Talk:Red wolf

Terminlogy

Is "endangered subspecies" acceptable? Booger-mike (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The term is not recognised - IUCN deals with species-level conservation only. If it did, the whole grey wolf v red wolf debate would be solved. William Harristalk 22:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The IUCN do do some assessments on subspecies. There are quite a number of cat family subspecies assessments, especially the tigers (e.g. the Bengal tiger is an endangered subspecies). Overall about 400 mammalian subspecies have assessments, although none in Canidae. In addition, they do two other more restricted assessments: subpopulation and regional assessments. For instance, there are assessments for West African and North African subpopulations of African Wild Dogs and regional assessments for some foxes and for the Golden Jackal in Europe.

According to the IUCN the red wolf is a critically engangered species. As the group of animals they treat as the species is the same as the subspecies of wolf treated in this article, I suppose critically engangered subspecies is an appropriate term.   Jts1882 | talk  07:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, JTS. But the IUCN has not chosen to call it a subspecies, which would make that claim unverifiable despite the excellent logic to it. I am simply explaining the situation to Booger-mike as I see it and I have no position on how this should read - as always, it is what the majority of editors who have an interest in this page decide. (PS: I have no watch on this article.) William Harristalk 22:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

New releases

Some well-meaning but functionally incommunicado (because dynamic) IP has repeatedly been trying to add information about newly released individuals, without providing any sources [1]. I've been able to find one thing - a Red Wolf Coalition press release [2] - which only verifies part of that insertion. Anyone got an angle on the rest? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

One taxonomic classification - Canis rufus

I propose that the debate on the taxonomic classification of the red wolf is over, and that the taxobox should be changed from reading Canis lupus rufus to Canis rufus. Those who know me on this page over the years also know that I have upheld both classifications. My reasoning is as follows:

• 1851 John James Audubon and John Bachman propose this unique wolf as C. l. rufus (grey wolf)
• 1937 Edward Alphonso Goldman propose this unique wolf as Canis rufus
• 1967 Barbara Lawrence and William H. Bossert suggest this wolf is a hybrid of C. lupus and Canis latrans (coyote)
• 1991 the evolutionary biologist RK Wayne using DNA indicates that this wolf is a hybrid of C. lupus and Canis latrans here
• A debate rages between two sides of evolutionary biologists for the next 30 years until 2021 (refer the article)
• 2005 Mammal Species of the World classified this wolf as C. l. rufus based on the work of RK Wayne here
• In the world of taxonomy if there is more than one classification proposed, then all classifications are valid until one party withdraws their position, and so the red wolf article shows both classifications
• 2021 both sides of evolutionary biologists combine to produce a study on Canis rufus, including RK Wayne here
• It is clear that one side has withdrawn its 30 years-old position

Therefore, the article should be amended appropriately. I propose (1) that the taxobox reflect Canis rufus, (2) Canis rufus to appear alone in the lede sentence or (3) Canis rufus to appear before Canis lupus rufus in the lede sentence. I shall wait one week for comments. Ping to long-term interested parties: Jts1882, Elmidae, Mariomassone, and Oknazevad William Harris (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Would suggest (1) and (2); second para of lede may not need adaptation, unless it is felt that "is still under debate" no longer applies (?). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Most recent primary sources now tend to use Canis rufus and it's supported by secondary sources such as the IUCN and ASM-MDD, as well as the National Academy of Sciences report In other discussions on what mammalian species to recognise, we have tended to agree that MSW3 can be superceded when both the IUCN and ASM agree.

On the change for lede, we need to mention that it is or was sometimes recognised as a subspecies. This could be as suggestion (3) or as (2) followed by s separate comment elsewhere in the lede that it is sometimes recognised as subspecies of grey wolf. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Now actioned with the minimum of impact. Other editors may wish to further develop the lede, especially to add a better description of the species. William Harris (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Are they a seperate species?

Are these canids a seperate species, a subspecies or hybrid? 24.150.121.149 (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Canada?

The are mistaken references to Canada in the article. 70.55.15.131 (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)