Talk:Subspecies of Canis lupus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Linked

Linked now to the taxonomy section of "Grey Wolf".--Hafwyn (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Canadawolfskull.jpg

The image File:Canadawolfskull.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.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Eurowolfskull.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How New Guinea Singing Dogs fit into the equation...

How does one determine if a canid is a subspecies or not? More art than science?--Mrhorseracer (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

With regard to your first question, it's referred to under the Canis lupus dingo "synonyms" where it says "Hallistromi". It used to be under subspecies but I removed it because I understood that to be the old taxonomy.

With regar to the second, I gather that they did it originally just by looking at the physical features, with heavy emphasis on the skulls and teeth, but that nowadays, some kind of DNA analysis is used. I personally use MSW3; I don't know where whoever got the extinct subspecies got them. I haven't checked against the sources yet, just the extant ones.

To answer the third question, yes, you're right I think, It's got to come down to some kind of art at some point. Taxonomy is packed with ambiguous cases and judgement calls. Chrisrus (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• In some cases, the identification of the distinctiveness of species and subspecies can be difficult and/or disputed, but other times it is quite evident based on a combination of morphological features, behaviour and genetics. Yes, the exact taxonomic classifications within biology do sometimes change and this doubt is part of objective scientific endeavour. This has nothing to do with any art that is highly subjective and not based on empirical reasoning. 72.39.250.213 (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Subspecies suggested for upgrade

The Wikipedia articles for the folowing four subspecies state, with citations, that it has been suggested in peer-reviewed papers that the following four subspecies be re-classified as separate Canis species:

1. Eastern Wolf
2. Himalayan Wolf
3. Indian Wolf
4. Red Wolf

Chrisrus (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, classing the Indian and Himalayan subspecies as distinct species in of themselves has only been proposed, not finalised.Mariomassone (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The status of these subspecies as species is currently debated, just as the Iberian and Italian wolves as distinct subspecies. Mario, you claim that Wikipedia follows MSW which considers all of these as subspecies of Gray Wolf. Most genetic research conducted on Red Wolf and Eastern Wolf failed to yield significant enough genetic distinctiveness from either Gray Wolves or Coyotes to be classified as even a subspecies. Studies have actually shown higher homogeneity and unique markers among the Mexican Wolf and the Italian Wolf subspecies. 72.39.246.41 (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's only that notable peer-reviewed journals have published suggestions and rationale for the recognition of these subspecies as independent Canis species. This has not been accepted. Chrisrus (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Alaskan tundra wolf

Mackenzie Valley Wolf says that Alaskan tundra wolf is a synonym. Yet, this article calls Alaskan tundra wolf Canis lupus tundrarum. Can somebody clarify? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Mackenzie Valley Wolf article is obviously wrong. Unfortunately, when people think of large, North American wolves, they automatically assume that they are all Mackenzie Valley, and think that all other kinds are mere synonyms. Mariomassone (talk) 11:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I just haven't gotten to that species yet. I've got three more to go. Just bear with me. It could very easily be that, like a few of the other subspecies listed, there is considerable debate and controversy over whether it is or it isn't the same as another of the subspecies. Consider, for example, the Greenland Wolf, which many scientists believe is just the same as the Arctic wolf, but they haven't had the opportunity to study and prove that. Silverseren^C 16:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I'm glad you told me. I was just about to make stubs. I even wrote to several people at FWS and USGS hounding them for images of these (possible) subspecies. I'll let you know if I get a reply. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I got a reply, but it didn't lead to images. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wolf --> wolf

I have requested move from x Wolf to x wolf for red and gray. I would like to do the others per naming convention. Please howl if unhappy about this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the request for gray and red: [1]. The others should change per convention:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be an opposing view. Please see this discussion: [9]. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Domestic dog = familiaris alone or (familiaris + dingo)?

MSW3, the most common reference for this article, uses the word "domestic dog" to refer to a union of C.l.familiaris + C.l.dingo, which is different from the chart of this article, which uses it as a synonym for "familiaris" alone.

