entirely of that extraction.
There is no such thing as ‘reproductively isolated’ when you have AI ;)
How do you think people use miniature male poodles to produce minidoodles?
They don’t use AI on them. I know of breeders who just lift up the little poodles and let them mate with their golden bitches.
But for practical purposes, there’s no significant gene flow between the very small dogs and the rest of the canine population. And virtually all of the crosses between large and small get spayed and neutered.
If they were freely breeding, these little dogs wouldn’t stand a chance. The small bitches would get impregnated by large dogs, and they’d die giving birth. And the little males wouldn’t be able to compete with large males to mate with any bitches and would probably be killed in the process.
There is some gene flow between large and very small dogs, but it’s not significant from a population genetics perspective.
I think the giant breeds and the very small dogs are going to become ends in a ring species.
Yes, Scottie, there are indeed breeders of minidoodles that use AI. In fact, there are many, many breeders of dogs that are perfectly capable of doing the deed naturally who routinely use side by side AI, because it’s ‘safer.’ No chance of disease transmission, no chance the dogs may be injured.
But you are correct in this.
The little dogs and the big dogs are not as genetically distinct as wolves and coyotes are, and coyotes and wolves have a pretty significant gene flow.
The only problem is that the mechanics of breeding might force the really little ones and giant breeds to become reproductively isolated from each other over time.
I think that’s what will happen so long as registries are closed and breeding for extremes in size is common.
BTW, there were toy terriers that were once common as pets in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. They were called toy English white terriers, and they had apple heads and moleras.
A subspecies, by definition, cannot be ‘unrelated.’
In the 1899 book ‘Modern Dogs (non sporting)’ the paragraph on Chihuahuas states that the long-haired variety are called ‘butterfly dogs’. I find that very interesting. Lots of the earliest photos of Papillons I’ve seen (pre-1930s) look a lot like long-haired Chihuahuas.
Ah, so this is where you all ran off to after furiously spamming my blog with comments this morning.
Since the price of full genome sequencing is dropping like a stone, it won’t be long before more breed origination coctails will be illuminated… things that breeders long since dead thought died with them will be revealed. Precious myths will be debunked, and maybe a few will be confirmed.
I don’t think the Fennec has anything to worry about though.
There is a very vocal “we need some kind of DNA test” movement within the People Suspicious About COO Salukis faction. I do hope they get one, and test EVERY dog with it.
Yes. The chihuahua’s ancestor is the fox, not the wolf.
I’m sorry, but you’re horribly mistaken. All dogs, including chihuahuas, are Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of wolf.
No fox genes have been found at all. Because foxes cannot crossbreed with dogs or wolves or cats.
This is all fine and dandy but there are other reasons that the chi is thought to be related to the fennec… They share the same teeth… the only dogs that have this type of teeth… they also share the same luminescent eyes… no other dogs except fennecs and chi’s have these eyes… Also they are the only dogs that do not really need to drink water… they have extremely efficient kidneys… Go ahead argue… One other point is that with DNA testing they found …. now hold on to your underwear since this is going to upset all you would be geneticists running around spewing about number of chromosomes… That all North American wild foxes tested had domestic dog DNA… PERIOD… So put that in your pipe and smoke it… The cross that is thought to have led to the basic chi is the fennec crossed with the Maltese… Prove otherwise… By the way when was the last time you even tried to cross a fennec with a maltese??? Put up or shut up… All the talk is just that worthless talk…
You are very wrong about North American foxes. Very. Very. Very. Wrong. Foxes cannot, simply cannot interbreed with dogs. People have claimed “doxes” for centuries, and even if they did exist, they’d be infertile due to the massive differences in chromosome number. My guess is you’re misreading the initial DNA analysis of the warrah or Falkland Islands wolf, which was said to most closely related to the coyote through that initially assay. It’s not. It’s most closely related to the maned wolf. Or you might be misreading that South American “foxes” which are in the genus Lycalopex, which means wolf fox. These foxes are foxes in name only. They, all South American wild dogs, share a more recent common ancestor with the lineage that gave us wolves and coyotes. North American foxes are either in the Vulpes or Urocyon. Urocyon is about as genetically different from a domestic dog as wild dog can be and still be a dog, and Vulpes split of almost as early from the true dogs.
