S3E07 - The Fox Experiment (Dog Domestication)

#Domestication #TheFoxExperiment #ElizabethHargrave #Dogs #Evolution #BoardGames #Science

Summary

Foxes, wolves, and corn, oh my! We're talking domestication today, all revolving around The Fox Experiment and two Russian scientists' attempt to understand how we turned wolves into dogs. We're joined by Dr. Angela Perri, an expert in dog domestication, and cover what domestication is, how wolves became dogs, how that probably kickstarted a lot of other domestication, how much a domestic fox costs, and a surprising amount of about corn. So grab any furry friends you have and settle in for this canine-focused episode of Gaming with Science.

Timestamps

00:00 Island foxes and ancient corn
09:35 The Fox Experiment (the game)
15:48 The Fox Experiment (the actuality)
23:31 How did all this happen?
26:20 Dog domestication
34:58 How relevant is the fox experiment still?
40:30 Domestication across species
43:31 Plant domestication
48:22 Nitpick corner
53:20 Final grades
58:50 Signoff

Full Transcript

(Some platforms truncate the transcript due to length restrictions. If so, you can always find the full transcript on https://www.gamingwithscience.net/ )

Jason Wallace 0:06
Hello and welcome to the Gaming with Science podcast, where we talk about the science behind some of your favorite games.

Brian 0:10
Today, we're going to talk about the Fox Experiment by Pandasaurus. Hey, welcome back to Gaming with Science. This is Brian.

Jason Wallace 0:20
This is Jason,

Brian 0:21
and we've got a fantastic guest for us, Dr. Angela Perry. Can you introduce yourself, please?

Angela 0:26
Sure, thanks. My name is Angela Perry. I am an archeologist by trade, and a specialist in the human canine relationship, ancient DNA, and the archeology of the human and dog existence,

Brian 0:42
this is super cool, and again, is super perfect for this game. Thank you, David Muscato from the Common Descent, for pointing us in your direction, and thank you for agreeing to come on and talk to us about a nerdy board game.

Angela 0:54
Of course.

Brian 0:56
Okay, so before we get into the game, we usually start with a science banter topic. We usually let the co-host go first if they have one. If you have something you want to share with the listeners, that's great. If you don't, I'm sure Jason has one waiting in the wings.

Angela 1:10
I thought, what better topic to talk about than foxes, since we're here, and I'm really interested in not only canids but in understanding kind of island theory, island domestication theory, and I was reading something recently talking about the Channel Island foxes off of the California coast on the Channel Islands. They have a special fox that lives on the Channel Islands that is a lot smaller than mainland foxes. We always think of you know a smaller fox, smaller animal having a smaller brain across the board. Dwarfism that goes along with living on islands, but they actually found that the brains of the Channel Island foxes are bigger than their mainland gray fox counterparts, which they think more research to come is related to the mental stamina needed to figure out kind of complex living on this difficult, rigorous location on on the islands off of off of California. So I thought that was pretty cool. Usually we would think like smaller animals, smaller brain, but they actually have a bigger brain. Pretty cool.

Brian 2:18
That's really cool. I don't think we've have we had a chance to really talk about island evolution yet? How it seems to make small things get bigger, big things get smaller, and everything gets weird.

Jason Wallace 2:27
We have not yet. No,

Angela 2:28
it's a good one.

Brian 2:29
I'm gonna have to like actively go out and look for a game about that, or maybe this is just what we talk about when we talk about when we do a Darwin Day game. We can talk about it then. What about you, Jason? Did you bring something?

Jason Wallace 2:39
I did. So we're probably not going to come back to this at all the rest of the episode, but I want to talk about plants, and of course my favorite plant, maize, corn. So there was a study.

Brian 2:49
You're doing the thing that I used to do, where I just make everything about onions. So now we're just going to make everything about corn for the rest of the season. Okay, fair.

Jason Wallace 2:57
So, but this is a study that came out about two years ago, now out of the Ross-Ibarra lab in California, someone I know through the maize community, looking at the domestication of maize, and they're using a lot of the whole genome sequences where you can get the entire genomes of 1000s of maize lines, where you can get ancient DNA out of archaeological sites to sort of reconstruct the history of domesticating corn. They found something that was really surprising: is that there was actually a two-wave domestication. So you initially got maize domesticated out of a a precursor named Teosinte and a specific variety of it called Parviglumus, which is in sort of like the lowlands of southern Mexico, and apparently about 4000 years after that initial domestication, it hybridized with a different teosinte called Mexicana that is in the highlands. So it's up in the higher. It's colder, shorter growing season, kind of rougher environment, and apparently that hybridization was super important because that hybridized maize then spread throughout the Americas and basically either displaced or hybridized with all existing domesticated maize. And so, pretty much all the maize, all the corn we have today, is descended from this sort of two-step hybridization, where you had your initial domestication, and it was like that for 1000s of years, and then you had an introgression, a hybridization with this related cousin species that suddenly, I guess, supercharged it because it was whatever it gave it gave it such an advantage that it then spread everywhere.

Brian 4:35
This new maze is so hot right now.

Angela 4:37
Also, mirroring the story of gray wolves. Gray wolves also have a similar path of like a single stock population of gray wolves taking over the world, and now being the kind of all gray wolves being the descendant of a of a population like that. So, oh, is

Brian 4:55
that right? Oh my goodness! So they have like a severe bottlenecking event, like humans did too, right? Yeah.

Angela 5:00
Yeah,

Brian 5:00
Jason, can you describe Teosinte for those people who would not be familiar with it? Because I don't know what you're thinking of, listener. If it

Jason Wallace 5:08
looks like corn, you're probably not thinking about it. Yes. So Teosinte is the wild ancestor that gave rise to maize over many, many centuries of domestication. It took a good chunk of the 20th century for us to figure that out for sure, because teosinte does not look like modern corn. So modern corn, you have this nice big ear, hundreds of kernels on it. The plant is like tall and erect, and it's got like the the the male anthers that shed pollen at the top and the female ear down at the bottom. Teosinte is basically a bush that has like little bits of flowers everywhere, and its ear is a single row of like these like trapezoid-shaped kernels that are stacked on top of each other that are literally surrounded in a rock-hard fruit case. It's called. Like I've heard of people having to get these things open with a sledgehammer. It was one of those things where it looks so different from modern corn. It actually took several decades of work for people to decide that oh no no no this is this actually is the variety not some weird thing that went extinct that we no longer know or some weird hybridization of it it actually is this and people have now tracked down the handful of large effects genes that are important for that for getting rid of the fruit case for making more rows of kernels for making them bigger and such, for changing it so that instead of having a bush, you have mostly a single central stalk. And then there's hundreds and hundreds of smaller genes that kind of feed into that process. Actually, the lab that did this domestication paper I mentioned, they have done a lot of the work identifying a lot of the the smaller effect genes, the big effect ones, were identified several decades ago, but the small effect genes have been only been identified more recently because they're much harder to find.

