Talk:Wolf

IUCN Status Change?

Gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes region of the United States (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) have once again been added to the Endangered Species Act. Should this necessitate a change from Least Concern of the IUCN status?

Updating taxonomy

I will be updating the Canidae taxonomy and common names to match Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed, 2005) as follows:

• • • Family Canidae
      • Genus Vulpes
        • Vulpes lagopus - Arctic Fox (4 subspecies)
        • Vulpes macrotis - Kit Fox
        • Vulpes pallida - Pale Fox (5 subspecies)
        • Vulpes bengalensis - Bengal Fox
        • Vulpes cana - Blanford's Fox
        • Vulpes chama - Cape Fox
        • Vulpes corsac Corsac Fox (2 subspecies)
        • Vulpes ferrilata - move Tibetan Fox to Tibetan Sand Fox (includes ekloni)
        • Vulpes rueppellii - Rüppell's Fox (5 subspecies)
        • Vulpes velox - Swift Fox (includes hebes)
        • Vulpes vulpes - Red Fox (45 subspecies)
        • Vulpes zerda - move Fennec to Fennec Fox
      • Genus Atelocynus
        • Atelocynus microtis - Short-eared Dog
      • Genus Canis
        • Canis adustus - Side-striped Jackal (6 subspecies)
        • Canis aureus - Golden Jackal (13 subspecies)
        • Canis latrans - Coyote (19 subspecies)
        • Canis lupus - Grey Wolf - (37 subspecies, including dingo, familiaris and lycaon)
        • Canis mesomelas - Black-backed Jackal (2 subspecies)
        • Canis simensis - Ethiopian Wolf (2 subspecies)
      • Genus Cerdocyon
        • Cerdocyon thous - Crab-eating Fox (6 subspecies)
      • Genus Chrysocyon
        • Chrysocyon brachyurus - Maned Wolf
      • Genus Cuon
        • Cuon alpinus - Dhole (3 subspecies)
      • Genus Dusicyon
        • Dusicyon australis - Falkland Islands Wolf
      • Genus Lycalopex
        • Lycalopex culpaeus - Culpeo (6 subspecies) was in Pseudalopex genus
        • Lycalopex fulvipes - Darwin's Fox was in Pseudalopex genus
        • Lycalopex griseus - South American Gray Fox new article
        • Lycalopex gymnocercus - Pampas Fox (5 subspecies) was in Pseudalopex genus
        • Lycalopex sechurae - Sechuran Fox new article
        • Lycalopex vetulus - Hoary Fox was in Pseudalopex genus
      • Genus Lycaon
        • Lycaon pictus - African Wild Dog (5 subspecies)
      • Genus Nyctereutes
        • Nyctereutes procyonoides - Raccoon Dog (5 subspecies)
      • Genus Otocyon
        • Otocyon megalotis - Bat-eared Fox (2 subspecies)
      • Genus Speothos
        • Speothos venaticus - Bush Dog (3 subspecies)
      • Genus Urocyon
        • Urocyon cinereoargenteus - Gray Fox (16 subspecies)
        • Urocyon littoralis - Island Fox (6 subspecies)

I will hold off for a few days for comments. Since I'm posting this in multiple places, please contact me on my talk page if you have any concerns. I'll wait a week to give folks time to comment. -

Wolf Awareness Week

October 12th-18th is National Wolf Awareness Week. If you want more information check out this link: [[1]National Wolf Awareness Week]

Taxonomy

The article should describe the traditional division of dogs and wolves into different species, and why DNA testing has changed this, and whether the DNA testing (probably just mtDNA) is actually conclusive (compare Red Wolf).

Problem statement on interspecific breeding

This statement in the Interspecific Hybridization section is not supportable:

"Wolves and coyotes can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, a fact which calls into question their status as two separate species.[100]"

The notion that different species can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring is a popular misconception due to the mule. All sorts of different species like lions and tigers can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Even the camel and llama can interbreed. The primary issue is number of chromosomes, not degree of SNP divergence.

Wolf Howl

It would be awesome if someone could add a sound byte of the timber wolf howl. --24.119.32.80 (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, its on the infobox below the picture..Mariomassone (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You can also find some howls on the wolfscience web page. http://www.wolfscience.at/english/support/donate.html, different ages of timber wolves. --Slartibertfass (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wolf v. timber wolf

• The lede starts: "The grey wolf or gray wolf (Canis lupus), also known as the timber wolf or simply wolf,". Not all wolves are grey and not all are timber wolves. There is also the barren grounds wolf which lives on the Arctic tundra and tends to be white. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this a joke??

