Talk:Golden jackal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Image copyright problem with Image:Sulimov dog.jpg

The image Image:Sulimov dog.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian Jackal should be removed from the article

as it's been recently proven to be a subspecies of grey wolf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.7.163.40 (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see discussion at Talk:Egyptian Jackal. A paper has been published, which, if correct, suggests that the Egyptian jackal should not be considered as part of the golden jackal. We don't know what the academic response to this paper will be, and no new name has yet been published for the taxon. Until then all modern published material (including that paper) gives it as a ssp of golden jackal, and we have to follow that. We can of course mention the paper though, and report its conclusions. Richard New Forest (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Richard New Forest, don't change other people's statements on discussion panel.

Regarding the topic, you wrote you opted for leaving the example of egyptian jackal with the mention of the study finding it to be the subspecies of gray wolf but I don't se your edit citing that newest source. why is that? 83.7.164.156 (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact I did not change any posting: I only changed a heading. I've done this again, as talk headings are supposed to be neutral. However, I ought to have noticed that the posting ran on from the original title, so my edit made that comment confusing. I've now amended the first posting to include the part that was in the title.

As I said, the discussion I was referring to is at Talk:Egyptian Jackal, and the paper is cited in that article. Richard New Forest (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No, editors are not supposed to change any part of eachother's statements in discussion panel unless they're vandalisms, soapbox or your adversary doesn't mind. You can't delete somebody's postuales regarding the article as "unneutral". In this way NPOV only applies to articles themselves - not discussion panels.

My postualte is to delete the egyptian jackal from this article as it is irrevelant here in the light of new evidence. As a temporary solution i also find quite acceptable your idea to cite the source proving egyptian jackal is in fact not a jackal, instead of removing the section where it is mentioned as an example of it. For some reason you didn't make any edits though. why is that? Do you want me to add such a mention?

Oh and again, I insist that you stop altering any part of my posts83.7.164.156 (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

See discussion in Talk:Egyptian Jackal. Dger (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Corfu Jackal

The jackal was long indigenous to the island of Corfu, but has not been spotted since the 1980s. But its existnce does pose the question 'how did it get there?' and 'when?' given the supposed late arrival of the jackal into Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.7.182 (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion in Category:Wolves

My problem with the addition of this category is summed up in the edit summary adding it. To quote: "If the Ethiopian wolf is considered a "wolf", then so should the golden jackal, as modern genetic studies show that the golden jackal is more closely related to Canis lupus than Canis simensis is)". The problem with this is that it is drawing an original conclusion. And just because the accepted common name for one cousin species includes the term "wolf" does not mean that this species should be included in that category. If the Ethiopian wolf (also called the Ethiopian jackal, by the way) should be removed from the category is a different issue. I also dispute the rationale from a scientific point, as the research is inconclusive and other studies draw the opposite conclusion, that C. simensis is more closely related to C. lupus, and the methodology is not proven entirely. So I believe it should be removed, as it was before it was added in June. oknazevad (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• You state that the research is inconclusive. What research are you referring to? The phylogenetic closeness between golden jackals and gray wolves was established in a 2005 paper by Lindblad-Toh et al. (2005) (see here), whose results have not been disputed as far as I know. Even morphologically, the closeness of the two cannot be denied, as shown here. Furthermore, you state that there are studies showing that Ethiopian wolves are closer to gray wolves than what I presume you mean "jackals". I am aware of those studies, but I'm also aware that the "jackals" mentioned are actually black-backed and side-striped jackals, which are indeed very far removed from "true wolves". Golden jackals on the other hand have been confirmed several times to be well within the "wolf clade" in the Canis evolutionary tree. The fact that the animal's common English name doesn't include "wolf" is irrelevant, considering that panda does not include "bear", but is nonetheless classed as one. The same holds true for the aardwolf which, although not explicitly called a "hyena", is nonetheless classed as one without controversy. If you intend to continue disputing this, then it would be useful is you could provide an actual definition of what a "wolf" actually is. Disregarding phylogenetics may make this somewhat difficult.Mariomassone (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of my misinterpretation, it doesn't change the fact that you are arguing that this article should be in the wolf category based on your original conclusion that because "a", and "b" are true we should show "c". The Ethiopian wolf is not in the wolf category, so that does nothing to say that this article should be, nor is the coyote, despite being even more closely related phylogenically to the grey wolf. My biggest problem with it, though, is that the initial addition outright removed the Jackal category, which is absolutely incorrect. The term "jackal" comes from Turkish where it originated to describe this species. So if any article belongs in that category, it's this one (though it is now in a subcategory). oknazevad (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, coyote is included, though the Ethiopian wolf is fortunately not. Indeed, jackal is a Turkish loanword invented for Canis aureus. But then again, the category "jackals" also includes the black-backed and side-striped jackals which, as already stated, are not related to the golden jackal, and have never been in contact with Turkic civilizations. If the "wolves" and "jackals" categories are to be further refined, then the words need a concrete definition. At the moment, there is no consistency. The alternative is to delete the "wolves" and "jackals" categories (considering they're both taxonomically meaningless) and replace them with their scientific names, which are more narrow in definition. Mariomassone (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

