ohmidog!

When and where dogs originated — whether it was 15,000 years ago or as many as 100,000, whether it was in Asia or Africa — are likely to remain mysteries  for a bit longer.

A new study published in  The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences argues that charting the DNA of modern dog breeds doesn’t likely hold the answer.

The study, authored by 20 scientists, concluded that testing the DNA of today’s dogs does not “get us any closer to understanding where and when and how dogs were domesticated.”

According to Greger Larson at the University of Durham in England, the DNA of modern dogs is so mixed up that it is useless in figuring out when and where dogs originated. Only with the analysis of DNA from fossilized dogs, now underway, will the answers be found, he says.

Larson and colleagues took DNA from 1,375 dogs of 121 breeds, and 19 wolves in connection with the study.

While it’s still unclear what, if any, breeds can rightfully be called “ancient,” the study did find six breeds the were labeled basal — the basenji, shar-pei, Saluki, Akita, Finnish spitz and Eurasier, according to the New York Times. That means their DNA was less mixed.

Among the dog breeds most commonly mentioned as ancient, or at least closest to their ancient predecessors are basenji, shar-pei, shiba inu, chow chow, Afghan hound, saluki, Siberian husky and Alaskan malamute, lhasa apso and samoyed.

Reports the Times:

“Just as DNA from Neanderthals has helped illuminate the origins of modern humans, DNA from ancient dog fossils should help illuminate the story of early dog domestication in the next few years.

“We’re not a million miles away,” said Larson. “We’re close.”

Arthritis supplements for dogs, cats and horses sometimes skimp on the ingredients, an independent laboratory has found.

Four of the six joint supplements for animals tested by ConsumerLab.com lacked the amounts of glucosamine or chondroitin promised on their labels or had other flaws, according to a report by the Associated Press.

“There is and there always has been” a quality problem, although many companies do a good job, said Mark Blumenthal of the American Botanical Council, which tracks research on herbal products.

Even when these supplements contain what they claim, there is little evidence that they work, veterinary experts say.

“You can’t ask a dog or a cat to give you a subjective impression of how they’re feeling after taking the product for several days. They can’t say, ‘On a scale of 1 to 5, I feel better or worse,’” Blumenthal said.

Up to one-third of dogs and cats in the U.S. are given supplements, a government report estimates. Sales of pet supplements have roughly doubled since 2003, to nearly $1 billion a year in the United States.

Few high-quality studies have tested the effectiveness of animal supplements. The Food and Drug Administration says these products are not bound by quality rules for human ones.

“Many people presume that supplements are safer than drugs, but the reality is that there is very limited safety data on dietary supplements for horses, dogs, and cats,” the panel concluded.To see the National Academy of Sciences report on supplements for animals, click here.