MSW3 calls this union a "subspecies" in it's own right, although it does say that this "stretches the subspecies concept". Dr Wz seems to dislike this alignment a bit, calling the separation "provisional", and sounding like he considered uniting the two, but in the end he didn't and left them separate, giving a reason that has to do with the "correct allocation of synonyms.

Please have a look:

1. .http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000738
2. .http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000752
3. .http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000751

This article, however, uses the term "domestic dog" as a synonym for "familiaris" in the chart, although it gets it right (by "right" I mean "the same as MSW3") in the paragraph text. I was going to change this, but I'm not sure the best way to do it. MSW3 does it by adding the words "domestic dog" in single brackets and no caps, in the comments section (see links above). I was following that example, but then noticed this problem (the chart already uses that term with title caps as a synonym for familiaris) so it looked funny and would confuse a reader.

So now the chart and the text use the term differently. If we do add the [domestic dog] to each under the common names and trinomials in the lefthand column for these two, what should be the common name for familiaris? "Dog?" Does the text version of MSW3 give a common name for familiaris? The online version doesn't. (I like to call them "familiar" and "common" dogs because of a conversation here above.) Something's gotta give here, we can't use the term in two different ways in the same article and can't contradict our source. Actually, we shouldn't use it in two different ways at all without some kind of disambiguation somewhere. Chrisrus (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but there's something about the "[domestic dog]" under each name that seems extremely cumbersome. I think that it may be a bit confusing to readers as well. Perhaps this information could be put into a footnote by each name? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about reverting your edit, and thank you for your interest in this important issue: What is a dog? I like your idea and although there may be a better way I am not sure there is. Please go ahead and give it a shot. I'll help if I can. Chrisrus (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Clade diagram for subspecies

This clade diagram for the canids, found at Canis lupus, is very helpful in understanding how the whole system works:

• 

It would be similarly excellent for this article to have another diagram, even a simple one, that continues past the species level into the subspecific level. This is not the only article that could benefit from it, but this article is a logical place for such a thing. According to the article Canis lupus, there is one early clade dividing the northern from the southern subspecies. At that point, it seems, the detail ends, perhaps because they are not known, but I hope they are because I'd love to get this straight in my own mind. Specifically, I'd like to see how the palpides/ arabs line moves into familiaris, and how dingo fits in, or whether, as MSW3 seems to indicate, there may be no real difference between dingo and familiaris in terms of clades. It's actually pretty important for the whole Wikipedia system of dog articles for this to be figured out, my point being that it's not just a matter of one reader's curiosity.Chrisrus (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Now we just have to find a volunteer with Paintshop competences. Here is a rough outline of wolf ages:

Himalayan wolves: 800,000 years ago

Indian wolves: 400,000 years ago

Northern (European/American) wolves: 150,000 years ago

Dogs: 15,000 years ago

Japanese wolves: 7,000-13,000 years ago

Dingoes: 5,000–5,500 years

Mariomassone (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Can we cite the above easily? Chrisrus (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Age of Japanese wolves: Walker, Brett L. (2005). The Lost Wolves Of Japan. ISBN 0295984929.

Ages of European/American/Indian/Himalayan wolves: Sharma, D. K., Maldonaldo, J. E., Jhala, Y. V., Fleischer, R. C. (2003) Ancient wolf lineages in India. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London B (Supplement) Biology Letters 271: S1–S

Age of dogs: Pang et al (September 1, 2009). "mtDNA Data Indicate a Single Origin for Dogs South of Yangtze River, Less Than 16,300 Years Ago, from Numerous Wolves". Molecular Biology and Evolution. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/26/12/2849.

Age of dingoes: Not so sure about this one... Mariomassone (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you, Mario!

About c.l.dingo, I have a book from 1995, on page 5 of The Dingo in Australia and in Asia 1995 Comstock Cornell (Ithica, NY and London, UK) Dr. Laurie Corbett.

It states that C. l. dingo evolved by a process of domestication 6,000 - 10,000 years ago in Asia and from the palpides/arabs clade.

I was interested to read that they arrived on the Islands later,and not to Australia until 3,500 to 4,000 years ago, 15,000 years after the aboriginal Australians.