But then we've crossed the line from descriptive into prescriptive; people wpuld expect there to be a category called "wolves" as it is a common plain English term. As for the black-backed and side-striped jackals, they names stuck because morphologically and ecologically they are similar, even though phenologically they should be moved to a different genus. Knowing what we know now, a different common name would make sense, but we aren here to reform the English language. It seems that you're trying to create a concrete definition where none exists, which is no good. As Wikipedia is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive, we just state that these species are known as jackals and leave it at that. But what they are not known as is "wolves". Coyote shouldn't be in the category either. Indeed, to call a coyote a wolf is to invite ridicule. It should be removed from both. oknazevad (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Canis anthus

With this new discovery, I think the solution would be to create a separate article for Canis anthus, removing all references to African golden jackal behaviour and range from the main Canis aureus article and incorporating it into the new one. I propose naming it "African golden wolf", as shown on the link Mariomassone (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with creating a new article, changing the binomial name of this article to Canis anthus, as User:Luizpuodzius did, is just ridiculous, since this article covers both Eurasian and African "golden jackals". Editor abcdef (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed all around. Presuming, that is, this actually holds up to further scrutiny, and is confirmed by further studies. This isn't exactly a new idea, that at least some golden jackals are actually wolves (C. lupus lupaster/C. aureus lupaster discussions, anyone?) Long story short, the taxonomy isn't settled at this point, though this does seem like an interesting development. But there's absolutely no reason to change this article except to show the possibly smaller range. It's not like the Eurasian golden jackal ceased to exist. oknazevad (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

One difficulty I predict is in determining whether or not sources talking about both populations are referring to the "species" as a whole or just the African/Eurasian ones. For example, this article currently uses Jhala 2004 extensively, which mentions the fact that golden jackals use "helpers" to look after their young, yet I've only ever heard this behaviour from the African variety. Does this mean that we should remove all references to "helpers" from the Eurasian golden jackal article? If there are studies confirming that jackals in India or the Middle East also use helpers, then this won't be necessary. Mariomassone (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

In any case, starting tonight I'm going to compose a draft article on my sandbox. Once that's finalised, I'll get about revising this particular article here. Mariomassone (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Drop me a note when you've got it hashed out. I'll gladly give it a once over for cooyediting purposes. oknazevad (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

fyi: The research paper: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)00787-3

Dissenting opinion: Gaubert stands by his original work, saying that although he finds the new study to be high-quality work, he isn't yet convinced that the African golden wolf is a new species. For instance, he says scientists have yet to tease apart some conflicting results in the DNA analyses. "There's still a lot of work to be done," he said. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/150730-jackals-wolves-evolution-new-species-animals-africa --Jcardazzi (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

6 subspecies?

This sentence is confusing to me. 13-1=12 not six. Could the sentence be explained? In 2005, MSW3 recognised 13 subspecies,[5] though genetic studies published in 2015 revealed that supposed golden jackals living in Africa were a separate species, Canis anthus, thus reducing the number of actual golden jackal subspecies to six.[6] --Jcardazzi (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi Thank you

