The skull of a Lidia bull

We have no living specimen of aurochs to study and compare with aurochs-like cattle, and we tend to compare the living animal in flesh with the skeletal material of the aurochs - this is comparing apples to bananas and is prone to errors. That is why I think it is very interesting to compare what is comparable, namely bones to bones. Months ago I found a photo of a mounted skeleton of a Heck bull (go here). Recently I found a photo that is equally interesting, a photo of a Lidia bull skull (go here). Here is a photo of the skull on display the Naturkundemuseum Berlin for comparsion: 

How does the skull of this Spanish fighting bull compare to that of an aurochs? What is striking is that the snout seems to be as long as in the aurochs relative to the distance between the eye sockets, what means that this individual had a snout as long as in the aurochs in life. The postorbital portion, however, is definitely shorter as in the aurochs (I know the perspective is not ideal, but I have seen many aurochs skulls from that perspective and the postorbital region is always longer). This could maybe go hand in hand with the reduced brain volume of domestic cattle and paedomorphy. The eye sockets are not as pronounced and massive as in the aurochs, but I am not sure if that difference would be visible in the living animal. Also, not all aurochs bulls had eye sockets as prominent as in the Berlin skull, f.e. the skull of the Vig skeleton has less prominent eye sockets. The horns of the Lidia skull unfortunately have their sheaths still on, but I think it is obvious that the horns of the Lidia bull are smaller than in the aurochs, less curved and point forwards in a sharper angle as in the aurochs. 

All in all I would say that a Lidia skull is similar to that of the aurochs, but there are differences, most notably in the postorbital region and the horns. 

Does the "Augsburg aurochs" really show an aurochs?

The “Augsburg aurochs” made by Charles Hamilton Smith in 1826 is one of the most famous depictions of an aurochs. It is based on an oil painting which dates to the 16^th century and that was purchased by Smith in Augsburg, Germany. The oil painting, which might have been based on a live aurochs, is now lost and there are no photographs of it. The only thing we have is Smith’s copy of the painting, the “Augsburg aurochs”. “Copy” is a bit misleading, as Smith probably did not track out the original work but made his own version of it. For example, the animal on the original painting had an “entirely sooty black” colour, except for a white chin [1], while Smith decided to paint his aurochs in brown for whatever reason. The black and white version of Smith’s artwork is widely publicised, but the original work is coloured and shows a brown animal as you see down below [2]. 

Wikipedia cites a source which itself cites two sources that the original that Smith’s artwork is based on might not show an aurochs at all: one source claiming the painting might have been based on a hybrid between aurochs and cattle, and another one claiming it might have been based on a Polish steer. 

To see if there is anything legitimate behind these ideas, let’s have a look at Smith’s artwork. We do not know what the original looked like, except for the fact that the original bull was entirely black with a white chin. This is a colour that agrees with the other sources for the colour of the aurochs that we have, only the light dorsal stripe was apparently lacking on the original. This does not necessarily have to mean that the animal the painting was based on lacked a dorsal stripe, since this trait is not visible from every perspective. 

The animal portrayed by Smith matches an aurochs very well in proportions. The trunk is short, the legs are long, the head is large. The horns have the curvature of an aurochs’ horns and face forwards, and also the size is aurochs-like. The ribcage is deep as in the aurochs, and the waist is slender, creating a triangular shape for the trunk, which was very likely a trait of the aurochs as all wild bovines have that kind of trunk. The head has curly hair on the forehead, which is a trait that is well-documented for the European aurochs [1]. The head looks a bit paedomorphic with its concave snout and large eyes, but Smith tended to stylize his animal depictions. The dewlap is very short, as in the aurochs. The animal seems to have a woolly coat, and historic reports say that aurochs were covered in longer hair than domestic cattle [1], which is plausible for a wild animal living in temperate Europe. All in all, Smith’s depiction looks much like an aurochs, except for the wrong colour, which was aurochs-like in the original. It is most parsimonious to assume that the aurochs-like traits found in Smith’s work were also found in the original oil painting, otherwise it would be a big coincidence that Smith’s work happened to be more aurochs-like, in a time when we did not have a very good picture of the aurochs’ life appearance. 

