The morphology of the mandibular coronoid process does not indicate that is the progenitor to dogs.

The domestication of wolves is currently under debate. Where, when and from which wolf sub-species dogs originated are being investigated both by osteoarchaeologists and geneticists. While DNA research is rapidly becoming more active and popular, morphological methods have been the gold standard in the past. But even today morphological details are routinely employed to discern archaeological wolves from dogs. One such morphological similarity between and dogs was published in 1977 by Olsen and Olsen. This concerns the "turned back" anatomy of the dorsal part of the vertical ramus of the mandible that was claimed to be specific to domestic dogs and Chinese wolves . , and "absent from other canids". Based on this characteristic, . was said to be the progenitor of Asian and American dogs, and this specific morphology has been continuously used as an argument to assign archaeological specimens, including non-Asian and non-American, to the dog clade. We challenged this statement by examining 384 dog skulls of 72 breeds and 60 skulls of four wolf sub-species. Only 20 % of dog mandibles and 80 % of . showed the specific anatomy. In addition, 12 % of mandibles showed the "turned back" morphology. It can be concluded that the shape of the coronoid process of the mandible cannot be used as a morphological trait to determine whether a specimen belongs to a dog or as an argument in favour of as the progenitor to dogs.