Angela 6:48
Sounds like Jason is ready for the farm fox experiment. We're on trend here.

Brian 6:55
So, like domesticated wheat still just kind of looks like a grass, right? But like maize is a grass. It doesn't look like that, and I think that's because the wheat breeders are lazy. I want wheat that is the size of an ear of corn. Like, come on, breeders, let's get on it.

Angela 7:09
Do people still like indigenous populations still use like native teocente?

Jason Wallace 7:14
To my knowledge, no. I think teosente is mostly considered a weed that's kind of on the edges of the cornfield. Okay, there. I mean, there is some gene. They are interfertile. There is some gene flow, but the things that's kind of halfway between is neither really good at being tiacente or good at being corn, and so it's not like the the initial hybrids are not great. But you do have some gene flow between them.

Angela 7:38
Tell us about. Sorry, I'm I'm going way off topic now. I'm sending us down a rabbit hole, but I'm wondering. Tell us about heritage popcorn and all of these things that we see, like purple, purple popcorn, and all these things that we believe are like heritage maize. Heritage, yeah, Jason,

Brian 7:55
tell us about your heritage corn breeding program that you are actually working on.

Jason Wallace 7:59
Okay, this this could open. This could be an entire other episode, to be honest.

Angela 8:04
I'm ready for it. Heritage popcorn.

Jason Wallace 8:06
The short version is that Native Americans used maize as a staple grain for 1000s upon 1000s of years, and they adapted it to every environment from Canada all the way down to the bottom of Argentina. And so there are literally 1000s upon 1000s of traditional varieties in every color of the rainbow. Literally, like I, I have a rainbow made of corn that has every single color, and plus like white and brown and black and such. And modern corn has been selected to produce very well in a modern environment. And at least here in the United States, like we don't like we eat sweet corn. We feed a lot of corn to our animals, but we don't really appreciate corn itself. If you go down to Mexico, like they have all sorts of different varieties, they different colors. They appreciate them. The native populations, different colors have different spiritual significance. We have gotten kind of divorced from the original like cultural meaning of corn, but there's a lot of them out there. And if you check the seed catalogs, you can find some really cool ones. I'm, as Brian said, I'm actually working with some in my field this summer, trying to see if I can move around some of those color genes and get them more up to like modern performance standards. Because a lot of them, like they look really cool, but a lot of them just really suck when you put them in a field. Yeah,

Speaker 1 9:24
cool. Shout out to my grandparents who are corn farmers in Kansas. Oh, cool! Look at all

Brian 9:30
these connections. Okay, so you guys want to talk about a board game?

Speaker 1 9:34
Yeah. Sure.

Brian 9:35
All right, let's do it. So the fox experiment was designed by Elizabeth Hargrave, who some of our listeners certainly will know as the designer of Wingspan, as well as Jeff Frasier, who, according to his website, specializes in board game rulebook design. It's published by Pandasaurus. It's for one to four players for 10 and up. Certainly, Jason's girls could play without any issue. Your. Your mileage may vary based on your individual 10-year-old. The game is inspired by a true story. is probably the best way to be thinking about this. and 's Russian silver fox domestication experiment that was done in the 1950s in Novosibirsk. So, how does the game work? Players, you're taking on the roles of fox breeders or scientists, you are trying to breed friendly foxes, and that they will develop other traits at the same time: floppy ears, curly tails, spots, barking, or friendly vocalization. I guess not everybody likes barking, but it is a distinct thing. The way that you play the game, you're going to play over five rounds, each one representing a generation. So between generation one and generation five, this is where you'll sort of get to breed your super elite foxes. Every turn, you're going to pick a male and a female from the kennel. Those are going to have trait dice that are based on each of these four traits that I mentioned: the ears, the spots, the vocalization, and the curly tails that will generate a dice pool for you. You then roll them to create symbols that basically represent the traits of the offspring. So you'll mark them down. This is a roll and write. So you roll your dice. You got a little card with a little dry erase marker. You mark in how many of those traits you'd filled out. You get like tokens based on the traits that you've generated. It generates a new dice pool for you. At the end of the turn, your pups go into the kennel, and can be recruited either by you or by an opponent. And you're trying to sort of like achieve outcomes, like get a fox that has a certain amount of spotted coat trait, for instance.

Jason Wallace 11:37
Longtime listeners will probably recognize some of this as being very similar to the game genotype that we talked about previously, which is another one where there is a drafting mechanic where you roll a bunch of dice. In that case, for Mendel's peas to try to get certain traits, and then you're trying to check off certain goals. I'd say the main difference. Well, okay, there's a bunch of differences, but the main difference for this particular part of it is that in the fox experiment, you actually can move selection forward in a specific direction because the offspring you make then become potential parents for the next generation. And so, as you breed foxes that are more domesticated, you can then use those as parents and push the next generation even further along.

Brian 12:18
Another big difference from genotype: genotype actually uses Punnett squares to sort of track dominant and resistant traits. Fox experiment, we're kind of doing vibe-based genetics a little bit. The other thing to consider is that we've also got this friendly dice that acts as a sort of a wild die that you can use to help build other traits, like how friendly they are. You actually get like a "Who made the friendliest foxes" generation bonus. You have patrons that are looking for specific things. As

Jason Wallace 12:46
with many games, there's several different ways of earning victory points, so can kind of pick and choose which one. Although, since there are only five rounds, it actually goes pretty fast. It does, and so you have to get those points together pretty quickly, or at least line them up pretty quickly in order to get them, because you can be at the end of five rounds before you really realize, like, oh wait, I need to make sure this is all set up.

