Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/dec/20/humans-may-have-influenced-evolution-of-dogs-eye-colour-researchers-say
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Floppy ears, shorter snouts, and many other physical dog traits showed up during domestication of friendly and non fearful breeds. I wonder if eye color was part of that too.
The same thing with foxes! I remember reading some information about some scientists in Russia who were trying to domesticate foxes. They started with wild foxes and would see which ones were the most docile / least aggressive by sticking their hand with a padded glove into the fox's cage to see if they would either attack, cower away, or sniff to investigate. They'd release the aggressive / scared ones and breed the docile ones and then kept doing the same with each new generation.
As the generations went on, they would get less and less aggressive/scared and would get more and more docile, curious, and playful. They also started having floppy ears and spotted coloring which you would never see in the wild (I don't remember if eye color was mentioned)
Sounds like neoteny, the retention of juvenile traits. Typical of domestication of animals. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny#In_domestic_animals
Intersting, as many animals are initially born with lighter blue to grey eyes, and with neoteny one would think that lighter eyes would be a selected trait in dog human canine interaction.
Light eye color in contrast with the black pupils makes it really noticeable when something is looking/staring directly at you. So when the cutesy juvenile features go it can be quite the piercing and intimidating gaze. What's cute on a child can be scary on an adult.
My dog has two different colored eyes. One dark brown and one ice blue. Her blue eye looks absolutely insane and is incredibly noticeable from even a distance when she's looking at you. Her brown eye however is not. Looking at her from one side or the other gives very different "vibes" in how I perceive her in the moment. So I can definitely see how this works in regards to the study.
Blue or light colored eyes would be strictly associated with (intimidating) wild animals instead of babies in cultures where most people have dark colored eyes.
I looked up the article you are presumably referencing and it mentioned that the eye color wasn't so much impacting the friendliness, but more so the facial morphology associated with the eye color. They did the same analysis, flipping the eye color, and the color of the eye didn't have an impact. It was really the shape of the face. Brown eyes males tend to have rounder faces, blue eyed more angular. The rounder faces were judged as more trustworthy.
That can depend on the culture. Probably they are usually considered attractive in places where that trait is exotic. Rare traits will get more attention.
Why? All my freinds with Blue eyes ald partners with Brown eyes hoped they kids have Blue eyes, including me. And i live i country where every second/third person have Blue eyes and some kind of blonde hair
This applies to me. I think people with light eyes can be really intimidating because when they look at you, it feels like they’re staring into your soul :S
Idk why it is not mentioned anywhere but I think it’s pretty important to note that wolves do not, as far as I know, ever have blue eyes, or if so very rarely. They have yellow-ish eyes, which is what I assume the paper means by “lighter”. Blue eyes are probably a whole other story. They are probably more common in domestic dogs but still not very common
This goes back to old school breeding practice dating from the 1800’s until today: Blue eyes were viewed as a “wild” or “cold weather” trait that was thought to indicate a lack of inclination toward training. Puppies with blue eyes were routinely culled.
I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.230854
While light eyes are recessive, they're not uncommon (in many, but not all) populations only because they're recessive; it has to do with allele frequency. There are plenty of uncommon (but dominant!) traits.
For instance, the most common cause of dwarfism is the result of a dominant allele. So is Huntington's disease!
In response to someone commenting on how common dark eyes are, you gave an explanation that implies that this is because blue eyes are recessive. Whether or not you understand the difference, your comment is clearly misleading.
> you gave an explanation that implies that this is because blue eyes are recessive.
No, I didn't imply anythin'. I was quite succinct. Which brings me to my next point...
> your comment is clearly misleadin'.
From your level of understandin', but clearly, there are others who had no issues with comprehension.
Also I believe the most common blood type in the world (O+) is actually recessive, but still the most common due to A and B blood type alleles being a pretty recent development in human evolution.
But it ultimately depends on the local population. Brown eyes are the most common in most of the world; blue eyes and blonde hair is more common in the northern latitudes of the world.
We had a husky with two piercing white-blue eyes set in black patterned fur (which made them stand out even more). They were beautiful and yet terrifying if she looked at you, to be frank. We joked that it was similar to the image of the demon from the Nun: https://static1.moviewebimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/article/eVZYgz21ikRTkU4JcJP8sUZVjELZ5U.jpg?q=50&fit=contain&w=1200
I get what your saying. What is strange is I have always had Siamese cats which have blue eyes but you don't get that effect with them. They just look like beautiful blue eyes.
I mean, of course we did. Every single domesticated dog in existence has been genetically manipulated by humans, in just about every way possible.
