Dog ethogram: Review of existing ethograms

The absence of a comprehensive, widely accepted ethogram for the domestic dog ( Canis familiaris ) limits the consistency and comparability of research on canine behavior. Ethograms are essential tools in behavioral science: they define the basic units of observation, reduce subjectivity through standardized terminology, and facilitate cross-study collaboration. This study reviewed ethograms developed for species in the genus Canis , as well as partial ethograms specifically designed for dogs, to identify strengths, limitations, and key elements for the future development of a comprehensive canine ethogram. Selection criteria for comprehensive ethograms included publication in English and coverage of the genus Canis species. The researchers identified four such ethograms. For partial ethograms, inclusion required descriptions of more than 10 behaviors and publication in Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Journal of Veterinary Behavior, or Animal Behaviour. From 426 initial papers, 70 partial ethograms met these criteria. Each was evaluated according to three aspects: descriptive detail, objectivity (avoidance of functional interpretations), and ease of use (presence of classifications and visual support). Clear trends emerged: comprehensive ethograms covered a wide behavioral range but often lacked descriptive precision and relied on functional labels. Partial ethograms described fewer behaviors, provided greater morphological detail, and required less interpretation, but often lacked classification systems and visual aids. A standardized ethogram should combine broad behavioral coverage, precise morphological definitions, clear classification, and visual support. Such a tool would enhance objectivity, comparability, and accessibility, establishing a robust foundation for future research and practical applications in canine behavior. • Review of ethograms for Canis familiaris and other Canis genus species. • Four comprehensive and seventy partial ethograms were identified. • Comprehensive ethograms lacked descriptive precision and used functional labels. • Partial ethograms showed more morphological detail but were less easy to use. • A standardized ethogram combining both approaches is proposed for future research.