Under Dietary habits... "With prey of equal or lesser weight to the wolf, such as lambs or small children..." I had to read this sentence three or four times to be sure I wasn't imagining it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3hgecko (talk • contribs) 08:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It is referenced. The one on children is accessible online and gives description on hunting patterns wolves display in India against small children.Mariomassone (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Unproven facts

{{editsemiprotected}}

I've taken notice of a few times the word evolution is used. I don't mean to be a broken record, but there is absolutely no proof of evolution anywhere. I do not think I am wrong, but if you can show me one single proof of evolution being real then I will take back my complaint. Until then, this is wrong and should be edited. Say soemthing else like adaption or something, not evolution. I do not like being told facts that I'm pretty sure are not real.

There's also no proof of the the earth being 300,000 years old either, so that's another issue. If ya'll believe in evolution then that's fine, but make accurate accounts to go with it or wikipedia's is just a way of forcing another's opinion down one's throat.

Thank-you.

The proof that evolution is real is overwhelming. Also a majority of Catholics (who are Christians) believe in evolution.

In fact, most Catholics are Christians who believe that God designed the universe to evolve.

A majority of Catholics also believe that Genesis is metaphorical and not literal.

It is only in insecure and easily-threatened back-country Christian Churches that the concept of evolution is feared--

(Due actually to a weak faith, ignorance and lack of intellectual confidence.)

Some of these back-country Churches have spread to larger cities, but they retain their backwoods ignorance and superstitious fears of the modern world.

In fact-- There is no conflict between Christianity and believing in evolution. Whatsoever.

69.171.160.182 (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia does not attempt to determine truth, but to accurately reflect the positions of relevant reliable sources. So if reliable sources describing the Gray Wolf take evolution as a given, then so does the article. Wikipedia's three content policies (WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and WP:OR) explain this concept in more detail. You might also be interested in The TalkOrigins Archive, which describes how the overwhelming majority of people knowledgable in natural history came to accept evolution by natural selection as the origin of biological diversity. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand the above reasoning, but could the wording be changed? Such as, "according to the theory of evolution" or something of that sort. Stating essentially the same thing without stating the truth of evolution as a fact. There are plenty of sources that could be found for several of the other origin theories. It is a choice of sources if you argue it that way. Thanks! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no proof? What? If you don't want to debate, don't make such ridiculous claims.

Do you have a problem with any specific claims in this article, or just evolution in general? If the former, please list them; if the latter, why did you pick this article specifically?

See also Age of the Earth. There is proof, it's not an issue. Jlaire (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

So basically, you'd like to add creationist argument that states that wolves were once vegetarians?Mariomassone (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not what I said and I think you know that. While that is a part of the creationist belief, it has absolutely nothing to do with my request. I will not argue creation/evolution with you. My reasoning stands that evolution is only a theory as is creation, so it could be worded a little less strongly. Now, are you looking for a fight, or are you going to do something productive about it? PrincessofLlyr (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Evolution is a fact, not "only a theory". And creation is obviously not a theory. Again, if there are some specific strong statements with no sufficient evidence in the article, just list them. Jlaire (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you implying that there are other peer reviewed explanations to the wolf's origins? Please enlighten me. I am a carnivora fanatic myself, and as far as I've seen, no book on the subject ever talks about wolves being designed or anything other than having evolved.Mariomassone (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if I seemed confrontational. However, I think it would be beneficial if you read the article on Italian Wall Lizard. This is a species which has been well documented to evolve rapidly in recent years.Mariomassone (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that they test how much the carbon has degraded in the soil to see how old something is. IceBlade710 (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Moved.
— V = I * R (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