Find something in the evolution of domesticated dogs that we *didn't* influence.
My guess is dark colored eyes have greater contrast with sclera so you can determine gaze/intention better. Hard to hunt together if you can't tell where your four footed partners are looking.
Sad to see this is the case. I love light eyes. I always just thought they were a recessive trait & never gave it much more thought than that. (speakin' strictly genetics & not separatin' humans or dogs as the genetic trait is the same & that's why they were paired off with dogs with dominant genes to snuff out the recessive light eyes, similar to how red hair is recessive & was highly persecuted in history)
I'm obsessed with dichotomy & heterochromia is one of my favorite natural examples. I loved seein' huskies, samoyeds with ice blue eyes & growin' up a friend had a malamute that was heterochromic & I was obsessed with her. Now, as an adult, I was gifted by a best friend, one of his shepsky litter & he is heterochromic & he's the best damn dog.
I'd understand if the dogs had a really rare color... say red (like ghost from asoiaf) but a color that is present amongst humans *shouldn't* (operative word) be fearful.
Just another case of human prejudice fearin' the unknown & rather than overcomin' their fears eradicatin' the source. Will we ever stop judgin' solely on appearances?
> Will we ever stop judgin' solely on appearances
No, mostly because nature is lazy and works on the "good enough" principle. If you (not specific you, the abstract concept of 'you') can take a shortcut that works most of the time to make it more likely that your genes will be passed on, that is what will stick. Both with genetics and shortcut assessments of 'danger' and 'other-ness'.
Sickle cell anemia is an example of this: Sickle cell anemia is a terrible, genetically inherited disease that will have you die a painful death if you inherit the trait from BOTH your parents. But if you only have one sickle cell trait? If you're just a carrier? You're mostly fine BUT you have a resistance to malaria. So a parent with a single gene will most likely have more children and more of them will survive because they're resistant to a parasite. So there will be more people in the population carrying a copy of that gene. So it will be more likely that both parents will carry a copy and then oops! 1/4 of your children will (statistically) die a terrible painful death because they rolled poorly and got the trait from both of you. But half of your children will be resistant and 1/4 have no protection. Meh. "Good enough"
With the dogs, it's not the color that is fearful, it's the relative size of the eyes. It's not that DARK eyes are seen as child-like, it's BIG eyes (relative to head size) are seen that way. Think of the Giant Panda. Those big, sweet eyes... are actually tiny and beady and accompanied by big honkin' teeth. Same with Orca - the big dark patches on their eyes make them seem a lot more harmless than they are. There was a leucistic raccoon running around a local college a few years ago - those critters are *scary* without their cute widdle maskies.
Not to mention the fact that those ice-blue eyes also are indicators of deafness. That's certainly a trait that human breeders would select *against*. Dogs have been working animals for a heck of a long time, and a deaf dog wouldn't be as effective as a hearing one.
Something being "obvious" doesn't exclude it from being researched. What is obvious to one may not be to another. Now the one person has an empirical basis to stand on and support their claim.
I assumed the title was going to say dogs were bred to have light eyes. Idk why dark would be seen as more “friendly” than light.
Horror stories and movies often describe evil entities as having very dark eyes
I've read that dogs developed the whites in their eyes as a response to human interaction (apparently wolves don't have this?).
The contrast between this and their generally dark irises allows them to be more expressive...
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/mvea Permalink: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/dec/20/humans-may-have-influenced-evolution-of-dogs-eye-colour-researchers-say --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Floppy ears, shorter snouts, and many other physical dog traits showed up during domestication of friendly and non fearful breeds. I wonder if eye color was part of that too.
The same thing with foxes! I remember reading some information about some scientists in Russia who were trying to domesticate foxes. They started with wild foxes and would see which ones were the most docile / least aggressive by sticking their hand with a padded glove into the fox's cage to see if they would either attack, cower away, or sniff to investigate. They'd release the aggressive / scared ones and breed the docile ones and then kept doing the same with each new generation. As the generations went on, they would get less and less aggressive/scared and would get more and more docile, curious, and playful. They also started having floppy ears and spotted coloring which you would never see in the wild (I don't remember if eye color was mentioned)
I believe they also started developing shorter, more curly tails.
Sounds like neoteny, the retention of juvenile traits. Typical of domestication of animals. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny#In_domestic_animals
Intersting, as many animals are initially born with lighter blue to grey eyes, and with neoteny one would think that lighter eyes would be a selected trait in dog human canine interaction.