Brian 13:07
Yeah, you don't get that much time because, again, the other thing that's interesting, and Jason and I experience this. This game setting up the board. This is an extremely space hungry game. You know, we have our bowl of chips factor. There is nowhere on this table for a bowl of chips. Lots of dice, lots of tokens, lots of cards, lots of everything everywhere. takes a while to set up, but then once you get going, it's actually pretty snappy. Each round only takes-I don't know-does it even take 10 minutes to do a round? No,

Jason Wallace 13:31
it was pretty fast. There's a quick draft that you do, and then everyone does all their rolling and stuff together. There's little tip cards that have you walk down through the steps, and so yeah, it was very intimidating to set up because there's like all these pieces that oh my goodness I have to track all of these and then once we got going, it's like oh the actual round structure is pretty straightforward and simple.

Brian 13:49
Jason, do you feel like there's anything I missed in particular?

Jason Wallace 13:51
I think there are some nice touches for this. So the arguably cutest part of the game is the individual fox meeples that you have.

Brian 14:00
Oh, absolutely! Which

Jason Wallace 14:01
are not just fox meeples; they're actually four distinct shapes of fox meeples that every player has in their color. So you have 10 fox meeples, and everyone has four different shapes of them. So you can have these cute little foxes. There's no mechanical reason for it. It's one of those tiny little things that doesn't have to be done in a board game, and yet is an important part of like the tactile enjoyable experience because I looked at like oh this is so cute I like this game more now because it has four little fox meeple shapes for me to look at

Brian 14:30
this is a terrible analogy but this is like the four shapes of chicken nuggets I noticed in the

Angela 14:37
video as well I want to shout out the the video example that you guys sent me of it to to describe how you play the game. The woman was clear to say that she didn't agree with meeples. She would like it to be meoxes or moxes. It

Brian 14:54
was if meeples is short from my peoples, and these are my foxes, and these are not feeples or. foxeeples, these are moxes.

Angela 15:02
Moxes. Whereas you said, I appreciate that.

Brian 15:07
This is one of those games where you have three distinct sizes of cards. You got the little tiny cards. You got the regular size cards. You got the oversized cards. So you actually have three different, not just card decks, but types of cards that get put into about four or five different decks. I'm not kidding. Setup for this game is a bit much. Definitely, like it's inconsistent with the play experience. The play experience is pretty fun and quick and easy. The setup is oh my god, what even is this piece right here?

Angela 15:34
Maybe it's trying to get you to recreate all the steps of preparing your scientific experiment. Maybe the thought processes that go through.

Jason Wallace 15:43
Yes, oftentimes the setup ismuch more arduous than the actual execution in those cases.

Angela 15:47
Yes.

Brian 15:48
So again, this game is supposed to be inspired by the Silver Fox domestication experiment. So let's talk about that experiment now, because there's one thing that's going to jump out at you right away about the actual experiment. This was an experiment that was done, like I said, in the 1950s in Novosibirsk, based on this hypothesis that domestication of dogs-so much difference in morphology, shape, everything like that-but was based on this hypothesis that the core selected trait was actually docility, friendliness, tameness. I'm going to use these all sort of interchangeably. I don't know. I'm sure that there are meaningful differences between them. A combination of lack of aggressiveness and interest in humans, and that was it. The idea is, if we select just for behavioral traits, will the other traits emerge out of that sort of by proxy? I think the hypothesis was that domestication would would make changes in hormone processes that then would lead to many of the other things that we associate with domestication. So the selective procedure was pretty specific. There was really only a single trait that was selected. So it was only for tameness towards humans. They didn't select for fur color, body shape, ear shape, or tail. They also didn't do anything to train the foxes, which basically means that these foxes didn't interact with people at all. They spent basically their whole lives in cages. That was considered an important part of the experiment, which I guess makes it kind of sad since you're making friendly foxes that don't get to interact with people.

Jason Wallace 17:15
And we should say this was this experiment happened several decades ago. It would probably not fly today, not under those conditions anyway.

Brian 17:22
Probably not. No, I think we talked about this when we talked about Ark Nova and the development of zoos. We hadn't really invented ethics yet.

Angela 17:29
I was like, didn't go to the board for review for sure.

Brian 17:32
The original foxes actually came from fur farms, which I know some people have then said that that might have contributed to the experiment.

Angela 17:39
There is a debate about this about whether it was already a kind of captured, isolated population that they were beginning with.

Brian 17:47
Okay, the selection was let's see. At one month of age, every fox cub was tested repeatedly. They were offered food by hand. The handler would attempt to pet the fox and attempt to handle it. They observed if it was if the fox would approach or avoid the the researcher. Each cub was assessed inside its cage, and then in an enclosure where it could either approach the the human or other foxes. And the scores were based on their willingness to approach a human, whether or not they tried to bite the person or acted fearful or aggressive, and then also if they would seek out humans if they would actually seek out human contact. the The highest class, these sort of domesticated elite, they would actively seek out human attention. They'd whimper to attract people. They would sniff or lick their handlers, and they sort of develop these sort of more friendly characteristics. And within about six generations, they sort of had a population of these domesticated elites. Now, what's interesting is that some other traits did start to appear. So, for instance, by the fourth generation, tail wagging behavior had appeared. Something that's not in the game is that actually their reproductive patterns had changed. They had shifted to earlier in the season. I think they started developing coat mottling, which then, from at least what I read, the idea was that the melanin and adrenaline use the same biochemical pathway. So this may have had something to do with why the mottling appeared.

Jason Wallace 19:12
So melanin is the kind of brownish color in your skin and hair and such. Adrenaline is the fight or flight hormone, and so the idea being that adrenaline is keyed to aggression and melanin to color. There may be some sort of trade-off there.

Brian 19:27
Droopy ears and sort of other things like facial crowding. A lot of these things that we associate with domesticated dogs started to appear in the foxes under admittedly relatively severe breeding selection, where I think only 20% of the foxes were retained between generations. Basically, the the conclusions of the experiment were that you could end up with a lot of domesticated like traits in terms of morphology through single selection of behavior over a relatively short period of time. Now, I do want to point out something that is a. Key difference between the game and the experiment. In the game, Jason, what are you selecting for?

Jason Wallace 20:05
Everything but tameness. You're selecting for the toast and the ears and the barking and the tail.

Brian 20:11
Right. In the actual experiment, the only thing you're selecting for is friendliness. The only thing you're not selecting for in the actual game is friendliness. So it's actually flipped on its head. I think it's a it's an understandable change to make, as

Jason Wallace 20:24
you said, inspired by a true story.

Angela 20:26
Inspired, yeah.