---

• Gray Wolf → Gray wolf — As per MoS. — SlamDiego_←T 10:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, per MoS.  Skomorokh  13:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This should not have been moved. Every other Wolf article I'm aware of has Wolf capitalized (eg, Iberian Wolf, Italian Wolf). Article on plants and animals often have both words capitalized. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mammals#Capitalization. In short, Grey Wolf is how it was, so that's how it should have stayed. Gimmetrow 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna): "In general, common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in lower case" --Cybercobra (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's "in general". It also says "each WikiProject can decide on its own rules for capitalisation". Gimmetrow 14:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Mammal WikiProject section you cite doesn't support your proposal either. Could you please cite something that does? --Cybercobra (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What part doesn't? Until a month ago, all Wolf articles had all words capitalized - which is a pretty good indication that's how the project wanted it. This is now the exception to the established pattern. It should not have been changed. See also Talk:Gray_Wolf/Archive_3#Capitalization_issues. Gimmetrow 05:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"The issue of the capitalization of the common names of mammal species is unresolved on Wikipedia and our pages are inconsistent. A large majority of reliable sources do not capitalize and thus there is a strong descriptive argument against doing so. Additionally, species names are common nouns, so capitalizing them goes against the normative use of upper case in formal English prose." --Cybercobra (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Respect the original or primary authors (from WP:MAMMAL) and All Wolf-related articles use capitalization for the entire name, so it should be kept there unless the standard changes as a whole (from this article archives). Gimmetrow 05:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(dedent) Well, you can of course propose to move it right back then. I will however just note that the first quote was prefixed with "In the absence of consensus:" (not that the recent move had sufficient input to solidly determine it); and also that consensus can change; so it's not entirely automatic. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wolf articles consistently capitalize Wolf in the title. That's enough of an argument. Do you agree to stand aside? Gimmetrow 13:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This move was incorrect and the article should be moved back. Please see Wikipedia:FA#Biology, with such entries as Giant Otter, Killer Whale, Fin Whale, and all of the birds. This capitalization has long been standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite the traditional monthly reignition of the argument, the only consensus regarding whether to capitalise mammal articles or not has been that they should not move from the title given by the original or main author. Somebody move it back and then anybody interested can adjourn to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Capitalization, be handed a link to the reams of previous discussion, and spiral around in ever-decreasing circles accompanied by the faint background noise of the articles slowly crumbling. Yomangani^talk 15:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(headdesk x 8). My preceding person right above me summed it up..Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My main problem is that this seems pretty ad-hoc; this convention doesn't seem to be clearly documented anywhere. At best, we're indirectly interpolating/inferring that there's a rule; and even then, there seem to be a few exceptions looking at the FA list. Meanwhile the general MoS guidance is fairly clear. I won't oppose, I'm just saying the "move it back" argument isn't slam-dunk. The naming conventions should be modified to codify this. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I also think this should be reverted back as non-consensus. I'd do it myself but the whole thing needs to be gone through as the body was lower case while the title was upper case.

I edited the WP:MAM wording to better frame the common/proper noun debate. The whole point is not everyone agrees. As one writer put it: "To me a Lincoln's Sparrow is just as much a particular thing [proper noun] as a Lincoln Continental."[2] Hence the debate. Marskell (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Cyber doesn't seem to be objecting to a re-move, I've moved it. Gimmetrow 14:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is the conservation status "least concern"?

I have read some websites speaking about the grey wolf, and I highly am doubting about the conservation status.

First off, it seems impossible, because there aren't alot of wolf populations in Europe or in North America (Only in certain parts of Canada and mainly alaska or montana). In addition, many claim that the wolf should be of great concern because their population continues to drop from excessive hunting.

And what websites would those be? The Least Concern status is given by the IUCN.

"..there aren't alot of wolf populations in Europe.."

Whoah, you can stop right there. See the article List of grey wolf populations by country.

Portugal has a stable wolf population of 200-300 which is afforded full protection

Spain's wolf population is estimated at 2000 and growing

In Italy, wolves are a protected species, with current estimates indicating that there are 500-800 wolves living in the wild

Wolves migrated from Italy to France as recently as 1992, and the current French wolf population is said to be composed of 40-50 individuals and growing

Currently, there are around 35 wolves in 4 packs now roaming the heaths of the eastern German region of Lusatia, and they are now still expanding their range to the west and north

The number of wolves in Switzerland is uncertain, having been guessed at 1-2 individuals. Wolves are afforded protection

Scandinavia has a population of over 200 wolves

Finland has a stable population of 116-123 wolves

Poland has an increasing population of 700-800 wolves which are afforded legal protection except in the Bieszczady Mountains

Estonia has a quite stable wolf population of around 200

Lithuania has over 600 wolves which are increasing in number. The species is not protected

Latvia has an unprotected, yet stable population of 900 wolves

Belarus is home to an increasing population of 2,000-2,500 wolves

Ukraine has an unprotected, yet stable population of 2,000 wolves

The Czech Republic has a stable and protected population of 20 wolves

Slovakia has a stable population of 350-400 wolves which is protected, though with some exceptions