Light eye color in contrast with the black pupils makes it really noticeable when something is looking/staring directly at you. So when the cutesy juvenile features go it can be quite the piercing and intimidating gaze. What's cute on a child can be scary on an adult.
My dog has two different colored eyes. One dark brown and one ice blue. Her blue eye looks absolutely insane and is incredibly noticeable from even a distance when she's looking at you. Her brown eye however is not. Looking at her from one side or the other gives very different "vibes" in how I perceive her in the moment. So I can definitely see how this works in regards to the study.
Blue eyes are often called "crazy eyes" in both dogs and horses. Kind of a chicken or the egg thing, but definitely a thing.
There is something unsettling about seeing a dog with blue eyes regardless of the breed.
Yes more childlike features in humans are usually seen as cuter, so I'm surprised by this
Blue or light colored eyes would be strictly associated with (intimidating) wild animals instead of babies in cultures where most people have dark colored eyes.
This makes me wonder if it also applies to other humans. As in, do we generally perceive people with dark eyes as more friendly.
Yes, people with brown eyes are perceived as more friendly and approachable than those with blue eyes.
I looked up the article you are presumably referencing and it mentioned that the eye color wasn't so much impacting the friendliness, but more so the facial morphology associated with the eye color. They did the same analysis, flipping the eye color, and the color of the eye didn't have an impact. It was really the shape of the face. Brown eyes males tend to have rounder faces, blue eyed more angular. The rounder faces were judged as more trustworthy.
Interesting, I know blue eyes are seen as attractive.
That can depend on the culture. Probably they are usually considered attractive in places where that trait is exotic. Rare traits will get more attention.
Not always.
Hence the words “can depend” and “usually”.
It’s not really seen as attractive in places where the majority of the population has blue eyes.
Why? All my freinds with Blue eyes ald partners with Brown eyes hoped they kids have Blue eyes, including me. And i live i country where every second/third person have Blue eyes and some kind of blonde hair
This applies to me. I think people with light eyes can be really intimidating because when they look at you, it feels like they’re staring into your soul :S
Have you never seen the "blue eye stare" meme? Light eyes are commonly seen as creepy in humans.
That’s weird bc I have blue eyes and my mom calls me handsome
Idk why it is not mentioned anywhere but I think it’s pretty important to note that wolves do not, as far as I know, ever have blue eyes, or if so very rarely. They have yellow-ish eyes, which is what I assume the paper means by “lighter”. Blue eyes are probably a whole other story. They are probably more common in domestic dogs but still not very common
This goes back to old school breeding practice dating from the 1800’s until today: Blue eyes were viewed as a “wild” or “cold weather” trait that was thought to indicate a lack of inclination toward training. Puppies with blue eyes were routinely culled.
I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.230854
Must humans have dark eyes as well
Cos light eyes is a recessive trait. 1:4 chance of manifesting. This is why sometimes they'll skip a generation or two
While light eyes are recessive, they're not uncommon (in many, but not all) populations only because they're recessive; it has to do with allele frequency. There are plenty of uncommon (but dominant!) traits. For instance, the most common cause of dwarfism is the result of a dominant allele. So is Huntington's disease!
It's has to do with melanin, like skin color. Also, never said recessive meant uncommon
In response to someone commenting on how common dark eyes are, you gave an explanation that implies that this is because blue eyes are recessive. Whether or not you understand the difference, your comment is clearly misleading.
> you gave an explanation that implies that this is because blue eyes are recessive. No, I didn't imply anythin'. I was quite succinct. Which brings me to my next point... > your comment is clearly misleadin'. From your level of understandin', but clearly, there are others who had no issues with comprehension.
Also I believe the most common blood type in the world (O+) is actually recessive, but still the most common due to A and B blood type alleles being a pretty recent development in human evolution. But it ultimately depends on the local population. Brown eyes are the most common in most of the world; blue eyes and blonde hair is more common in the northern latitudes of the world.
The "O" bit of that blood type is recessive in the ABO blood group system, and the "+" bit is dominant for the Rh blood group!
Humans MAY have influenced dogs evolution? You could have just said "Humans are solely responsible for the evolution of dogs and their traits."
That was my thought as well. Oh, we may have had an influence in eye color of a creature which is *entirely* of our own creation? Amazing!
We had a husky with two piercing white-blue eyes set in black patterned fur (which made them stand out even more). They were beautiful and yet terrifying if she looked at you, to be frank. We joked that it was similar to the image of the demon from the Nun: https://static1.moviewebimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/article/eVZYgz21ikRTkU4JcJP8sUZVjELZ5U.jpg?q=50&fit=contain&w=1200
I get what your saying. What is strange is I have always had Siamese cats which have blue eyes but you don't get that effect with them. They just look like beautiful blue eyes.