By the way, he says they didn't arrive in New Guinea until even later. On p. 16 he dates C.l.dingo var. “papuensis” to about 2,000 years ago and on page 16-17 he states “In New Guinea, on present evidence, Dingoes, inappropriately known as the New Guinea Singing Dog, hallstromi, are less than 1,000 years old” ~

Is that enough to cite it properly? Chrisrus (talk)

Looks good enough for me. Corbett is one of the dingo's leading authorities.Mariomassone (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the point at which C.l.familiaris split off, has there been some revision? I read in Science News (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/57390/title/Who_reined_the_dogs_in) last year that there was an article published in the journal Nature (vonHoldt, B.M., et al. 2010. Genome-wide SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a rich history underlying dog domestication. Nature published online March 17 doi:10.1038/nature08837) that supposedly states that "...archaeological evidence that dogs were domesticated in the Middle East or Eastern Europe and contradicts earlier genetic data suggesting that man’s best friend originated in China." I can read the Science News article because I have a subscription, but I can't read the Nature paper itself because I can't get past the fire wall. I wanted to make see if the dates have either changed or narrowed, for the purposes of this article, but also I wanted to update the article dog with this information. Can we find a Wikipedian with a subscription to Nature to check it out? Chrisrus (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Are all synonyms duplicate or incorrect?

"Also included are synonyms, which are now discarded duplicate or incorrect namings."

This is not always true. The domestic dog synonyms are mostly subspecies of Canis familiaris which, when transferred to Canis lupus familiaris, had nowhere else to go. Look here, on my talk page I've tried to figure out the history of each and although I never was able to do so, I think you will see that they are clearly mostly old subspecies of domestic dog that are now invalid as the dog is now a subspecies as well, and there are no taxa for sub-subspecies. They might be better seen as varieties if we were talking about plants but when you speak about dogs the term "breed" is more common, but whatever you call it, they are not dublicate or incorrect fo the most part. Chrisrus (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Invalid subspecies

I wrote to some people at USGS and FWS for images. Someone from USGS replied stating that since 1995, these subspecies are no longer recognized, and that most cannot distinguished from one another. He also states that the Greenland wolf is now the same as the arctic wolf.

I have replied asking him to bring the matter up here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

A 1995 reclassification reduced North American Canis lupus to five subspecies; see http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1365-294X.2004.02389.x for a map. This means that most of the formerly recognized subspecies are now obsolete. However, some—mainly conservationists, I believe—still follow the old classification with more subspecies. Ucucha 08:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

For our part, I think it would be better to have separate articles on all of the prior subspecies and just clarify in said articles that they are no longer recognized as subspecies. Jumbling all of the ones we have on the list into just five articles would be a bit of a nightmare, in my opinion. Especially in terms of the work I have done for the Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf and the Alexander Archipelago Wolf. I mean, i've already pointed out in the articles on the Mogollon Mountain Wolf and the Texas Wolf that they were, after extinction, conglomerated under the subspecies of the Mexican Wolf. Silverseren^C 20:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Canis lupus rufus does not exist. The name is Canis rufus rufus is it's own thing, not a sub species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.109.2 (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You might be right, but we can't use "the sayso of USER:174.44.109.2" to cite that fact. Chrisrus (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

But what use is there in retaining short articles for synonyms? It only creates confusion. FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

On the Wikipedia page for Red wolf, it lists it as its own species and not a subspecies of Canis lupus, though the page does mention Canis lupus rufus as a subspecies. Numerous scientific studies have indicated that the red wolf is a species distinct from the gray wolf, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service has recognized it as a species as well. See http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/tmot1/canirufu.htm, http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/wow/regions/United_States/North_Carolina_Subpages/Biology1.asp, http://www.arkive.org/red-wolf/canis-rufus/, and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16922243. Shouldn't the red wolf be deleted from Subspecies of Canis lupus, or at least moved to the Disputed subspecies section? B14709 (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Diagram/Map of Wolf Evolution

Heya, can some of you please come over to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop#Map_of_wolf_evolution and give us some advice as to how to proceed? Thank you very much.--DLommes (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Canis lupus gregoryi