Slovenia has a population of 70-100 wolves and increasing. As of 1991, they are a protected species

Croatia has a population of 100-150 wolves and increasing

Bosnia and Herzegovina is thought to have a population of 400 wolves, though they are decreasing in number and are afforded no legal protection

The former State Union of Serbia and Montenegro has a stable population of 500 wolves, though it is unknown if they are afforded any protection

Hungary has a stable population of 50 wolves which are protected

Romania has an increasing population of 2,500 wolves which are granted legal protection

Bulgaria has a stable population of 800-1,000 unprotected wolves

Greece has a stable population of 200-300 wolves which are legally protected

The Republic of Macedonia has an increasing, yet unprotected population of 1,000 wolves

Albania has a protected population of 250 wolves which are increasing in number

Turkey has an unknown number of wolves thought to be as high as 1,000

Russia: 25,000-30,000, and are increasing

So basically, if you are pessimistic about the presented numbers and pick the minimum figures, the number still adds up to 41,732 wolves. It has been proven that 300 wolves are needed to maintain a good genepool (remember that wolves have no concept of political boundraries, and regularly cross nations to breed with other populations). The current population (if the minimum figure is accepted) is nearly 140 times greater than that. Mariomassone (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if you remove Russia, the number (16,732) is still ideal.Mariomassone (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Gray Wolves

I am a student at High Tech High, and I was wondering why this page was locked. I am doing a project about the Gray Wolf Page. I have some information that I would like to share with this article. I would like to add information about how Canines are related and in most places of America, they are endangered. While in others, they are threatened. This is information I gathered from the U.S Fish & Wildlife Service Environmental Conservation Online System. The website is http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A00D I hope that I will be able to make changes to this page. Please consider the changes I wish to make. I will not copyright this information, I will simply put it into my own words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icekingman (talk • contribs) 16:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Icekingman, and thanks for your interest. The article is locked (technically, semi-protected) because it has a history of being vandalised. Template:Editsemiprotected describes one way you can suggest changes to this article. Though if your information is about canines in general, you might consider whether Canidae would be a better article to edit, if the information is not there already.

Good luck with your project, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Science

There is a brand news article published by the wolfscience center: "Explaining Dog Wolf Differences in Utilizing Human Pointing Gestures: Selection for Synergistic Shifts in the Development of Some Social Skills" see also http://www.wolfscience.at/english/research/blog/05September2009/ -- Slartibertfass (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Slartibertfass! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Adrian J. Hunter. Shall we add Explaining Dog Wolf Differences in Utilizing Human Pointing Gestures: Selection for Synergistic Shifts in the Development of Some Social Skills -- Slartibertfass (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Gray Wolf and Timber wolf

Gray Wolf article related question at Talk:Timber Wolf. --EarthFurst (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

subspecies

a list of all Canis lupus subspicies would be great at the end of the article. Here's a sketch taken from the portuguese wiki.

1. Canis lupus albus
2. Canis lupus arabs
3. Canis lupus arctos
4. Canis lupus baileyi
5. Canis lupus communis
6. Canis lupus dingo
7. Canis lupus familiaris
8. Canis lupus hattai
9. Canis lupus hodophilax
10. Canis lupus italicus
11. Canis lupus lupaster
12. Canis lupus lupus
13. Canis lupus lycaon
14. Canis lupus nubilus
15. Canis lupus occidentalis
16. Canis lupus pallipes
17. Canis lupus signatus

More evidence that the link to Subspecies of Canis lupus needs to be made more prominent in the article so that more readers will notice it. Chrisrus (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Who exactly is "building" wolves?

Resolved

The article is locked. Can someone please change the language: "Wolves are built for stamina". No one one is building wolves at an assembly line in Detroit off designs that engineers have created to increase stamina - or if they are, I would like to see a source. 207.69.137.25 (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Canid timeline

I inserted a canid timeline including Gray Wolf as highlighted. If you find this does not fit the article's parameters with respect to this wolf's history, go ahead and remove it. Thanks Noles1984 (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly worth including... but what's the original source? If the image is adapted from another that should be mentioned in the file description, and the original would have to be eligible to be in Wikimedia Commons. If you built the tree yourself there might be WP:OR issues, unless it's already been published. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Common ancestry - more detail please

The article says:

"the gray wolf shares a common ancestry with the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris)."