Brian 20:27
It's an interesting experiment. has a long history. I think I know that they sort of ran into funding considerations at some point. I I believe that some of these foxes may still be around. I know there was even a push to actually have these available to people as pets, although I don't know if that was ever successful or not. It

Angela 20:45
was, from my understanding, is that when they ran into funding challenges, they began to sell designer foxes. And at one point, I can't remember what year it was, but it was on the cover of National Geographic, one of the domesticated foxes, in a quite lavish-looking, you know, Russian apartment where Russian elites and others were purchasing these $8,000, $10,000 designer foxes as as pets, you know, in Russian blue and all these dramatic colorways for a time. It was quite the fashion to get yourself a designer fox and put it on a leash and walk it around, and I expect that if you wanted one, you could probably get yourself one still.

Brian 21:30
The $8,000 sounds like a lot, but I know some designer breeds of dogs would be comparable. Yeah,

Angela 21:35
yeah, I would say that given the cost of some dogs now, they probably have increased their prices are showed if they haven't already on the foxes.

Brian 21:43
I think I did remember reading that while the foxes would tolerate a leash, they're not exactly enthusiastic. They don't love

Angela 21:48
it. They definitely don't love it.

Brian 21:50
What was the other thing? It said that foxes have a very distinct smell that they also lost during domestication, and that there was another study that one of the things that dogs can do is they're really good at understanding human body language, or particularly facial body language, and that the foxes evidently did pretty well on that too. So,

Angela 22:08
yeah,

Brian 22:08
they were they were bred for friendliness, but they also just became better. I don't know. I don't want to say attuned, but I don't really know what else to say. It's like they could understand human gesturing.

Angela 22:18
Yeah, non verbal gesturing, like dogs. I've quite a few friends are in the canine cognition world, and dogs are really great at reading eye movements and calibrating the whites of your eyes of where you're looking and interpreting kind of what what you mean by that and and learning language. I was one of my other kind of facts. I was thinking about was a paper I saw come out in January talking about that some dogs are called like gifted word learners. Some of these dogs that you hear about who can pick up, you know, matching items with a word very quickly. That they can passively by listening to humans just talk to each other identify the name of an object that humans are talking about to the same degree as a 18 month old child, so a year and a half year old, just not even talking directly to them, and not even like holding the item necessarily, but in in passing they can identify what humans are talking about, and so I think foxes learn the same trait of nonverbal communication on the kind of movement, pointing, eye movement, things like that as well.

Brian 23:24
They do significantly better at that than some of our close relatives. Like chimpanzees, don't do this very well, right?

Angela 23:30
Yes.

Brian 23:31
Okay.

Jason Wallace 23:31
I actually have a question, and this is specifically why we need you on here, Angela. Why is this? Like, why did this experiment have all these results? Where selecting just for friendly foxes. Had all these other knock-on things. I've heard this called domestication syndrome. I don't know if it's just in like foxes and dogs, or if it's all sorts of other things in mammals. Like, what happened?

Angela 23:52
It's a good question. I think that their intuition, Belyaev & Trut, of if we select for this behavior, will we see these kind of phenotypic traits kind of follow along was actually quite ingenious, and using an isolated population like foxes to do that was really interesting. With wolves, with wolves who are the kind of ancestors of dogs, we often think about how similar humans as hunter gatherers would have been to wolves, right? Animals who hunt in packs. We're daylight hunters of of animals that are larger than ourselves. We work together in many ways, not only with hunting but of care and cooperation, care of young, and that there may be some similarities evolutionarily of how we moved across an environment that's very similar to wolves, and maybe similar hunting patterns, similar kind of culture. You know, we talk about wolves as one of these animals that has culture, like we do, because you have wolves who are. Very familiar with hunting a certain type of animal. There are deer hunters, and then you have wolves who are, you know, moose hunters. And teaching a moose hunter wolf how to be a deer hunter wolf is not necessarily as easy as you would think. And so maybe it's one of these animals that has has culture and operates within a group dynamic, similarly to the way we do, and we can imagine everyone's seen, you know, National Geographic videos of wolves hunting and moving across a landscape together, and their sense of like vocalizing to each other and watching each other, and having these small movements that signal to each other, like their their moods and and where they stand in a in a hierarchy within the group are not dissimilar I think to the way that we operate as humans taking nonverbal cues from each other and eye movements and things like that so I think there's a lot of basis of that

Brian 25:55
and I guess we're also both sort of endurance runners too so basically wolves and humans seem to occupy almost the same niche, which you'd think would lead to competition.

Angela 26:04
I think it probably did lead to competition in some places, also leading to scavenging off of each other in some places, and perhaps unsurprisingly, eventually leading to the relationship that became the domestication of dogs. You know that close relationship.

Brian 26:20
Okay, I have to ask. Let's let's do the story because what the what were the likely steps in the domestication of dogs? I think that maybe people have an understanding of selective breeding, but domestication probably wasn't exactly that. Like the the the experiment on the silver foxes was domestication speed run, yeah, extreme selection for a very specific purpose, so that's probably not what happened for most domestication, right?

Angela 26:45
Probably not, and it would be great to hear Jason's version of this on on the plant side. But as far as we know, dogs were the first domesticated anything, right? Plant, animal, anything, and the concept is easy for us now to think about. Of course, you could just domesticate. I mean, the concept of domestication would have been, you know, a novel concept to to the peoples who who eventually domesticated dogs. And I think sometimes the domestication has been talked about as if it was an event. Like we woke up on a Tuesday, we said today's the day we're going to get these wolves and we're going to turn them into dogs today. Most likely, domestication of dogs and probably many other animals and perhaps plants as well was, you know, a process that was full of starts and stops and failed dead ends and maybe meaningful attempts. In the example of the farm fox experiment, I think speaks to a very specific hypothesis of domestication, which is that it was intentional, and that the prevailing theory for domestication of dogs for a long time was that, of course, we saw these adorable wolf pups out in the environment, and we perhaps found them orphaned or had killed the parents and picked them up, and and went back to our camps and raise them as our own in a very call of the wild like idealistic sense. I laugh because I have so many friends, as I said, who who work with modern wolf populations and kind of canine cognition science. Who will tell you that it is not as simple as taking a wolf pup back home and then you live together like a clan of the cave bear-like existence. You know, it's not it's not that easy. And the idea that they would have been doing this regularly enough to kind of recreate the farm fox experiment, I think, has kind of gone by the wayside. But that idea of intentional domestication by taking wolf pups was the kind of prevailing theory for a really long time,

Jason Wallace 28:41
and my understanding is that the current one, at least the current one I know about, is more about this scavenging that you talked about. That the wolves would have been scavenging off of our midden heaps, the things around our encampments, and that would sort of incidentally select for wolves that tolerated humans better, that were a little bit friendlier, and that probably over several 1000 years you got sort of a subpopulation of wolves that kind of hung around our periphery, and somehow that eventually became more dog-like. I don't know the middle steps there. I just remember when I was a postdoc, there was someone in a neighboring lab working on dog domestication, and she presented the results of like, oh yeah, there have been. It turns out that street dogs have been street dogs forever. They're not like feral domesticated dogs. They've just been a separate population of dogs for 15,000 years or something like that. Oh wow! More

Brian 29:33
like cats then. Yeah, just sort of adapted to live around people.

