Studies on domestication are blooming, but the developmental bases for the generation of domestication traits and breed diversity remain largely unexplored. Some phenotypic patterns of human neurocristopathies are suggestive of those reported for domesticated mammals and disrupting neural crest developmental programmes have been argued to be the source of traits deemed the ‘domestication syndrome’. These character changes span multiple organ systems and morphological structures. But an in-depth examination within the phylogenetic framework of mammals including domesticated forms reveals that the distribution of such traits is not universal, with canids being the only group showing a large set of predicted features. Modularity of traits tied to phylogeny characterizes domesticated mammals: through selective breeding, individual behavioural and morphological traits can be reordered, truncated, augmented or deleted. Similarly, mammalian evolution on islands has resulted in suites of phenotypic changes like those of some domesticated forms. Many domesticated mammals can serve as valuable models for conducting comparative studies on the evolutionary developmental biology of the neural crest, given that series of their embryos are readily available and that their phylogenetic histories and genomes are well characterized.

Similar phenotypic changes occur across many species as a result of domestication, e.g. in pigmentation and snout size. Experimental studies of domestication have concentrated on intense and directed selection regimes, while conditions that approximate the commensal and indirect interactions with humans have not been explored. We examine long-term data on a free-living population of wild house mice that have been indirectly selected for tameness by regular exposure to humans. In the course of a decade, this mouse population exhibited significantly increased occurrence of white patches of fur and decreased head length. These phenotypic changes fit to the predictions of the ‘domestication syndrome'.

Increasing urbanization and densification are two of the largest global threats to biodiversity. However, certain species thrive in urban spaces. Hedgehogs Erinaceus europaeus have been found in higher densities in green areas of settlements as compared to rural spaces. With recent studies pointing to dramatically declining hedgehog numbers in rural areas, we pose the question: how do hedgehogs fare in urban spaces, and do these spaces act as refuges? In this study, recent (2016–2018) and past (1992) hedgehog abundance and distribution were compared across the city of Zurich, Switzerland using citizen science methods, including: footprint tunnels, capture-mark recapture, and incidental sightings. Our analyses revealed consistent negative trends: Overall hedgehog distribution decreased by 17.6% ± 4.7%, whereas abundance declined by 40.6% (mean abundance 32 vs. 19 hedgehogs/km², in past and recent time, respectively), with one study plot even showing a 91% decline in this period (78 vs. 7 hedgehogs/km², respectively). We discuss possible causes of this rapid decline: increased urban densification, reduction of insect biomass, and pesticide use, as well as the role of increasing populations of badgers (a hedgehog predator) and parasites or diseases. Our results suggest that hedgehogs are now under increasing pressure not only in rural but also in urban areas, their former refuges.

The overall similarity of the skull shape of some dog breeds with that of juvenile wolves begs the question if and how ontogenetic changes such as paedomorphosis (evolutionary juvenilisation) played a role in domestication. Here we test for changes in patterns of development and growth during dog domestication. We present the first geometric morphometric study using ontogenetic series of dog and wolf crania, and samples of dogs with relatively ancestral morphology and from different time periods. We show that patterns of juvenile-to-adult morphological change are largely similar in wolves and domestic dogs, but differ in two ways. First, dog skulls show unique (neomorphic) features already shortly after birth, and these features persist throughout postnatal ontogeny. Second, at any given age, juvenile dogs exhibit skull shapes that resemble those of consistently younger wolves, even in dog breeds that do not exhibit a ‘juvenilized’ morphology as adults. These patterns exemplify the complex nature of evolutionary changes during dog domestication: the cranial morphology of adult dogs cannot simply be explained as either neomorphic or paedomorphic. The key to our understanding of dog domestication may lie in a closer comparative examination of developmental phases.