Let's try to avoid xenophobia and racism with this dangerous question here. I would like to start by saying that all humans have a naturally tribal history and you just have to go back farther with some populations to see their Paleo roots. That being said if you look at documentaries of currently existing wild human populations you will see that they all exhibit a similar body type or at least there is far less variation than seen in the city. This is largely due to their level of physical activity and diet. This is the meaning of "paleo" to me.

Dogs are selectively bred for certain qualities. This has led to rampant inbreeding and genetic disease not found in native wolf populations. Most dogs may look radically different than wolves but they are still genetically and sexually compatible. They are not really a subgroup.

So to answer your question: any group of humans that have been isolated enough to develop radical traits due to inbreeding could be compared to dogs. I would advise against making this comparison as it is surely insulting. The first group of people that comes to mind is British royalty. They did perform selective breeding with their children the same way they did with their dogs. Being limited to marrying only other royalty did eventually limit their genetic diversity much like a purebred dog.

As dogs are to wolves, humans are to wild apes.

British royalty carries some pretty bad genes - just look at Prince Charles. No princess in the world can eat that much bone broth to undo the damage.