It seems there is a mistake concerning C. l. gregoryi. Is it extinct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.119.155 (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's probably a red wolf, and I doubt any pure grey wolves lived in the southeast. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Status of the Manitoba Wolf

While the Manitoba Wolf was indeed extinct in the wild in earlier decades, it was bred in captivity and re-introduced in the area around Yellowstone National Park in 1995. Because of that, should there really be an extinct marker on the Manitoba Wolf? Silverseren^C 19:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Yellowstone wolves are of the occidentalis subspeciesMariomassone (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it wasn't just the occidentalis subspecies that entered Yellowstone, but three different subspecies. I'm not entirely sure, because i've seen many conflicting reports on the topic. Silverseren^C 20:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The major problem is that the news, quite often, doesn't differentiate between subspecies and just calls them gray wolves, when they aren't speaking about the actual gray wolf species, but some unnamed subspecies. Silverseren^C 20:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

3 different subspecies? Do you have a source? Editor abcdef (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Lupaster

Should C. l. lupaster be included here? Golden jackal#Subspecies excluded it, claiming it was a Canis lupus subspecies. Editor abcdef (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Should synonyms be included?

Yukon wolf, Mackenzie River wolf, British Columbia wolf, and Hudson Bay wolf are all synonyms of northwestern wolf, and Alexander Archipelago wolf, Labrador wolf, and northern and southern Rocky Mountains wolf are all synonyms of Great Plains wolf. MSW3 doesn't matter, because it base its sources from old historic classifications, and it has yet to know the classification of USFWS from 2012-13, I suggest these synonyms be removed and placed to the appropriate subspecies. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed if the articles they point to were merged first. Just be sure that the merge/redirect is pointing to the right article. British Columbia wolves, for example, actually show genetic commonality with the Great Plains wolf, not the Northwestern wolf. But I certainly agree that the chart as it stands contains some outdated classifications that are now considered synonymous to other subspecies.

For the most part the map at the top does a better job of showing the subspecies, with 3 notable exceptions. Firstly, C. l. communis, the "Russian wolf", is fully synonymous with C. l. lupus, and should not appear separate (the articles have already been merged and the appellation is listed as a synonym in the chart). Secondly, the Steppe wolf is not considered a synonym of C. l. lupus and should be separated out (I apparently used to be on older versions of the image) and, well, C. l. dingo should be included, as it is a wild animal, not a domestic dog. oknazevad (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The new map

I created the new map, the changes are: wolves of Turkey and the Caucasus are considered Eurasian wolves, not Indian wolves, removed Russian wolves since it's considered a synonym of Eurasian wolf, expanded range of Mexican wolves to include a small part of northwestern Mexico, removed red wolves since it's more closely related to coyotes than "other" gray wolf subspecies, expanded the range of "Egyptian" wolves, and added dingoes. Editor abcdef (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Please give a source for your editing. Please use the full resolution for your editing. → User: Perhelion  08:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Subspecies of Canis lupus. 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/20090424014424/http://www.invasiveanimals.com:80/downloads/Final-proceedings-with-cover.pdf to http://www.invasiveanimals.com/downloads/Final-proceedings-with-cover.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} 20:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Red Wolf and Eastern Wolf

Why is red wolf and eastern wolf listed here?They are not Canis lupus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.130.53 (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Because those classifications remain very disputed (especially the proposal to treat lycaon as a separate species). For now they remain considered a subspecies by many authorities, including MSW3, our primary source. oknazevad (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Red wolves are 80% coyote, yet they are not listed as subspecies of coyote, there is no reason to list it as a grey wolf. Editor abcdef (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

All MSW3 did was to simply include rufus as a subspecies of Canis lupus, it's reference is Audubon and Bachman, 1851, which, contrary to MSW3, consider red wolves and grey wolves different, while the articles that consider red wolves 80% coyote/separate species are full genetic studies, it's no contest which is more reliable. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Red wolf is no longer disputed. It is a separate species. It even says so in the article! It's time to remove it. We can make a note somewhere on the page that it is no longer considered to be the same species while keeping it out of the official list. Artheartsoul1 (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Subspecies of Canis lupus

