Comments on Germonpré et al., Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 2009 “Fossil dogs and wolves from Palaeolithic sites in Belgium, the Ukraine and Russia: osteometry, ancient DNA and stable isotopes”, and Germonpré, Lázkičková-Galetová, and Sablin, Jour

Issues related to the identification of Late Pleistocene dogs from different sites in Eurasia, triggered by recent publications (see Germonpré et al., 2009, 2012; Ovodov et al., 2011), are discussed. The main focus is the problem of how to distinguish wolves from early dogs on the basis of skull and teeth morphology. The studies by Germonpré et al., 2009 and Germonpré et al., 2012, reporting so-called ‘Palaeolithic dogs’ from Předmostí, Goyet, and other sites in Eastern and Central Europe, have some serious deficiencies. In our opinion, more work needs to be done to understand the biological mechanisms involved in wolf domestication and until then, it is premature to classify these Palaeolithic canids as fully domesticated dogs or even incipient dogs.

► We discuss issues related to so-called ‘Palaeolithic dogs’ from sites in Eurasia.
► Our comments pertain to studies described in Germonpré et al., 2009 and Germonpré et al., 2012.
► We suggest it is premature to classify these Palaeolithic canids as fully domesticated dogs.