You have 0 pieces evidence for this DNA twaddle you spout. Not single peer-reviewed says what you say. And in this you show your ignorance.
Tooth count and tooth morphology is a waste of time when discussing taxonomy in the dog family. At one time it was assumed that South American bush dog was related to the dhole of Asia because they have similar dentition. They aren’t at all. Bush dogs are most closely related to the maned wolf– more so than the warrah.
The reason why chihuahuas have fewer teeth is because they have been bred to have little muzzles. Dogs with smaller muzzles can’t house as many teeth, so they often fall out or are impacted.
The eye thing is nonsense. Fennecs and all other vulpines have cat-like pupils. Chihuahuas and all dogs have round pupils. You can look this up. Google images will help. All dogs have eyes that glow in the dark when you shine lights on them. If they appear to glow all the time, you have a dog with an eye problem. My grandpa had Norwegian elkhound who had this problem.
I don’t have to cross a toy dog with a Fennec to know that this entire claim is bogus. This is like saying a human had a baby with a Colobus monkey. This is nothing more than an internet rumor, something that would make the old Weekly World News.
I’ve proven otherwise from actual scientific studies. What I’m dealing with here is that there are large numbers of morons who read crap on the internet that isn’t true. This is on the level of the Obama birth certificate lunacy. Just as Obama has proven he’s a US citizen, it has been conclusively proven that Chihuahuas are dogs and are derived from wolves.
It’s an accepted fact everywhere, except the lunatics who insist on commenting on this post.
Oh and one other thing… Maybe the chi is related to the wolf… But let me ask you… all chromosome counts aside… which is more absurd… a 4 lb dog being related to a 3 lb fox or a 120lb wolf? Just saying…
You are incredibly stupid. Dogs are actually derived from mostly Middle Eastern wolves, which can be as small as 25 pounds. The gene that causes these wolves to be small is very closely related the same one that causes chihuahuas, all other small dogs, to be small.
This refers to a peer-reviewed article, which you can easily find, but this says it in no uncertain terms: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/02/small-dogs-evolved-in-middle-eas.html
Ah, but I must remember I am dealing with something akin superstition here, which is so easily spread upon the internet that no amount of evidence will debunk it.
It is entertaining to watch the moonbats come on this post and try to prove me wrong.
[...] Here’s the truth about chihuahuas and fennec foxes. [...]
Oh my god, people are so stupid. Other than being small canids with big ears and short snouts, chihuahuas and Fennecs look NOTHING alike. I mean, never mind the fact that chihuahuas can breed with other domestic dogs and fennecs can’t pretty much confirms they aren’t related, the completely different shape of the muzzle and ears should be a tip that their body shapes don’t have a shared origin. I guess these are the same kind of people who think it’s plausible for someone to adopt a chihuahua and not realize it’s a sewer rat until they bring it home or whatever.
[...] you want to see what I mean, check out the comments on my post about why Chihuahuas can’t be derived from fennec foxes (Vulpes zerda). No, they can’t be– even though they look so much [...]
wow. i was just looking up stuff about chis. i have one and he howls and i called him little coyote until someone said coyote is a jackal and a dog is a wolf. different animal. so now i call him little wolf cuz thats what he is. im not stupid so i will take dna over ‘i have a really good feeling about this’. its funny to read all the mess that people will think of to say because they think they have a clue…god has nothing to do with it so keep him out of you conversations. genetics is the key. i rescued a ‘chihuahua’ and when they brought her to my house she had serated teeth like a crest and a fluffy orange coat like a pom…..interesting. not a chi..some people just claim fact when they ‘know not’.
have peace anyway. its wonderful to seek truth. i said truth…
I have a very cute chihuahua and I did a search looking for information on the historical origins of chis and came across your blogpost. Your blogspot is fascinating, sir, and I am having a great time looking through your archives and will continue to read what you have to say. My chihuahua very superficially resembles a fennec fox (one of the things that attracted me to him in particular) but I’m surprised that no-one has pointed out that most chis don’t look anything like a fennec fox.