Louisa -- Umberto has said that Clutton-Brock's carnassial length
character generally holds true; however in the dataset that I'm using for
my Vindolanda dog research, it holds true only about 65% of the time. My
dataset includes over 500 recent dogs plus recent and Pleistocene wolves.
The "65% of the time" includes exceptions on both sides of Clutton-Brock's
rule. So, in general, I think there are better ways to tell wolf from dog.

First you would have size -- it would be a rare terrier -- perhaps a
Bedlington -- whose skull would be as large as that of a wolf.

Second you would have the declination (klinorhynchy) of the snout; wolves,
like some larger breeds of domestic dog (i.e. Wolfhound, Newfoundland,
Great Dane, German Shepherd/Alsatian) have pretty straight skulls with
little down-inclination of the snout; the range would be about 0 to 10
degrees (see Nussbaumer's paper on this for lots of comparative data -- if
you want the paper I can send it to you separately as a .pdf). Most
terriers, on the other hand, tend to considerable klinorhynchy, i.e.
Bedlington but also Staffordshire, Scotch, Bull. If there is airorhynchy
(upbending of the snout), it is proof positive that the animal is
domestic; see Nussbaumer or else Baxter & Nussbaumer's paper on the Iron
Age dog from Trumpington to get the technique for measuring, which is done
with an ordinary fine-toothed contour gauge that can be purchased at the
local hardware store.

If the finds have associated jaws, any jaw with a visible "chin" and a
very flat or concave inferior surface belongs to a domestic dog, as does
any that is exceptionally heavy and is very curved, i.e. like a "rocker".
Wolf jaws are substantial but not highly curved; "rockered" jaws belong to
airorhynchic and/or pug-faced domestic dogs, i.e. Pugs, English Bulldogs,
St. Bernards, and concave jaws with "chins" belong to strongly
klinorhynchic dogs.

These are the three best immediate, visual ways that I know of to tell dog
from wolf. Of course one could also engage in various measurements, the
most valuable of which according to our principal components analyses are
the width between the retro-articular processes on the occiput, snout
width, and jaw depth below the inferior carnassial. Hope this is of
assistance -- Deb Bennett



> Hi Louisa,
>
> the classic article by Julie Clutton-Brock published in Science in
> Archaeology (eds Brothwell and Higgs 1969) states that, as a tendency, in
> the wolf maxilla the upper P4 is longer than the total length of the upper
> M1 and M2; the opposite is the case for dogs. It is also my experience
> that
> this generally holds true
>
> Cheers
> U
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 26 February 2015 at 18:10, GIDNEY L.J. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>  Can anyone recommend an online resource for the metrical separation of
>> wolf and dog maxillary teeth?
>>
>> A potholer has found two skulls, which he hopes are wolf. From the
>> photos,
>> I think they are relatively recent, probably terriers that got stuck
>> underground when fox hunting. However, the chap is very enthusiastic and
>> will need hard evidence that they are dog not wolf.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Umberto Albarella
> Department of Archaeology
> University of Sheffield
> Northgate House
> West Street
> Sheffield S1 4ET
> United Kingdom
> Telephone: (+) 44 (0) 114 22 22 943
> Fax: (+) 44 (0) 114  22 25 109
> http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/archaeology/people/albarella
> For MSc in Osteoarchaeology see:
> http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/postgraduate/masters/courses-available/osteoarchaeology
> For Zooarchaeology short course see:
> http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/research/zooarchaeology-lab/short-course
> For Archaeologists for Global Justice (AGJ) see:
> http://agj.group.shef.ac.uk/
>
> "only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned
> and the last fish been caught we will realise we cannot eat money"
>