Eurasian subspecies: 1) aureus 2) cruesemanni 3) ecsedensis 4) indicus 5) moreotica 7) naria 6) syriacus. Looks like there are seven. Mariomassone (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This is why I think some of these moves are premature. Things like subspecies are still undetermined and not settled. As noted above, there's already at least some questioning of the conclusions of the new study. Science doesn't fit the 24-hour news cycle, and I think we do a disservice to jump to too fast of conclusions. For all we know, this could be like the eastern wolf situation, where one study declared it definitively a separate species in 2013, but a wide ranging review a year later said the first study was not the "best available science". Yes, a lot of media outlets, including some scientific ones, jumped on the story. Some of them should know better. And if this doesn't hold up, the mainstream outlets are probably not going to do a follow up. In short, I think we've jumped some guns here. oknazevad (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It's best to keep the moves until some major scientific source publish an article (not just a single sentence or two) declaring that this classification is not the "best available science". Until then, everything that was moved should stay and not be reverted. Editor abcdef (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Golden jackal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121004124108/http://www.fileden.com:80/files/2008/1/6/1683128/Nwjz/vol5/nwjz.051135.Toth.pdf to http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/1/6/1683128/Nwjz/vol5/nwjz.051135.Toth.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained content removal

@Mariomassone: I notice that you removed several paragraphs from this article in this series of revisions. What is the reason for this? Jarble (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

A reply to this discussion has been posted on my talk page. Jarble (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Etymology

Indigenous names (i.e., words for jackal in other languages) is an interesting entry, but it doesn't help explain fully the derivation of the word jackal in English. 17:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Golden jackal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227175433/http://www.lcie.org/Docs/Action%20Plans/Greece%20Golden%20Jackal%20Action%20Plan%202004.pdf to http://www.lcie.org/Docs/Action%20Plans/Greece%20Golden%20Jackal%20Action%20Plan%202004.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Post-FAC

Golden jackal is now the only extant wild Canis article to hold WP:FA status since Gray wolf lost that crown over a decade ago.

On behalf of the Wikipedia "jackal pack", for their contributions during the WP:FAC process I thank:

• FunkMonk for the huge amount of his personal time donated in critiquing the article, and
• Corinne for maintaining her grammatical watch and attention to detail over the edits immediately after they were made.

We have completed this task before Christmas, which was the target that I set for myself back in August. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Pre-FAC

NAMES Under the section Etymology, we have "Other names for the species include Eurasian golden jackal,[4] common jackal, Asiatic jackal[5] or reed wolf.[6]"

• The term Eurasian golden jackal was only used by Koepfli to distinguish that one from the African golden jackal, which by the end of his study had become the African golden wolf. The abstract commences "Koepfli et al. assess divergence between golden jackals (Canis aureus) from Africa and Eurasia. Clearly, the term Eurasia was geographical and not considered part of its common name. I believe that this name be removed.
• The term "reed wolf" comes from historical Hungary and is not recent. "This animal could be wolf, stray dog or jackal" says Toth. Toth set out to explore what it might have been, and does not end the paper with any real conclusion. I believe it should be (a) removed as we do not know what it was, or (b) unbolded and relocated under the section Subspecies, the moroticus description box, where we say: Possibly referred to as the "reed wolf" in historical Hungary. Include the Toth citation. This refernce here refers to the reed wolf as moroticus.
• A search of Google Scholar shows that the two terms common jackal and Asiatic jackal are often used for C. aureus in research articles. The Etymology section is not the right place for them as they do not relate to the derivation of the word "jackal". I believe these should be unbolded and relocated to commence the Taxonomy section, with: The golden jackal is smetimes referred to as the common jackal or the Asiatic jackal. Include the Jala citation. William Harris • (talk) • 10:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

RANGE Regarding our various maps, how accurate is this map http://maps.iucnredlist.org/map.html?id=3744 if we were to not consider Africa (now African golden wolf)? The nations of Myanmar, United Republic of Thailand, and Viet Nam are listed in the IUNC description: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/3744/0 Wozencraft in MSW3 listed Myanmar and Thailand. We have Zachos 2008 (DOI 10.1007/s10528-009-9221-y) supporting Thailand. Duckworth 2008 (DOI: 10.1515/mamm.1998.62.4.549) lists 7 sightings - three from south Laos, two from Vietnam and two from Cambodia - only in lowland, open deciduous forests along with numerous past reported sightings, however no specimens have been collected in this region. Comments anyone? William Harris • (talk) • 10:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not very accurate at all, i think it's pretty old and needs updating. The Golden Jackal is a protected species under EU law and for this reason it has expanded into a large chunk of the EU. It's habitat now at least reaches as far north as Denmark. It has ended up as roadkill in Denmark a few times and a hunter has even shot one by mistake as he thought it was a fox , so scientists are completely sure that the Golden Jackal is in Denmark. There was also an incident in the spring of 2017, where a Golden Jackal had killed 11 sheeps . It's habitat most definitely also includes most of the EU countries south of Denmark such as Germany, France, Spain, Italy, etc. So the Golden Jackal has a pretty big range nowadays, much bigger than what is reported in this article and the map you're linking. Mortenrobinson (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Subspecies synonyms. These are taken from Wozencraft which mixes synonyms for the species with those for the nominate subspecies. For instance, Wagner (1841) described Canis dalmatinus. Thus C. damatinus is a synonym for C. aureus, not C. aureus aureus. Assuming that this is describing an animal from Dalmatia, this synonym would more properly be applied to ecsedensis or moreoticus. It shouldn't be listed as a synonym of subspecies C. aureus aureus. Similarly, balcanicus and hungaricus should be synonyms of a European subspecies.   Jts1882 | talk  13:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