Angela 29:36
Yeah. Well, you could think about you know a New Guinea singing dog or dingo, or what we call village dog-the yellow medium-sized village dog of every place you've you know ever visited. The

Brian 29:49
platonic ideal of dog,

Angela 29:51
dog, and so this idea of the scavenging hypothesis is the more prevailing theory these days. Every Scientist has a stand idly in the shower and zone out and think about why did this thing happen and like that's their shower question of like that they just mull over over and over in their minds and for me it's like the how why when who of dog domestication and trying really a search for like the driver of dog domestication why now if we imagine a world in which humans and wolves probably lived side by side across Eurasia for generations, why why now? Why did domestication happen when it happened and where it happened? And I think the driver of putting humans and wolves together in an isolated location with limited resources and a driver to become closer and closer and closer, and scavenging perhaps off of each other, and leading to you know going back to the farm fox experiment, a situation where we know lots of people even today who live in close proximity to wild animals and dangerous wild animals that don't necessarily kill them or fend them off. Right, I can think about people who live in Alaska around bears or, you know, other similar large predators who have just become accustomed to having these animals kind of live on the periphery and kind of you stay away from us, we'll stay away from you. Type scenario, but seeing them on a regular basis and the one-off dangerous bear that wanders into the village may be killed. The ones who are kind of on the periphery and behave themselves get get to live, you know, another day. And it's very similar to the idea of the farm box experiment of testing each other, culling for the ones that cross the boundary, and I think that with with the scavenging hypothesis, the idea that you allow wolves to come closer and closer to your encampment, humans are increasingly messy and and staying in one place for longer period of time, building up trash piles, and of course, wild animals searching for resources will eventually find human trash as they always do, and and scavenge off of it. And I think that the idea that this is probably what led to that reduction of the fight or flight in both humans and wolves, allowing for that tension between them as predators to kind of release a bit. The raising of of more and more generations of wolf pups who would have been born near humans, be used to having humans in the local environment, and be willing to potentially be closer to humans,

Brian 32:43
so you can kind of imagine the scenario where someone just takes a scrap of something they don't want and throws it to a friendly wolf that happens to be around, and that's not dissimilar to what we happened in the fox experiment. Although it would have taken a lot more time for that to sort of spread across the gene pool. I wish I remembered more details. There's a particular subtype of of Eurasian black bear that I think has been. I'll have to. I'll find this for the show notes, but it's the same thing. It's basically has lost most of its aggressiveness, is much smaller, and lives quite close to people. I think it's in Italy. Does this does this ring a bell to either of you? Nope. And but I'll find it. But basically, this is sounds like what might have happened with the wolves. Is basically the bears that were aggressive were killed, and the ones that were less of aggressive have been allowed to sort of stick around. We're slowly like a domestication like experiment happening with bears, I suppose this is narrator Brian. What I was thinking of was a study of a population of Italian brown bears. We've posted a link to a story in Smithsonian Magazine on the subject.

Angela 33:51
Yeah, or urban foxes in the UK. You know, when I lived in the UK, we have there were foxes everywhere, and they, you know, humans had just gotten used to having foxes run around the cities, and it's a kind of "we leave you alone, you leave us alone" type scenario.

Jason Wallace 34:06
So, back on dogs, do we know when and where dog domestication occurred?

Speaker 1 34:11
We don't. We don't know 100% We have lots of hot breadcrumb trails. I'm biased in that I write. I write. I'm biased that I write papers saying I think I have an idea of where it is, and so for myself and my colleagues, lots of things are pointing more and more and more to kind of the Beringia Siberia location. Beringia is the kind of north northeastern region of Siberia. That's where we think people kind of had this standstill for 1000s of years, waiting out the nastiest part of the last ice age, and eventually the ancestors of Native Americans made their way east across the Bering, what we call the Bering Land Bridge, into the Americas.

Brian 34:58
So I'm just curious. You know, this is not our area. Is the domesticated silver's fox experiment still considered important in a modern context? Is it still part of the conversation about domestication and domestication syndrome?

Angela 35:10
It is. I mean, it's referenced quite a bit, as you said. It's probably an experiment that would never happen in modern period. There are a lot of criticisms of it, obviously, but I think it was instrumental in helping us understand on a very controlled scale of what could happen to a canid if certain pressures were put on it, and you you culled a population to look for a very specific behavior, and it did end up with a with a product that seemed very similar to a dog in the curled tail. All the things that the game references in terms of the curled tail, the floppy ears, the barking,

Brian 35:54
and then the spotted coat, the change in coat patterning. Exactly,

Angela 35:58
the change in coat colors and the patterning and the generalized behavior that seems very dog-like.

Brian 36:03
If they had done the experiment with wolves instead of foxes, admittedly harder to do. But what do you think it would have ended up like? Would we have ended up with the second domestication event of of a dog like animal?

Speaker 1 36:17
I mean, it's a good question. You'd have to go through a lot of wolves the way that they went through a lot a lot of foxes you have to go through a lot of wolves. There are there are a number of groups now who are working on canine cognition and are raising, for example, wolves and dogs together to see if you raise a wolf pup within a pack of dogs, does that change its behavior? How early would you have to get a wolf? Do you have to get it right at the point of birth to affect its behavior, or can you get a wolf that you get right at the point of birth? Raised in a house just like a dog, and still it just ends up a wolf. Yeah, this

Brian 36:56
is really funny to me because it's the analogy of the humans raised by wolves. We've got the wolves raised by humans or dogs. Like, and there's there's still there's still exactly.

