Talk:Subspecies of Canis lupus

Sections of this talk page older than 365 days are automatically archived by MiszaBot.

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)

Wolf subspecies maps

I was looking at the range maps for the subspecies of wolf and have a few questions and conflicting observations.

1. The map in the infobox of Subspecies of Canis lupus has Canis lupus nubilus with a range in eastern Canada (Baffin Is, Hudson Bay surrounds) and on the west coast, which seems odd for the extinct Great Plains Wolf,
2. There is an old map File:Gray wolf subspecies original.gif which shows a distribution of C. l. nubilus from Baffin Island, either side of Hudson Bay, down to central and western US and up the western coast to Alaska. This might make sense if it was extirpated form its namesake area.
3. The map in the subspecies article for North American wolves shows far more subspecies, with C. l. labridorius, C. l. hudsonicus C. l. irrimotus, C. l. columbianus and C. l. ligoni covering parts of the range.
4. Reading the text on North American wolves mentions the Nowak theory, with C. l. nubilus sensu lato covering a much larger range than C. l. nubilus sensu stricto.

This is a bit confusing when the two maps in the article represented different theories. In particular the infobox map doesn't represent the treatment of North American wolves in the article and shows a subspecies distribution for C. l. nubilus that excludes the range given for the subspecies in the North American table.   Jts1882 | talk  15:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello JTS - thanks for raising this. Mario and I have reached this problem before, the story can be found at Subspecies of Canis lupus#North America. Nowak tried to recycle the extinct C. l. nubilus for his purpose. His proposal was not supported by Wozencraft in MSW3 who supported the original Goldman 1944 classifications as being taxonomically sound. In my opinion, these other maps should be axed in favor of Goldman 1944. Would you mind if I copy and paste this section into Talk:Wolf - it is time for this matter to be raised, and hopefully addressed, on that page. William Harristalk 01:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead and move it if you think the issue worth broader discussion. I was confused and I had actually read the Nowak proposal before. I think the proposal is worth a mention, with the map in the right place, as it might yet get wide traction. In Felidae the tiger and lion are down to two subspecies each, largely driven by conservation concerns, so 30+ in wolves is taking a very different taxonomic approach (both too extreme in my view). Is there a world map of the Goldman system or a Eurasian equivalent of the North American map?   Jts1882 | talk  07:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that the range of lupus is far greater than the range of the lion and the tiger, facilitating more sub-species. Goldman only mapped wolves in North America. I am not sure what the map for Eurasia was based on, possibly Nowak - Mario is our main man on this. I will now move this conversation to Talk:Subspecies of Canis lupus instead of Wolf. William Harristalk 09:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I recall using the maps from Mammals of the Soviet Union and Nowak's work as references for the Eurasian range. Mariomassone (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Given that, I regard Eurasia as sound. It is North America that is giving the problems. Perhaps we go with JTS's idea of putting a note on the range map. Else, we relocate the map in the taxobox under Eurasia, and hope that nobody notices North America. Or, both actions. William Harristalk 12:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Jts1882, those edits will have to hold until someone, somewhere, can come up with a definitive map of the distribution of lupus. William Harristalk 08:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This page needs an update

This page seriously needs an update. Many of these subspecies are no longer recognized as valid (especially many of the North American ones). This article should contain up-to-date information only. 24.150.136.254 (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)