Defining fallback foods and assessing their importance in primate ecology and evolution.

Physical anthropologists use the term "fallback foods" to denote resources of relatively poor nutritional quality that become particularly important dietary components during periods when preferred foods are scarce. Fallback foods are becoming increasingly invoked as key selective forces that determine masticatory and digestive anatomy, influence grouping and ranging behavior, and underlie fundamental evolutionary processes such as speciation, extinction, and adaptation. In this article, we provide an overview of the concept of fallback foods by discussing definitions of the term and categorizations of types of fallback foods, and by examining the importance of fallback foods for primate ecology and evolution. We begin by comparing two recently published conceptual frameworks for considering the evolutionary significance of fallback foods and propose a way in which these approaches might be integrated. We then consider a series of questions about the importance of fallback foods for primates, including the extent to which fallback foods should be considered a distinct class of food resources, separate from preferred or commonly eaten foods; the link between life history strategy and fallback foods; if fallback foods always limit primate carrying capacity; and whether particular plant growth forms might play especially important roles as fallback resources for primates. We conclude with a brief consideration of links between fallback foods and primate conservation.

Complex population structure in African village dogs and its implications for inferring dog domestication history.

High genetic diversity of East Asian village dogs has recently been used to argue for an East Asian origin of the domestic dog. However, global village dog genetic diversity and the extent to which semiferal village dogs represent distinct, indigenous populations instead of admixtures of various dog breeds has not been quantified. Understanding these issues is critical to properly reconstructing the timing, number, and locations of dog domestication. To address these questions, we sampled 318 village dogs from 7 regions in Egypt, Uganda, and Namibia, measuring genetic diversity >680 bp of the mitochondrial D-loop, 300 SNPs, and 89 microsatellite markers. We also analyzed breed dogs, including putatively African breeds (Afghan hounds, Basenjis, Pharaoh hounds, Rhodesian ridgebacks, and Salukis), Puerto Rican street dogs, and mixed breed dogs from the United States. Village dogs from most African regions appear genetically distinct from non-native breed and mixed-breed dogs, although some individuals cluster genetically with Puerto Rican dogs or United States breed mixes instead of with neighboring village dogs. Thus, African village dogs are a mosaic of indigenous dogs descended from early migrants to Africa, and non-native, breed-admixed individuals. Among putatively African breeds, Pharaoh hounds, and Rhodesian ridgebacks clustered with non-native rather than indigenous African dogs, suggesting they have predominantly non-African origins. Surprisingly, we find similar mtDNA haplotype diversity in African and East Asian village dogs, potentially calling into question the hypothesis of an East Asian origin for dog domestication.