Two canid morphotypes have been proposed for the middle Upper Palaeolithic site of Předmostí (Moravia, Czech Republic): Pleistocene wolf and Palaeolithic dog (Germonpré et al., 2012, 2015; Galeta et al., 2020). In Wilczyński et al. (2020), faunal assemblages from other Upper Palaeolithic Moravian sites were analyzed and those results used to project a similar, which we interpret as flawed, result for Předmostí: that only wild canids were present. We address issues with their methodology and argue that their conclusion, that dogs were not present at any of those studied sites, is based on cursory taphonomic analysis. Further, their projection of these results to Předmostí, an assemblage they did not study, is unsubstantiated, but does highlight the current dearth of taphonomic information that could aid the study of dog domestication. We also point out an important error in their Fig. 1, where the hemimandibles intended to show the natural variability in large canids from Dolní Vĕstonice II and Pavlov I SE, are in fact canid specimens from Předmostí. Since several of these canid specimens have been published by Germonpré et al. (2015), we find it imperative to address this error to ensure these data are correctly referenced in future works.

已经为 Předmostí（摩拉维亚，捷克共和国）旧石器时代中期遗址提出了两种犬科动物形态类型：更新世狼和旧石器时代狗（Germonpré 等人，2012 年，2015 年；Galeta 等人，2020 年）。在 Wilczyński 等人。（2020 年），对来自旧石器时代上摩拉维亚其他遗址的动物群进行了分析，这些结果用于预测 Předmostí 的类似结果，我们将其解释为有缺陷的结果：仅存在野生犬科动物。我们解决了他们的方法论问题，并认为他们的结论是基于粗略的基因分析，即任何研究地点都没有狗。此外，他们将这些结果投射到 Předmostí，一个他们没有研究的组合，是未经证实的，但确实强调了目前可以帮助研究狗驯化的基因信息的缺乏。我们还指出了他们的图 1 中的一个重要错误，其中旨在显示来自 Dolní Vĕstonice II 和 Pavlov I SE 的大型犬科动物的自然变异性的半颌骨实际上是来自 Předmostí 的犬科动物标本。由于 Germonpré 等人已经发表了这些犬科动物标本中的一些。（2015），我们发现必须解决这个错误，以确保在未来的工作中正确引用这些数据。