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Subspecies of Canis lupus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "chambers":

• From Eastern wolf: "An account of the taxonomy of North American wolves from morphological and genetic analyses". North American Fauna. 77: 1–67. 2012. doi:10.3996/nafa.77.0001. Retrieved 2013-07-02. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
• From Gray wolf: "An account of the taxonomy of North American wolves from morphological and genetic analyses". North American Fauna. 77: 1–67. 2012. doi:10.3996/nafa.77.0001. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

New column for dates

I'm adding a new column and making the list sortable. I thought it would help. If I've been too bold, you can always revert it. superluser_tc 04:34, 02 January 2010 (UTC)

Dividing subspecies into regional groups

In light of new research, I have an idea you may or may not agree with: splitting the subspecies table in accordance to their phylogenetic position: separating the new world subspecies, and splitting the old world ones into middle eastern/asian/european. Mariomassone (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It is a fairly logical grouping, and would make navigation of the chart easier than just a long list by subspecies Latin name. That said, which subspecies to include as currently recognized vs former ones now considered synonyms is still an unsettled question. oknazevad (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I can see no reason why the current list of subspecies cannot be split into their whole-genome regional groupings - at least into New World and Old World. That certain species and subspecies are disputed should not affect the split as these are already included on the list in some form. (Once "Larson 2016" is released shortly on the origin of the dog, I assume that the "Wayne-pack" will then be free to return to their original core business - to help clarify the New World wolf divisions and what gave rise to them.) Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, what ever became of the graphic in the section above titled: Clade diagram for subspecies? It appears to be Tedford, but does not appear on the GW or subspecies of GW pages. William Harris • talk • 09:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I was about to divide the subspecies infobox into New and Old world, but then I remembered the domestic dog... Mariomassone (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Please progress into New World clade and Old World clade, with the dog (plus dingo) listed under Old World clade (see cladogram on the GW page under Domestic Dog, where you might find some phrases there to intro each of the new two clade section titles). People do not yet fully appreciate the impact of Fan 2016, which is that not only did the dog descend from the gray wolf, and was once a gray wolf, but - based on the 2.4 billion base-pairs of its whole genome sequence - it still IS a gray wolf:

"...our results support dogs as a divergent subspecies of the wolf. This result has societal significance as legislation in some countries and regional governments consider wolves and dogs as distinct species restricting the possession, interbreeding, or the use of vaccines and medications in wolves or dog–wolf hybrids if they have only been approved for use in dogs. In this sense, analysis of evolutionary history informs law and veterinary practice, as dog lineages are nearly as distinct from one another as wolves are from dogs, and the justification for treating dogs and wolves differently is questionable." - Fan 2016

The phenotypic decision that led to the dog being classified as a subspecies of C.l. in MSW1 back in 1982 is now fully supported by genomics - who are we to argue with that? Regards, William Harris • talk • 20:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Subspecies of Canis lupus - proposal to SPINOFF

Hello All, back in February a decision was made at Talk:Gray wolf#Article is extremely convoluted and too long to remove material from the oversized Gray wolf page that was regarded as not in keeping with the rest of the article. Discussion was also held about the creation of a separate article on the evolution and derivation of lupus. This I was initially reluctant to do, and the material removed from Gray wolf found a short-term home on Subspecies of Canis lupus#Evolution, where is has been developed to a point now where it is ready for its next step. WP:SUMMARY advises that within an article "a fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it." The article Subspecies of Canis lupus size is now 109kb. Therefore, it is my intention to WP:SPINOFF the chapter on "Evolution" into its own article called "Evolution of the wolf", appropriately linked to the "Gray wolf" page, that is in keeping with Talk:Gray wolf#Article is extremely convoluted and too long and joins similar articles such as the Evolution of the horse, Evolution of lemurs, Evolution of mammals etc. Regards, William Harris • talk • 22:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. It keeps this article focused on listing the subspecies, as the title indicates, while allowing for a fuller treatment of the evolution in its own place, where the title will make its subject more obvious. oknazevad (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but let it be not Evolution of the wolf but Evolution of the gray wolf on WP:PRECISION grounds.

