POINT-COUNTERPOINT An overview of the dog–human dyad and ethograms within it Paul D. McGreevy a , Melissa Starling a , N. J. Branson b , Mia L. Cobb c,d , Debbie Calnon e a Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; b Research Services Division, Deakin University, VIC, Australia; c Guide Dogs Victoria, Kew, VIC, Australia; d Anthrozoology Research Group, Monash University, VIC, Australia; and e Behaviour Counselling Service, Oakleigh South, VIC, Australia. KEYWORDS: dog–human interactions; intraspecific communication; interspecific communication; dominance; submission; deference Abstract This article reviews the literature on the complex and variable nature of the dog–human dyad and describes the influence of terms such as ‘‘dominance’’ on attitudes that humans have toward dogs. It highlights a legacy of tension between ethology and psychology and notes that some practitioners have skills with dogs that elude the best learning theorists. Despite the widespread appeal of being able to communicate with dogs as dogs do with one another, attempting to apply the intraspecific dog etho- gram to human–dog and dog–human interactions may have limited scope. The balance of learning the- ory and ethology on our interactions with dogs is sometimes elusive but should spur the scientific community to examine skills deployed by the most effective humane practitioners. This process will demystify the so-called whispering techniques and permit discourse on the reasons some training and handling techniques are more effective, relevant, and humane than others. This article explores the mismatch between the use of nonverbal communication of 2 species and offers a framework for future studies in this domain. Technologies emerging from equitation science may help to disclose con- fusing interventions through the collar and lead and thus define effective and humane use of negative reinforcement. The case for a validated intraspecific and interspecific canid ethogram is also made. Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Introduction In the 17th century, English law viewed animals as guilty of their actions. For example, ‘‘When in 1679 a London woman swung at Tyburn for bestiality, her canine partner in crime suffered the same punishment on the same grounds.’’ By the end of the 19th century, the law had changed to view animals as the property of their human owners, and it remains this way in many countries today. As science began to reveal that nature could be subject to human control, the perception that people were vulnerable to the metaphorical mystique of animals was rationalized under the banners of zoology, taxonomy, and veterinary science. The accompa- nying shift in the nature of the relationship between humans and animals that remains today is that animals became objects of human manipulation. For a detailed review of the social domination of animals in the Victorian era, we refer the reader to the study by Ritvo (1990). Since the first half of the 19th century, the sentimental value of companion dogs has continued to increase. At its best, Address for reprint requests and correspondence: Paul D. McGreevy, BVSc, MRCVS, PhD, Faculty of Veterinary Science (B19), University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia; Tel: 161 2 9351 2810; Fax: 161 2 9351 3957. E-mail: paul.mcgreevy@sydney.edu.au 1558-7878/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2011.06.001 Journal of Veterinary Behavior (2012) 7, 103-117