A little research reveals the following:

• Ellerman and Morrison-Scott (1951), one of the references for subspecies used by Wozencraft, gives hungaricus as a synonym of ecsedensis. In fact, the latter was proposed to replace the former because it was preoccupied by the Hungarian wolf.
• Pocock (1938) synonymises dalmatinus and balcanicus with anthus on the grounds that North African jackals were introduced in the Dalmatia. This was mentioned by Ellerman and Morrison-Scott (1951), but they left them listed under C. a. aureus.
• Allen (1939), the other subspecies reference used by Wozencraft, lists Thos aureus maroccanus as a subspecies with a synonym Thos lupaster maroccanus. This Moroccan Jackal presumably belongs with the African golden wolves.

I have moved hungaricus in the subspecies table. I think maroccanus can be deleted from this article, but am unsure what to do with dalmatinus and balcanicus. As Wozencraft and Ellerman & Morrison-Scott left them under C. aureus aureus I suppose we have no other choice, even if it is inaccurate.   Jts1882 | talk  16:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Good work. I am happy with that relocation of hungaricusas as it is supported by your reference: Ellerman, J. R., and T. C. S. Morrison-Scott. Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian Mammals 1758 to 1946 - Canis aureus ecsedensis Kretzoi, 1947. T/ws alliens ecsedensis Kretzoi, Ann. Mus. Nat. Hung. 40: 287. Tyukod, Szatmar, Hungary. Proposed to replace hungaricus. 1938. Canis aureus hungaricus Ehik, Ann. Mus. Nat. Hung. ^/ (Zool.) : 1 1. Said to be preoccupied by Canis familiaris hungaricus Margo, 1 89 1, the reference to which has not been traced.

Koepfli 2015 tells us that Thos lupaster maroccanus Cabrera, 1921. Mogador, Morocco, should be regarded as C. anthus, so I agree that it should be relocated from this article to the C. anthus article, using Koepfli as an additional reference. (Koepfli lists in his SUP all of the synonyms going across to anthus.)

See Pocock, 1938, P.Z.S. , Ser. B. 108: 37, 39, in which it is suggested that dalmatinus and halcanicus are possibly synonyms of C a. anthus Cuvier, 1820, from Senegal, evidently introduced into Europe. I would be inclined to leave dalmatinus and balcanicus for now as we do not know the basis of this "evidently" (whatever that term is supposed to imply) Dalmatian introduction. Rest assured, if this is the case, the evolutionary biologists will get on top of it soon with their gene sequencers - someone will have an interest. William Harris • (talk) • 09:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Good, we agree. While I think the dalmatinus and balcanicus are misplaced under C.a. aureu the only sources we have have listed them that way, Wozencraft ambiguously and Ellerman & Morrison-Scott explicitly. I can see no grounds for doing it differently until new evidence is available.

What struck me is how dated the subspecies assessments are, with the 1951 study being just a checklist. The assessments belong to a different time, when subspecies were treated very differently and the number of specimens and characteristics used to define subspecies was often very small. This was a point made by Andrew Kitchener with respect to tigers, which were and are an extensively studied animal, and is behind the drastic reductions in cat subspecies in recent taxonomic assessments. The following quote states the change in nature of subspecies succinctly:

"The definition of subspecies has changed from merely being used as a label for a local geographic variant to representing a morphologically and genetically distinct population, which has evolved in isolation, but which may subsequently hybridise with neighbouring populations"

— Andrew Kitchener (1999).