To explain, "wolf" is more ambiguous than "gray wolf". Therefore, Evolution of the gray wolf has greater precision than Evolution of the wolf. Chrisrus (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It is now done - Evolution of the wolf.

O: All you need do now is get the text under "Eastern and red wolves" - which I have already reflected under the "Disputed species" chapter - removed and integrated with the material on their main article pages and the "Subspecies of Canis lupus" should look reasonably clean. When someone updates those articles: Eastern wolf = Gray wolf plus introgression of its genome from coyote; Red wolf = Coyote plus introgression of its genome from Gray wolf. That finding was clarified some time ago.

Chris: As the taxonomic status of the Pleistocene wolf has not been formally conducted, I am keeping well away from titling the article as "Evolution of the gray wolf". All that we can be sure of is that the "gray wolf" in the Holocene is both phenotype AND genotype lupus. In the Pleistocene there was much more "wolf" diversity than today. I would have been happy with Canis lupus spelaeus (Goldfuss 1823) for the Late Pleistocene "Cave wolf" of Europe, but we do not know if it was a panmictic population across the north Holarctic. Then things get complicated with Thalmann (2013) declaring the "Goyet clade" as sister to the gray wolf but depositing their DNA sequence under C. lupus, and Skoglund (2014) declaring that a common ancestor split into his Taimyr-1 specimen wolf, the gray wolf and dog - then classifying the Taimyr-1 sequence under Canis lupus. A top evolutionary biologist needs to explain to us what the difference is and in what direction the research is going. (I assume that it relates to the number of mutations away from the wolf/coyote ancestor, and that 8 mutations going back along that path from the extant wolf - i.e. wolf and dog - are being considered as "gray wolf" (Fan 2016) but any more mutations further back - i.e. the Pleisocene wolves - are along the lupus path from the wolf/coyote ancestor but not considered gray wolves by evolutionary biologists. Who has set this dividing line is not clear, but the "wolf-master" RKW's signature is at the end of Fan 2016.) As with the dog, we can not hold up a specimen from a population of what we are sure is the "gray wolf" ancestor.

Regards, William Harris • talk • 21:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need to remove the eastern wolf or red wolf mentions; their taxonomic status is still not settled and many authorities still list them as grey wolf subspecies, so mentioning them here is necessary. oknazevad (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, your call. The new article was always in the planning, the material did not fit here and I just needed to fulfill my commitment to the "Dire wolf pack" and complete my overhaul of that article before moving on to this new undertaking. Curiously, the picture that I am seeing there is that lupus in some form may have been the dirus ancestor - the craniodental comparison is just too close. Now we have found what is thought to be Beringian wolves south of the glaciation, because they are described to be half-way between lupus and dirus. Canis lupus dirus? Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Red and Gray wolves

Hello User:Oknazevad, I bow to your greater knowledge on the North American canid debate. However, regarding your revert with "C. lupus gregoryi is not the same as C. Rufus gregoryi", why is it when I click on the link to C. lupus gregoryi I end up on C. Rufus gregoryi - does the link need to be amended? William Harris • (talk) • 11:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It should be removed from the list, as either all red wolves are one subspecies of grey wolf (Canis lupus rufus) or red wolves are a separate species with their own subspecies. Red wolf taxonomy is still unsettled. If we follow the former, then the entry is redundant to the C. l. rufus entry, if we follow the latter, it just doesn't belong here at all, as it's the wrong species. If anything, we could probably just remove the entry, just leaving the red wolf entry which describes the taxonomic debate succinctly. oknazevad (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

PS, I'm also not so sure about marking the Great Plains wolf as extinct. It may be extirpated from the Great Plains in the US, mostly, but there has been significant genetic studies showing that they still exist in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and even Minnesota. The Great Plains do extend into Canada, and those wolves are not extirpated. Relying on sources talking about US distribution alone gives a false impression of the extant animals north of the border. oknazevad (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is that we need to be working to standards, and for the article "Subspecies of Canis Lupus" we should reflect what MSW3 says (Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals#Guidelines), therefore this "subspecies" is not extinct on this page. For the article "Mississippi Valley wolf or Gregory's wolf", we should reflect what the majority of editors who have an interest in that page decide i.e. its a red wolf subspecies with the explanation given in that article. I am in agreement that the classification of rufus remains controversial.