One could argue that the lack of a penis tuft is a hint that the original artwork was based on a domestic steer, as steers usually do not have one. Also, the neck bulge is not very prominent in Smith’s work (steers have none). However, we do not know what the original looked like. Perhaps Smith was not paying attention to these two traits when he did his artwork. Perhaps the artist of the original from the 16^th century did not pay attention to them. Smith’s work, however, definitely shows a scrotum. 

As for the arguments claiming it was a hybrid between an aurochs and a domestic animal, I don’t know what exactly lead the author to conclude that it was a hybrid as I do not have access to the work in which it is postulated. But I cannot derive any possible reasons that lead to this conclusion based on the artwork, because Smith’s aurochs actually looks much like an aurochs and a wild bovine (the morphology, the dynamic pose and the slender waist suggest a wild animal to me). 

Also, the original painting had the word “Thur” written in golden letters on it [1], which is the Polish name of the aurochs. Back in this time, aurochs were only found in Poland [1] and also South-Eastern Europe (Moldavia). The usage of the word “Thur” suggests that the artist had seen an aurochs in Poland, where the last aurochs were found. In Poland, people strictly distinguished between the aurochs and the wisent, because both animals were still found in this country, and they knew what they looked and were like. I see no reason why this word would be used for a domestic steer. 

 

All in all, I think it is highly likely that the original painting Smith’s “Augsburg aurochs” was based on showed an aurochs, that the original probably was a rather accurate depiction of an aurochs because Smith’s work is that too (except for the wrong colour), and that it is well probable that it was painted after a live aurochs. It seems that most authors assume it showed an aurochs, and I see no convincing, compelling reasons to assume otherwise. 

 

Literature

 

[1] van Vuure: Retracing the aurochs – history, morphology and ecology of an extinct wild ox. 2005. 

[2] Frisch: Der Auerochs – das europäische Rind. 2010. 

 

The MAOA gene found to play a role in the aggressive behaviour of Lidia cattle

The monoamine oxidase A gene (MAOA gene) produces the enzyme monoamine oxidase A, which has an important function in the endocrinological metabolism in the brain of mammals. Mutations on this gene cause aggressive behaviour in humans (the Brunner syndrome) and in laboratory mice. These mutations lead to a deficiency of monoamine oxidase A production, causing an excess of serotonin, dopamine and noradrenalin in the brain, which has an impact on behaviour. 

 

A recent study examined the MAOA gene in in cattle. The study tested the MAOA gene in Spanish fighting cattle (Lidia), which is selected for aggression (“fighting spirit”), and breeds that are not selected for aggression and do not display excessively aggressive behaviour (Asturiana de los Valles, Morenas Gallega, Retinta, Rubia Gallega, Avilena, Limousine and Charolaise). They found considerable variation in sequences of the promotor region of the gene between Lidia and the non-aggressive breeds, indicating a possible influence of the gene on the behaviour of the cattle [1]. 

The million-dollar question now is, what were the sequences of the MAOA gene of the aurochs? Was it more like that of Lidia, or even identical as in Lidia, or more like that of the non-aggressive breed or even identical? As the full genome of the aurochs is resolved, it would be very interesting if someone would examine the MAOA gene of the aurochs. It could tell us if this was one of the many key genes that mutated during the domestication of cattle, and what the behaviour of the aurochs might have been like in terms of aggression, although the MAOA gene is probably not the only gene that is involved in aggressive behaviour. 

 

Literature

 

[1] Eusebi et al.: Aggressive behaviour in cattle is associated with a polymorphism in the MAOA gene promoter. 2019. 