This is too vague to be meaningful. Humans share a common ancestry with the housefly. Only with extra info (e.g. about how long ago) does this become interesting. --Chriswaterguy talk 09:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit, I am surprised Wikipedia has fallen behind so far. Peter Savolainen, Ph.D. (Assistant Professor - Molecular Biotechnology - Albanova University Center) completed a mitochondrial DNA study which ties dogs to a wolf pack which lived near the Yangtze River about 16,000 years ago. It also reveals that the number of wolves involved in the transition to domestication were much higher than many people might think.

In addition: Robert Wayne, Dept. Biol., U.C., Los Angeles. is also active in the field of wolf and dog DNA.

“The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence... In comparison, the gray wolf differs from its closest wild relative, the coyote, by about 4% of mitochondrial DNA sequence.”

There is some conflict over whether it's possible to test a dog for "wolf markers." The U.S. Wolf Refuge contact Davis California in September of 2008 to offer DNA samples, but their website states that as of October 2008, there was no successful DNA test . In contrast, Methow Valley News published an article in July of 2008 which claimed that DNA confirmed two animals as being wolves . Howlcolorado (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Skip "gray" in the title

Why are we calling the wolf "gray wolf"? Is it because of the red wolf and the other fake wolves? Are we calling the tiger "striped tiger" too because of the saber-toothed tiger?--Buggwiki (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why yes, it is indeed because of the Red Wolf! That and other species listed at Wolf (disambiguation). "Gray Wolf" (and alternative spellings) is the common name for this particular species. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And we do not just call the Gray wolf "Gray Wolf" , it is also known as "Timber Wolf" and "Artic Wolf" . . . about Tiger's, it's not really on topic so I won't go there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.196.132 (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I can understand Buggwiki's thoughts. I'm not sure if I agree with the skip-gray-thing, but by reading on Wikipedia, it's difficult to know which canids which I can see as wolves. I think that we all agree that all canids (or "canins") are not wolves, like all the foxes for example. In reality, I can not enough about these dog animals, but if you ask me, I feel that the only logical solution is to let "wolf" be the english word of the binomial name Canis (or maybe even the tribe canini) and ignore that some animal names include "wolf" and some don't - I mean, these animals are not the only ones with misleading names. If not, I'm afraid that Buggwiki's right about that only Canis lupus are real wolves and have no reason to be called "gray wolves" like they are not the only ones. I feels very strange for me that "wolf" is a term of every animals with that namne, but if anyone of you can refer to some source, it would be the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.202.76 (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem nitpicky, but how is the red wolf not a 'true' wolf? And to maybe help answer your question, the most commonly thought-of wolf species is the Gray Wolf in many areas. People can check the subspecies list for other ones. 24.85.47.37 (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Griffin

why is "Wolf" capitalized?

in the title? Nergaal (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's for disambiguation. A "Gray Wolf" is a member of this species; a "gray wolf" is a wolf that happens to be gray. Whether Wikipedia should use this style has been debated many times and no clear consensus has been reached.` See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Bird_names_and_article_titles for some links to past discussions. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Keystone Species

"Wolves are not a keystone species, as they are not essential for the presence or survival of other species.[87]" The last sentence before the heading "Interspecific predatory relationships"

The reference is not accessible so I don't know what it says, but the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and many scientific journals ranging from BioScience to Ecological Applications say they are a keystone species.

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A00D

According to Professor Paine who first introduced the keystone species concept "a keystone species is one whose impacts on its community or ecosystem are large and greater than would be expected from its relative abundance or total biomass". It does not mean that other species depend on them for "presence or survival".

http://www.washington.edu/research/pathbreakers/1969g.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.101.16 (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The full reference itself is inaccessible, though here is a snapshot. It was written by both David L Mech and Luigi Boitani.

http://books.google.com/books?q=wolves+not+keystone+species

The link didn't work for me, Mariomassone. It might detect where the viewer is located.

It's clear from both the discussion above and from Wikipedia's article Keystone species that there's no consensus on what the term means. In any case, the sentence the IP above quoted doesn't seem to tell us anything we wouldn't already expect of an apex predator. Would anyone object to me simply removing that sentence?

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've managed to scan the specified reference from my library: http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/5295/wolfkeystone.jpg Mariomassone (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah – what the source says is slightly different to what Wikipedia's article says: "Wolves are not a keystone species... in that they are not essential for the presence of many other species" (emphasis added). The author is clarifying which meaning of "keystone species" wolves do not meet. In contrast, the first source linked by the IP above uses a different definition of "keystone species" that wolves do meet. I'm still seeing the concept of a keystone species as being more troublesome than it's worth. How about changing the sentence to "Wolves are not essential for the presence of many other species.[ref]"? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There didn't seem to be any opposition, so I made the change I suggested above. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Subspecies?