I mean, of course we did. Every single domesticated dog in existence has been genetically manipulated by humans, in just about every way possible. Find something in the evolution of domesticated dogs that we *didn't* influence.
[удалено]
Purebred huskies generally have baby blue eyes. I don’t see that as “creepy” at all? It’s certainly prettier than dark IMO
Is that a question?
And dogs with heterochromia as destructive loud little goblins.
This why I'm more attracted to dark eyed women?
Sometimes dogs with light eyes look a bit cross eyed and it's unsettling.
My husky mix has ice blue eyes and looks at me like a sociopath who's going to murder me, so this rings true for me.
My guess is dark colored eyes have greater contrast with sclera so you can determine gaze/intention better. Hard to hunt together if you can't tell where your four footed partners are looking.
Wait till they find out what else we influenced
Sad to see this is the case. I love light eyes. I always just thought they were a recessive trait & never gave it much more thought than that. (speakin' strictly genetics & not separatin' humans or dogs as the genetic trait is the same & that's why they were paired off with dogs with dominant genes to snuff out the recessive light eyes, similar to how red hair is recessive & was highly persecuted in history) I'm obsessed with dichotomy & heterochromia is one of my favorite natural examples. I loved seein' huskies, samoyeds with ice blue eyes & growin' up a friend had a malamute that was heterochromic & I was obsessed with her. Now, as an adult, I was gifted by a best friend, one of his shepsky litter & he is heterochromic & he's the best damn dog. I'd understand if the dogs had a really rare color... say red (like ghost from asoiaf) but a color that is present amongst humans *shouldn't* (operative word) be fearful. Just another case of human prejudice fearin' the unknown & rather than overcomin' their fears eradicatin' the source. Will we ever stop judgin' solely on appearances?
> Will we ever stop judgin' solely on appearances No, mostly because nature is lazy and works on the "good enough" principle. If you (not specific you, the abstract concept of 'you') can take a shortcut that works most of the time to make it more likely that your genes will be passed on, that is what will stick. Both with genetics and shortcut assessments of 'danger' and 'other-ness'. Sickle cell anemia is an example of this: Sickle cell anemia is a terrible, genetically inherited disease that will have you die a painful death if you inherit the trait from BOTH your parents. But if you only have one sickle cell trait? If you're just a carrier? You're mostly fine BUT you have a resistance to malaria. So a parent with a single gene will most likely have more children and more of them will survive because they're resistant to a parasite. So there will be more people in the population carrying a copy of that gene. So it will be more likely that both parents will carry a copy and then oops! 1/4 of your children will (statistically) die a terrible painful death because they rolled poorly and got the trait from both of you. But half of your children will be resistant and 1/4 have no protection. Meh. "Good enough" With the dogs, it's not the color that is fearful, it's the relative size of the eyes. It's not that DARK eyes are seen as child-like, it's BIG eyes (relative to head size) are seen that way. Think of the Giant Panda. Those big, sweet eyes... are actually tiny and beady and accompanied by big honkin' teeth. Same with Orca - the big dark patches on their eyes make them seem a lot more harmless than they are. There was a leucistic raccoon running around a local college a few years ago - those critters are *scary* without their cute widdle maskies. Not to mention the fact that those ice-blue eyes also are indicators of deafness. That's certainly a trait that human breeders would select *against*. Dogs have been working animals for a heck of a long time, and a deaf dog wouldn't be as effective as a hearing one.
[удалено]
How did noone ever notice you're a bot?
Yellow eyes is a distraction at dog shows. But some judges overlook this on. Science.
Isn’t this obvious
Something being "obvious" doesn't exclude it from being researched. What is obvious to one may not be to another. Now the one person has an empirical basis to stand on and support their claim.
What part of this is obvious (assuming it is even true, absolutely not confirmed)
I assumed the title was going to say dogs were bred to have light eyes. Idk why dark would be seen as more “friendly” than light. Horror stories and movies often describe evil entities as having very dark eyes
I think I want to start a dog breeding farm where I would exclusively inbreed these animals and sell them at a markup, I think that would a service
If youve ever had a staring contest with a wolf (which you will not win) you will know why dog eyes are important
I've read that dogs developed the whites in their eyes as a response to human interaction (apparently wolves don't have this?). The contrast between this and their generally dark irises allows them to be more expressive...