I assume that Kloepfli and colleagues will be trying to sample the golden jackal more widely, as the whole wolf-jackal species complex seems so intertwined.   Jts1882 | talk  12:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand the dog/wolf thing will be greatly advanced over the next 12 months. After that, I expect that the evolutionary biologists will turn their attention to the next few steps back on the Canis phylogenetic tree. [Here is one reason why - the Dingo is a genetically divergent, basal dog whose lineage has experienced past admixture with the Qing Hai wolf (Fan 2016) i.e. the Tibetan wolf. The Tibetan wolf appears to be an African golden wolf derivative or hybrid (Werhahn 2017), which is why its DNA is basal compared with the gray wolf and therefore I assume the Dingo DNA is basal compared with the dog. Someone will need to explore if the Dingo is a domesticated African golden wolf derivative(!) introgressed with gray wolf, or at least dismiss that possibility.] William Harris • (talk) • 09:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Rutkowski (2015) cited in the article has already looked at two specimens from the Dalmation coast - as well as other parts of Europe - and found no trace of an African ancestry; their lineage had been living in the region for the past 6,500 years. This matter is now closed. William Harris • (talk) • 11:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

TAXONOMY - phylotree The wolf-like canid phylotree has been an issue with me in the past. Koeplfi offered two versions, one in the main body and one in the SUP, the difference being the location of the Ethiopian wolf based on a different set of markers. The version in the SUP matches the Lindblad-Toh undertaking in 2005, which I have supported in the past. I have now decided to go with the phylotree in the main body of Koepfli that locates the Ethiopian wolf inside the phylotree and diverging after the golden jackal. It is based on nuclear markers and the benefit is that we can use the timing provided by Koepfli, therefore the tree has now been amended. (Of interest, in Koepfli's Figure 1 "Phylogenetic Tree Based on Mitochondrial Cytochrome b Sequences" uses a different marker and depicts the Ethiopian wolf and the Coyote as sisters branching from a common maternal ancestor at some time in the past.) William Harris • (talk) • 12:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs

The body of the text is now complete and the references all validated. The next steps are (1) a proof read of the body for spelling or formatting errors - my thanks to those edits who are contributing as we progress the article - and (2) the compilation of three lead paragraphs to cover the most important points in the article body. I will compile something shortly for others to read/rebut/comment on. Once this is completed, we are ready to call upon our friends in "The Guild" for proof-reading and clarification. William Harris • (talk) • 10:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Software scans

• Earwig: Violation unlikely 17.4% - found multiple use of the term "golden jackal (Canis aureus)"
• Checklinks: OK
• Disimbag links: None

William Harris • (talk) • 11:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors

On behalf of the "jackal-pack", I thank Corinne, Coordinator, Guild of Copy Editors for making the time and effort to further yet another Canis article. William Harris • (talk) • 02:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Finland

Golden jackal has now been observed in Finland, too. I don't know if there are any English sources for this. Google Giggle has a bit trouble translating the Yle article, calling the animal variously as sacral, Jacob, falcon or a gold cabbage. 2001:14BA:8700:0:0:0:0:747A (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Molecular work

Has anyone looked for updated molecular studies that could provide more accurate information on the subspecies of the Golden Jackals? --Desensi ashley (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Pannonian jackal

Pannonian jackal seems to be used occasionally, although often it could be more a geographical description than a common name. The subspecies table in German & Mihalca (2017) lists it as a common name. This could be used as a source, although there is always the danger that they got it from Wikipedia. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

That was the name used in the FA copy back in 2017. The term appears twice in the cited Kryštufek, B.; Tvrtković, N. (1990). "Variability and identity of the jackals (Canis aureus) of Dalmatia". Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien. 91: 7–25. - however someone has since removed it from the article. William Harris (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It was removed in this edit. Of the two mentions in Kryštufek & Tvrtković (1990), the first in the abstract is ambiguous and could be a common name or just mean jackals from Pannonia. However, the second in the text seems to be using it as a name: "while the sample of the already extinct Pannonian jackal is insufficient for establishing individual variability". If it was just jackals from a region they would use extirpated instead of extinct and jackals rather than the singular jackal. So the name was sourced, contrary to the edit summary. What about the other names removed? —  Jts1882 | talk  10:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Should User:Leo Breman return to Wikipedia this year perhaps he might like to visit here and explain himself. The editor appears to have ignored the cited references provided in the description section. (It is inconceivable that anybody with any mammalogist knowledge would dismiss Heptner regarding the "European jackal".) All of those names passed the 2017 FAC after I had confirmed them. It is my opinion that these are all sourced and should be reinstated, as indeed all but one since has. William Harris (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

References