Speaker 1 37:07
I think that the farm fox experiment. Some of the criticisms of it are actually interesting when you think about the dog domestication side and the wolf population that it came from. The criticism of the farm fox experiment of it already being a controlled population of fur foxes, and maybe there was already some preconceived notion of how that stock population was conceived originally. Maybe very similar to dogs. As I was saying before, we have this kind of ghost wolf stock population that we've yet to find that we know is the ancestral kind of domesticated stock population of of domesticated dogs. We've never found these wolves. We assume that they're extinct because they are not they're not directly related to any modern wolf populations, and it may be that a very small potentially Siberian population of wolves that had something special about it, something unique about it, something that made it the population it was, gave rise to the first domesticated dogs, and that that whatever it was about that population is what allowed that to happen. And and similarly, the criticism of the farm fox experiment that it was that population of foxes that made it so easy to see these these changes within certain number of generations

Brian 38:27
because they were working with sort of a reduced specialized gene pool already

Angela 38:31
right

Brian 38:31
so when you said ghost wolf not really knowing much about how the sort of mapping works there's some sort of genotype that all dogs share but specifically no wolves have at this point. Is that kind of what that means?

Angela 38:43
So we know that all dogs come from the same

Brian 38:48
Go to heaven. Sorry,

Angela 38:49
and also go to heaven. That they all come from the same the same wolf stock population. There are our modern, historic, and ancient dogs. All dogs that we've tested genetically all come from the same stock population, so we don't have evidence of multiple domestications from different wolf wolf populations. So there are some papers I've been part of them where we thought we may have had dual domestication instances, but what we found is more likely is that we have a single population of wolves that we've yet to find ghost wolf. That those wolves led to an initial domesticated population of let's call them like

Brian 39:33
pseudo dogs, pseudo

Angela 39:35
dogs, like tamed wolf pseudo dogs, early dogs, and that those dogs most likely than with humans moved across the world in different directions, right? Some of these dogs moved into the Americas, some of these dogs moved down into the rest of Eurasia, and that those early dogs, as Jason was saying about corn, interbred with local. Wolf populations, right? So the dogs that moved into the Americas interbred with American wolves. The dogs that moved into Germany moved interbred with German dogs and Russian or Russian wolves and German wolves and and all the different wolf populations. And that that very early interbreeding is what has confused some of the genetics to make it look like maybe there were multiple domestications, but really we think that there's just one-a single domestication from a single population.

Brian 40:29
That's really cool.

Jason Wallace 40:30
So, with all these things we've been talking about in terms of the pattern of domestication, the way it happened, how it spread, how much of that is shared with other things we've domesticated other animals, so we've mentioned cats, which I think are another like self-domesticated ones because they hang they hung out around our grain storage because there were lots of rodents and we liked them for that. But it was only relatively recently we actually started truly keeping them as pets. But like cows, horses, pigs, chickens, like yes. How how much of what we've talked about is like happens in parallel with all of these other things, and how much of them is it's specific for dogs and foxes?

Brian 41:09
Because I think that's one of the key things. Is like you know what you can think of for all of those? They've all got floppy ears, and it's like isn't that weird that the chickens don't ears? Well, no floppy ears. Fine, Jason, you're right. Chickens don't some

Angela 41:21
cats. The mammals

Brian 41:23
mostly.

Angela 41:25
I'm part of team are cats domesticated, but we'll leave that for another time. But I think that yeah, you're right, Jason. That there's certainly we can imagine some of the earliest domesticates, especially the the carnivores, were in this self-domestication group of maybe it most likely wasn't intentional, especially with dogs. There, a wolf is a competitor. It's a dangerous predator. There's no obvious reason to domesticate a wolf, and so it's most likely a self-domestication event. Delicious

Brian 41:58
wolf milk.

Angela 41:59
Yeah, I mean we have some ritual ritual things popping up with wolves, but most likely it's a it's a self domestication as were cats. But we can imagine a scenario in which once people start seeing that you can domesticate an animal and and the effects of domestication, then you know the juicy auroch and the the goat that has like nice you know fur that you would like to make something out of become probably becomes more once you get to the livestock animals that it becomes more about genuine thought of the intentional domestication that they've seen the the blueprint of it with with dogs and cats, and they think, okay, we can start. and And I would imagine there are some similarities with plants, where you start kind of doing wild cultivation of things, and and you start taking in a few of the animals and corralling them, and then figuring out how we could corral more and more and more of them, and then breed them with each other, and then you move into this kind of domestication event. And once it feels almost when we see the timing of domestication of particularly livestock animal, it feels like a domino effect of once we figured out we could domesticate our prey, that it seemed a lot easier than going out and hunting and gathering on in in the environment. And so, once you domesticate one of them, then the dominoes kind of fall into place with all the other livestock animals as well.

Brian 43:31
Jason, could you give us a brief aside about the early steps of domestication? Let's just do grains.

Jason Wallace 43:37
Okay, this is not my area. I'm going off of what I remember from other sources, but my understanding is that it was again probably incidental domestication, where we were gathering grains out of the environment. Humans like things that are big, and so we tend to go for the bigger grains. We like things that stay on the stalk because that makes them easier to harvest. And as we do this, we would incidentally select for some of those, and then some of them would end up in our trash heaps, or they'd pass through our digestive system unperturbed, and they'd grow there. And so you'd have sort of populations of semi-domesticated grains growing around our centers, and then over the course of hundreds or 1000s of years, people started doing that more and more intentionally. And my understanding is there probably is a very smooth spectrum between pure hunter-gatherer. We're just going to live off what nature provides. To all right, now we're starting to manipulate things where we're going to make sure that the plants we like get planted here, or we like. This is one I've heard about Native Americans, like Native Americans, hunted deer, and they did controlled burns of the of the forest to sort of clear them out because they made them better habitat for deer and probably a bunch of other things. To, now we're going to intentionally like plant plants and be really intensely like sedentary agriculture stuff. There's a. Whole spectrum between there and that I mean, there's probably a few hard breaks where you can say, okay, this is going from not sedentary to now sedentary. But even that may be your you're sedentary for some of the year. Well, not sedentary. These are not like ancient peoples just like sitting around on their like stone tables or anything. This is them staying in one place as opposed to like following the herds around or moving with the seasons, but that there is probably a smooth transition, a smooth spectrum between all of those opportunities, and that we are simply living at the end result of many 1000s of years of that being operating, and we have inherited essentially the very far extreme of that spectrum, where we are now engineering essentially the entire planet to be for our good. We're

Speaker 1 45:45
ordering our grains on DoorDash, having them delivered to having them delivered to us

Brian 45:51
for grains. It seems like that first key trait is is the lack of shattering, where you touch a grain and just drop all its seeds. That's like almost one of the first things to go right.

