Cat brains became SMALLER as the animals were domesticated 10,000 years ago

As cats were domesticated 10,000 years ago, their brains got smaller, according to a new study that backs up similar findings in dogs, rabbits and humans.  

A combined team of researchers from the University of Vienna in Austria, and National Museums Scotland, compared cranial capacity in multiple types of cats. 

They found that modern domestic cats have smaller brains than both European and African wildcats, and hybrids of domestic cats and European wildcats have brains that are between those of the two parent species. 

 Earlier studies have shown similar reduction in brain size in other domesticated animals, including rabbits and dogs, when compared to wild ancestors. 

The team say this reduction is likely because the animals faced far fewer threats than in the wild, so the brain cells involved in processing threat aren’t as necessary.

Even human brains seem to have reduced in size over the past 28,000 years, down 5 per cent compared to Neanderthals, with the change happening as we went from hunter gatherers, to farmers and into civilizations.  

As cats were domesticated 10,000 years ago, their brains got smaller, according to a new study that backs up similar findings in dogs, rabbits and humans. Stock image

Reduced brain size, compared with wild individuals, is thought to be an important feature of domestication of mammal species.

This is often cited as ‘domestication syndrome’, likely caused by threats being reduced, alongside other factors requiring less active brains. 

The problem, the team behind this study explained, is that brain size comparisons are often based on old, inaccessible literature.

In some cases the original researchers drew comparisons between domestic animals and wild species that are no longer thought to be their true ancestor.

A combined team of researchers from the University of Vienna and National Museums Scotland, compared cranial capacity in multiple types of cats. Stock image

A combined team of researchers from the University of Vienna and National Museums Scotland, compared cranial capacity in multiple types of cats. Stock image

PEOPLE HAVE KEPT ANIMALS AS PETS FOR MILLENNIA 

Pets have been a companion to humans for millennia. 

The story of exactly how animals became domesticated is much debated and often only glimpsed at from scraps of fossils and DNA.

Scientists agree that dogs were the first domestic animal, tamed and used for their work or meat. 

A study published by University of Maine in 2011 found evidence dogs were being bred, and, eaten, by humans in Texas 9,400 years ago.

A more recent study in 2017 found dogs were domesticated in a single event by humans living in Eurasia. 

Dr Krishna Veeramah, from Stony Brook University, said: ‘We’ve found evidence that dogs were domesticated 20,000 to 40,000 years ago.

‘Dogs could have been domesticated twice but our conclusion was there is no evidence for dual domestication.

‘We would argue that finding evidence for only one domestication event is a big deal, because it is very important to helping us understand how domestication works.’

His research found that dogs evolved to be a separate species from wild wolves sometime between 20,000 and 40,000 years ago. 

But it’s not known if they were the first pets, and kept for companionship. 

Another study compared genomes, or complete genetic codes, of modern domestic and wild rabbits to see how long it had taken them to diverge.

Using the known mutation rate of certain biomolecules as a ‘molecular clock’ they found it was not possible to pin down rabbit domestication to a single date or event.

Instead, the creation of tame buns appeared to be a cumulative effect stretching back to Roman times and possibly the Stone Age.   

To find a true comparison, the researchers went back to the beginning, attempting to replicate studies on cranial volumes in domestic cats that were published in the 1960s and 1970s, comparing wildcats, domestic cats and their hybrids.   

Most research into domestication of wild animals by humans has led to evidence of smaller brains when compared to wild ancestors, having previously been shown to be the case in dogs, sheep and rabbits. 

To understand brain size changes, the team took measurements of the cranial capacity of a large number of domestic cats – finding an average size. 

They did the same with African wildcats, known to be the ancestor of modern  house cats, finding domestic cats have ‘much smaller brains’ than their forebears. 

They then looked to determine whether this change in brain size was linked to domestication, as had already been seen in other animals, or some other cause. 

To do this they also measured the cranial capacity of a number of European wildcats, as well as hybrid animals between wild and domestic cats. 

The size of the European wildcat’s brain sat somewhere between domestic house cats and wild African cats, the researchers discovered.

The reason behind the reduction in brain size has previously been shown to be linked to an easier life, including reduction in threats and risk from predators.

Studies have shown that the neural crest cells, brain cells involved in responding to threat, are less prevalent in domestic animals than in their wild cousins.

This, the Austrian team suggest, is because they face far fewer threats than animals having to survive in the wild.

‘Apart from replicating these studies, we also present new data on palate length in cat skulls, showing that domestic cat palates are shorter than those of European wildcats but longer than those of African wildcats. 

‘Our data are relevant to current discussions of the causes and consequences of the ‘domestication syndrome’ in domesticated mammals.’

The palate is a shelf at the back of the throat, and studies suggest that the snout should get shorter through domestication, but this wasn’t the case.  

The findings aren’t new, but do act to reinforce the idea that as animals face reduced threat, and live in more comfortable surroundings, our brains become smaller. 

‘Brain size comparisons are often based on old, inaccessible literature and in some cases drew comparisons between domestic animals and wild species that are no longer thought to represent the true progenitor species of the domestic species in question,’ the researchers wrote.

They disputed some old theories, suggesting that cats are only ‘semi-domesticated’ compared to dogs, which are seen as dependant on humans.

To understand brain size changes, the team took measurements of the cranial capacity of a large number of domestic cats - finding an average size

To understand brain size changes, the team took measurements of the cranial capacity of a large number of domestic cats – finding an average size

They believe that cats have proved themselves to be useful in the past, including on farms and ships, and their link to humans is about more than an ‘easy ride’. 

The authors have called for more research into cats, to find out how domestication has changed them over the past ten millennia.   

‘We must always acknowledge that we are comparing a now (or recently) living population of wild animals to the domestic form, and not the true ancestral population,’ the scientists explained.

‘This will always be a confounding factor since we rarely have access to the ancient population that produced our domestic animals (although ancient DNA can partially ameliorate this issue for genetic comparisons).’   

The research has been published in Royal Society Open Science.

DOGS WERE FIRST DOMESTICATED SOME 20,000–40,000 YEARS AGO

A genetic analysis of the world’s oldest known dog remains revealed that dogs were domesticated in a single event by humans living in Eurasia, around 20,000 to 40,000 years ago.

Dr Krishna Veeramah, an assistant professor in evolution at Stony Brook University, told MailOnline: ‘The process of dog domestication would have been a very complex process, involving a number of generations where signature dog traits evolved gradually.

‘The current hypothesis is that the domestication of dogs likely arose passively, with a population of wolves somewhere in the world living on the outskirts of hunter-gatherer camps feeding off refuse created by the humans.

‘Those wolves that were tamer and less aggressive would have been more successful at this, and while the humans did not initially gain any kind of benefit from this process, over time they would have developed some kind of symbiotic [mutually beneficial] relationship with these animals, eventually evolving into the dogs we see today.’

***
Read more at DailyMail.co.uk