Great Plains wolf - the phenotype that Say recognized in 1923 as a distinct subspecies was gone in 1926. That there are 3 mDNA haplotypes shared with other wolves based on a limited study does not mean that the subspecies continues. A shared haplotype indicates that these wolves share a common female ancestor - what that female was we do not know. Wolves share haplotypes, including with coyotes. In 2016, Ersmark discovered a haplotype in remote China shared with a Beringian wolf; that does not imply that Beringian wolves are running around in remote China, it implies that both types of wolves share a common female ancestor of unknown origin. Similar with rufus: we are still uncertain on what is a wolf, what is a coyote, what is simply a recent hybrid, and what is an ancient introgressed lineage that could be classified as a species in its own right. I expect that Larson's long-awaited report, now written and due for peer review and release this year, will shed further light on where dogs and wolves came from and how they migrated to where they are today. William Harris • (talk) • 21:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

As the subspecies table is based on MSW3, and presumably will be updated when the overdue MSW4 is produced, I think the red wolf subspecies should remain in the table and the synonym column should be used to note more recent changes as we are considering the names for the same animal. The red wolf already has a appropriate note in the first column, which I would move to the synonym column so we have Red wolf, Canis lupus rufus consistent with MSW3 and the article logic in the first column and something along the lines of Canis rufus rufus. Some authorities now treat the red wolf as a separate species under synonym column. The Mississippi Valley wolf can get a synonym entry something like Canis rufus gregoryi. Considered a subspecies of red wolf by some authorities. In this way article consistency is maintained and current thinking indicated.   Jts1882 | talk  08:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Before we progress, I declare that I am responsible for providing much of the content in the Subspecies of Canis lupus#Disputed subspecies and species section. Despite this, I am not happy with the work of Chambers - which is well-debated - over-riding MSW3 regarding the classification of the Red wolf in the first column. Let us see what O has to say on this proposal. I am sure that we can come to an agreeable compromise. (NB: I do not like the maps used in the article as these are based on Nowak 1995, also not reflected in MSW3 2005, but that is something for another day.) William Harris • (talk) • 09:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, moving material about debated taxonomy to the notes columns makes sense. But, frankly, I think adhering strictly to MSW3 at this point is a mistake, as it is a pretty dated source, and thinking on sub-speciation has changed greatly since then based on genetic studies and the understanding that morphology is not a particularly good method of classification because of the elasticity of canid genetics. While not adopted at the time MSW3 was published, Nowak's schema is far more widely adopted now, and I would expect MSW4 to adopt it to a greater extent than MSW3. But we shall see, presuming it ever gets published. oknazevad (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

MSW3 is dated but we need a standard. Based on a ruling from WikiProject Tree of Life, MSW3 is what we mammal-folk have inherited. I fully agree with you on the super-plasticity of Canis morphology, and genetically it is all "Canis soup" which confounds our efforts here. Nowak based his classification on limited samples, his 5 subspecies has merit and has appeared in a number articles (including solid promotion by those within the "Wayne-pack" over the years) but Schweizer 2016 (i.e. Wayne) now supports 6 morphic and genetic ecotypes in North America, so Nowak 1995 is seriously challenged. MSW4, or its online replacement, is on its way based on a "hidden" beta version being developed by Reeder at Bucknell. So while we are all waiting for it to see what surprises it holds, I would encourage JTS to action as discussed, including lycaon. William Harris • (talk) • 20:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

List refinement

I propose that Section 2 - "List of subspecies" be split into two sections. These would be Section 2 - "List of extant subspecies", and Section 3 - "List of historically extinct subspecies". Section 2 would remain further split into "Eurasia and Australia" and "North America", Section 3 would combine both because there are only 2 from Eurasia. The benefits would be:

• a reader would no longer have to wade through a bunch of no-longer-existing wolves in order to form an appreciation of the current gray wolf subspecies
• the extant list could be more directly related to their current distribution maps

William Harris • (talk) • 21:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)