Jason Wallace 46:00
I I don't know the order. I know it's a very common one for the grains. I think it's probably different if you go to like fruits and stuff. Oh sure, it

Brian 46:08
is. We

Jason Wallace 46:08
do like things that kind of stay on the plant until we're ready to get rid of them, instead of them falling off on their own.

Brian 46:14
Another big one that's been broken many times is seed dormancy. You want them to grow when you plant them. Yeah.

Jason Wallace 46:20
So the thing being that in nature, a plant usually doesn't want all of its seeds to grow immediately because if next year is a bad year, then all of your offspring die. So a lot of times the seeds will generate germinate kind of randomly over the next few 5, 10, 20 years or something. And so what humans have selected for is that if we plant a seed, we want the plant to grow, and so we have selected our plants so that they no longer are dormant for extended periods of time. And there are some crops that are only partially domesticated around the world. Like they, most of our industrialized listeners won't know about them because they don't tend to be produced in large quantities and sold supermarkets. But there's a bunch of them. Like teff is one from Ethiopia. People might hear of it's used in injera, which is the traditional bread. It's only really partially domesticated. It still shatters a bunch. Like a bunch of it falls down. It the plants fall over. There are people working to improve its qualities. But so like as with animals, with plants, we have a large spectrum from purely wild to corn is probably the epitome of 100% domestic because it can't survive without us at this point.

Angela 47:28
Yeah,

Jason Wallace 47:28
and you can argue that our current society can't survive particularly well without corn at this point. Yeah,

Angela 47:34
agree. We have the same in dogs. I mean, we move from a single single heat cycle in wolves to having multiple heat cycles in dogs because we want to increase reproduction and get more puppies faster, and so we have those kind of similar mirroring effects of of what domestication does to plants and animals. Yeah,

Jason Wallace 47:54
I mean, so ultimately, all we're doing is when we domesticate things, we're breeding for convenience. It's it's just whatever makes it more convenient for us. Yes. Yeah.

Angela 48:02
Exactly. And if it's not convenient, we cull and start again. We we try again with a different individual or different population, which I think maybe goes back to the farm fox experiment, the game of you know where you where you cull out, and this is not in your f2, and we're gonna not choose that to move on.

Brian 48:22
You have been on podcasts before because you've been giving us the perfect transitions to this. So thank you for bringing it back to the game. Let's let's jump into our nitpick corner, Jason. Do you have any nitpicks about the game?

Jason Wallace 48:34
Honestly, just the biggest one is that that background is busy. Like I wish the background were a little cleaner because it was hard spotting, especially because some of the card decks have the same back as the background they're placed on, so they kind of blend in, and so I would like more visual differentiation there.

Brian 48:56
So Jason's suggestion is just a 60% opacity filter over everything except the functional parts of the board,

Jason Wallace 49:02
something like that. And if we could somehow streamline this setup, that would be nice because that is a very intimidating setup.

Brian 49:08
Probably, you know what? I'll bet you one of those like box inserts that you can get now, but 3d printed that kind of keeps everything laid out, and you just take it out of the box and you set it down, and you're ready to go. Or like, hey, all those cards that you need for the solo mode that I'm not going to play anyway. I'm just going to take those out and set those fully aside, or something like that. So my nitpick, I already mentioned it, is the fact that the game and the experiment are actually opposite to one another.

Angela 49:30
Right

Brian 49:31
experiment was to select for friendly foxes and nothing else. Right? You get all the other stuff as a consequence, and in the game, you're doing the exact opposite. You select for all the other traits, and then you get a friendly fox.

Angela 49:43
Probably wouldn't be as exciting if you rolled one dice.

Brian 49:45
No, absolutely not, and I'm sure that's what it is. But basically, the way they sort of abstract this, the metaphor that we're doing is the friendly dice can account for any of the other traits. So this is their sort of like nod to that Representation, but fundamentally, the game is the exact opposite of the actual experiment.

Jason Wallace 50:05
Yeah, and the the friendly dice are basically the wild dice. You always start with one, but you can unlock with upgrades additional dice of that type to roll, which you can argue is kind of like breeding for friendliness explicitly. It's not the same way you're breeding for everything else because none of the foxes have an actual friendliness trait, but it's it's in that space.

Brian 50:26
Angela, I don't you didn't play the game right, so I mean,

Angela 50:29
I watched it. I watched the videos about online, and it was really interesting. I thought the same thing you did. It's actually flipped, but it does some have some of you know those elements of of the randomness of the various phenotypes, like popping up and and choosing what you keep. In the experiment, they would have chosen purely based on behavior. But I bet towards when we're getting to the end of the experiment timeline, we're starting to choose. You know, if the the investor wants a beautiful blue fox, now we're so now we're selecting for color and ears and and tails. So eventually we get there. But I do think it's you know we've all done the kind of Punnett square in school. But I do think it's a really unique idea to try to to have people think about genetic selection and the randomness of of genetic selection, sometimes it would be fun if there was a dice that was like bites you versus sniffs you versus licks you, and you get to select on on behavior in that way. But but yeah,

Brian 51:35
it's like crocodile mile. You have to actually like you know you have to yeah the game bites your hand. Yeah,

Jason Wallace 51:42
yeah, that's Crocodile Dentist. We had that one. We have

Angela 51:45
it. We have it. We play it all the time. Yep.

Jason Wallace 51:47
Yeah, I thought of another one, Brian, but this is not a flaw in the game. This is just that the the whims of chance were against us when we played. We had this weird alternation of generations. Oh yeah. In one round, we only ever bred males, males and

Brian 51:59
females, and like

Jason Wallace 52:01
it's hard to get ahead when every round you only breed males or you only breed females because that means you have to use the default deck for the other half which is not quite good. So we just we couldn't make much progress because like we had a bunch of pups and they were all males or they were all females. Like, well, this is not helpful.

Brian 52:16
Presumably, that's something where with more players that becomes functionally impossible, right? To only get males or females.

Angela 52:22
Yeah, could be interesting to see what the details are of that in the actual experiment. I don't know if there was like a preference of did you end up having and in certain generations more males versus females who became docile quicker or aggressive.

Brian 52:39
Oh yeah, held on

Angela 52:40
to aggressiveness for longer. Were were males, for example, aggressive into generations much more than females. I don't know the data on that, but it would be interesting.