 

 

 

Rare aurochs-like traits and the breeds that have them

Some aurochs traits are easy to achieve in “breeding-back”, others are not. For example, it is really easy to breed for a basic aurochs-like colour as this trait is widespread among primitive aurochs-like breeds. Other traits are among the challenges for “breeding back”, also because they are very rare among living cattle. In order to achieve them in “breeding-back”, it is important to visualize where in which breeds these traits can be found. Otherwise the breeding result might not be that convincing in terms of aurochs-likeness. In this post, I mention only the primitive breeds that have some of the desired traits, not the “breeding-back” cattle which already might have some of the traits (f.e. the right body size in the case of Taurus cattle). 

 

Aurochs-like body size. This depends on what you consider an aurochs-like body size. As sexual dimorphism is a factor, I take the withers height of the bulls as a reference. European aurochs bulls varied from 160 to 200 cm or slightly more, therefore they are in the same size class as the wild yak. A number of breeds reach or surpass 160 cm. For example, some Sayaguesa and some Maremmana bulls (such as those acquired for the Auerrind project) reach 170 cm. Chianina and Maltese cattle reach 180 and maybe more in some cases. Modicana from Italy are also said to be 160 cm tall. I know of no confirmed cases, but Podolica and Boskarin might also surpass 160 cm. If one wants to breed for the larger end of the aurochs bull size spectrum, Chianina and Maltese are the only (taurine) options. 

 

Horns with an aurochs-like inwards curve. Horns curving strongly inwards as in the aurochs are found in some individuals of Maronesa, rarely also Sayaguesa. Very rarely, aurochs-like inwards-facing horns are found even in derived breeds such as Holstein (see van Vuure, 2005). Some Lidia also have inwards-curving horns, although their curvature is more two-dimensional compared to that in the aurochs. 

 

Short trunk as in the aurochs. This is a real challenge as this trait is not found in living taurine cattle, at least not in both sexes at the same time. Some Chianina, Maltese and Lidia bulls have an aurochs-like trunk length to leg length ratio, but never the cows. Only in primitive zebus (as outlined in the “challenges” post) have a trunk as short as in the aurochs in both sexes. 

 

Hump as large as in the aurochs. Found in some Lidia and also Corriente individuals. 

 

Elongated skull shape. Found in some Sayaguesa, Lidia, Maltese and Holstein cattle (and possibly others as well). 

 

Well-marked sexual dichromatism. Among the taurine breeds known to me, only Maronesa and the old type of Corsican cattle have a sexual dichromatism as strongly marked as in the aurochs. 

 

Aurochs-like body morphology. Only Lidia has a morphology (in some individuals at least) that looks plausible for a wild bovine, all other breeds have a domestic morphology - some more, others less. 

 

Udder size. The udder should not be visible from the side, as in a wild bovine. This the case in some Lidia and some primitive zebus. 

 

Looking at this list, it appears that for a breeding project that is ought to be successful, well-selected Maronesa, Sayaguesa, Lidia, Chianina/Maltese and primitive zebu are mandatory to achieve a phenotypic match with the aurochs that is as large as possible with domestic cattle. Taurus cattle already achieved many aurochs-like traits such as the right size (cows being 150-155 cm and bulls 155-170 cm tall at the withers), a satisfying sexual dichromatism, aurochs-like horn curvature at least in some cows and the right colour alleles are present (together with undesired alleles). One option would to start from anew with well-selected Maronesa, Sayaguesa, Lidia, Chianina/Maltese and primitive zebu and Watussi for the horn volume. Another option, that might be faster, is to take the best Taurus cattle and breed them for a more homogeneous phenotype, and then cautiously add what may be lacking in the herd, f.e. for the short trunk and small udder adding a F2 individual of (Taurus x primitive zebu) x Taurus that is well-selected, for the horn curvature (if not already achieved by selection with Taurus cattle alone) adding a suitable Maronesa individual, and for the morphology a Lidia individual plus a Watussi or Auerrind crossbreed for horn volume. With consequent breeding, the full potential aurochs-likeness that is achievable with domestic cattle could be seized. One must consider, however, that this would take at least 20 years.