Brian 52:50
I know they started with a ratio of more females to males. I don't know if they work to then maintain that or not. That's interesting. That didn't come up in the little bit that I read about this. I have no idea. One thing I can say about the fox experiment, the game is that has ruined the SEO for the actual fox experiment. If you Google the fox experiment at this point, it's all pictures of the game and like you know nothing of actual foxes at this point.

Angela 53:13
It'll just be buy a $10,000 fox or play play the fox experiment game.

Brian 53:20
Okay, why don't we jump into grades, Angela? I assume you're recusing yourself from a grading process for this game. Yes, I will.

Angela 53:27
I will defer to the experts.

Brian 53:29
Okay. All right. Jason, would you like to go first? Let's get your science grade and your fun grade.

Jason Wallace 53:34
Okay. So the fun grade on this, I'm gonna go probably about B, B plus range. Like this is a game I don't mind playing, but it's not one I seek out. It just doesn't quite scratch the itch I'm going for when I play a game, and I think it's because there's a lot of things going on, but I feel like there's not a lot that I can like exert my choice to influence the way things go, other than I choose what I'm drafting, which is an important but kind of minor part of the game. I also do choose my upgrades, but a lot of those see like inevitable as like race to the upgrades as fast as I can get them. So, for science, I did not do as much research as you did on the actual Fox experiment. I want to specifically call out that I'm not going to grade it on the fact that the experiment was different from the way the game is because I want to grade on on the science shown in the game. I'm probably going to give it B plus A minus range. So I think again, getting something that actually has a little bit of the randomness of genetics that it's not inevitable that you will get something better if you put two good parents together. That's fair. I think is good. The fact that you are talking about hey all these things get kind of dragged along with the temperament, I think is a useful thing to bring about, and just publicizing this relatively obscure, at least among people who are not like canine domestication experts, relatively obscure experiment. Think would be good, so I put it kind of B plus A minus range. I don't think there is a ton of science in there. It's not like I mean I feel I feel justified in making the comparison to Wingspan in this case. Wingspan has deep science.

Brian 55:14
Look, even if it's not an Elizabeth Hargrave game, we always compare it to Wingspan. We have to.

Jason Wallace 55:19
Yes. Well, I feel extra justified this time. It's like Wingspan has deep scientific information. It is baked into all the cards, multiple layers of it that you can engage with. There's just not that much depth in this one, so that's why I'm going to give it that B plus A minus.

Brian 55:33
Okay, I am going to go B on fun. I think we're about the same on this. I think it's an interesting game. I think at this point, it's just it's gonna come out a little lower for me than genotype. If I want to play a genetics game, well, first of all, I like plants, but also I want to use the Punnett squares. I think that's really fun and cool. And this vibe-based genetics just isn't quite doing it for me. On the science, I am gonna give it a B, and I legitimately I'm giving it a B because the game is opposite to the experiment. It just is like that's okay. Like I don't have a problem with it. But if we're talking about representation of the science in the game, you're selecting for everything but friendliness, which is fundamentally the opposite of the game. But a fantastic scientific story, right? The story of this and sort of raising awareness of this. I mean, like you said, National Geographic. Like this is this is something that captures the imagination very well. So I'm glad it's out there. But again, the the science is a little inverted. So for that reason, I'm just going to knock it down to a B.

Jason Wallace 56:30
So Angela, not grading, but do you have any final thoughts about this game, about what it portrays, about your field of research, or just things you want people to take away from it?

Speaker 1 56:40
Any time we're talking about dog domestication and the public science sphere, I'm excited. You know, dogs aren't something hard to get the public involved in, engaged with. But I talk a lot about dog genetics, and it's not always clear to a lot of people what what it is we're talking about. And I think, like you said, Jason, trying to help people understand the absolute randomness sometimes of genetics and the the results of of what you get. Trying to help someone tend enough, trying to understand genetics is is great. Any game that can do that. I haven't played genotype, so maybe I need to get on genotype. But I think that's exciting. I think to address Brian's point, die that referenced the things of like biting and sniffing and tail wagging when you get closer to the cage might have been better roles. And then to build on what you're saying, Jason, there's nothing more after that. Maybe there could have been a second layer that then builds in the phenotypic changes that you see, and somehow creates a co-play between those two sets of variables. That would have been that would have been interesting. Maybe there's an add-on pack because what this

Jason Wallace 57:53
game needs is more complication. More complicated. We need more complicated. We need more. How will people

Speaker 1 57:57
feel like they're scientists if they don't have an intensive scientific design before they get to play.

Jason Wallace 58:04
So I guess last question, Angela: If you had $10,000, would you get a domestic fox? Ooh,

Speaker 1 58:13
you know, I think I would get a lot of judgment from the dog community if I did. But I mean, it is tempting, right,

Brian 58:23
Mmm

Angela 58:23
have a little a little fox hanging out. It feels like the best of both worlds. If you can't decide if you're a cat person or a dog person, you get a fox, and it feels like a very middle ground. And anything for science. If we if we're saying that luxurious $10,000 foxes are funding scientific experiments. We're in a research science funding crush right now, so you got to do what you got to do to get your science funding. So I'm buying a fox.

Brian 58:52
Okay, Angela, thank you so much for taking the time to come on to talk to our listeners, to talk to us. It's just been great. Do you use social media, or is there anywhere you'd like our listeners to sort of follow your research?

Speaker 1 59:04
I I use LinkedIn. Okay, and that's about it. So that's why you're not the only person we know who does that. Jason likes to say that's basically me.

Brian 59:13
Don't do social media.

Speaker 1 59:14
I would like to believe one day I will be just like one day I will be a podcast listener that I will also be a social media user, but I'm still getting there. Maybe in my retirement, I will just be a person who just like has a dog podcast, and then that's what I'll do. But not yet, no.

Brian 59:31
Okay. Well, with that, I think we're going to cut that here, listeners. Thank you for tuning in. Hope you have a great month and great games. And as always, have fun playing Dice with the universe. See ya. This has been the Gaming with Science podcast. Copyright 2026. Listeners are free to reuse this recording for any non-commercial purpose as long as credit is given to Gaming with Science. This podcast is produced with support from the University of Georgia. All opinions are those of the hosts and do not imply endorsement by the sponsors. If you wish to purchase any of the games that we talked. We encourage you to do so through your friendly local game store. Thank you, and have fun playing Dice with the Universe.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Comment (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to say something!

S3E07 - The Fox Experiment (Dog Domestication)

Summary

Timestamps

Links

Full Transcript