Isn't the subspecies of the "gray wolf" "canis lupus lupus"?IceBlade710 (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

See Subspecies of Canis Lupus.

Predation on humans

Eating and attacking humans are NOT dietary HABITS of wolves. They are exceptions. There are human canibals, but we would probably not write that eating other humans is a dietary HABIT of humans. An exception is an exception - NOT a HABIT. Wolf haters should try to understand the difference and not using WIkipedia to spread their paranoia and propaganda. That part should be under "Attacks on Humans". I'm ready to erase this until Wikipedia locks this article. Joe hill (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look a little further down the article you'll find a whole section on predation on humans (Wolf#Attacks on humans) and indeed there is a whole article (Wolf attacks on humans) on the subject. This is well reffed material, and there is no doubt that wolf attacks have occurred or do occur in some parts of the range of the species – though in other parts of the range and at other times they are virtually unknown. We can't leave it out just because we don't like it; including it does not mean anyone is a "wolf hater". This material is presented in a balanced, unemotional and neutral way, and is clearly not "paranoia and propaganda". WP is an encyclopaedia, not an advertising site for the good nature of the wolf. We must report facts as they are known, even if these are sometimes uncomfortable.

The "habits" in the heading is unnecessary, so I've changed it to just "diet". Richard New Forest (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted again, since there is a pretty big difference between "preyed upon" and "attacked", IMHO. Wolves have not preyed upon humans, they have attacked them in various situations, nearly all of them not having anything at all to do with the diet of wolves. Thus, the mention of attacks on humans should not be in a section about the diet of wolves. --Conti|✉ 16:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You clearly have not even read the sources provided. Allow me to do the work for you:

Child lifting: Wolves in Hazaribagh India: Describes both old and new incidences of wolves carrying off and eating hundreds of children in Indian villages. http://www.mexicanwolf.0catch.com/Human%20Toll%20articles/e-liite%202%20Hazaribagh%20wolves.pdf

The Danger of Wolves to Humans: A chapter of a book describing how certain wolves from the 1940s onward in several areas of Russia became habitual man-eaters. http://wolfcrossing.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/appendix-a-pavlov.pdf

Living with Death in the 1700s Describes how wolves in central Italy killed and ate many people, and that those who recorded the attacks could distinguish between rabid and healthy wolves. http://www.skinnymoose.com/wolfattacksitaly.pdf

Historical data on the presence of the wolf and cases of maneating in central Padania Same topic as above, only more detailed. http://wolfcrossing.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/historical-data-on-the-presence-of-the-wolf-and-cases-of-man.pdf

Mariomassone (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No more reversion please until consensus reached: leave article as it was. We must avoid edit warring. Richard New Forest (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's always Mikhail Pavlov that pops up. And then old stories that can't be substantiated. About wolves in India you already have the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Wolf so let's talk about the Indian Wolf there. A section about Wolf attacks is relevant. Writing about humans as a part of wolves diet is not. That's just some persons using Wikipedia for their political agenda. I want more and much better sources from several scientists, not just one, before I change my mind. Joe hill (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't continue to revert. Discussion here, reach consensus, then change the article if appropriate.

Joe Hill, you are accusing others of having a political agenda, but your own tone doesn't sound very balanced. I certainly have no agenda whatever other than trying to get at the facts, and I take great exception to being accused of having one.

You seem to have issues with the references given. Well, lets discuss those: if they do turn out to be too poor to support the statement, then that is the time to remove it. You will not convince anyone else just by insisting that you don't believe it. In the meanwhile I have marked the section as being in dispute: please now leave it as it is until consensus is reached. Richard New Forest (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My tone is annoyed since you use this page to spread views that have very little support among people studying wolves. So far all you've managed to present in your support is Mikhail Pavlov, a man that pops up on every wolf hating page on the internet. You also refer to a book that he has written. I would like to see a scientific study and read comments from other scientists on that study. As far as I know Mikhail Pavlov is pretty lonely promoting those views. We also have the "Attacks on humans" section where comments like yours ought to be since humans usually not are a part of the GREY WOLF's diet. I need to take a closer look on the situation in India and the INDIAN WOLF. But please keep your stories about India in the article about the Indian Wolf. Joe hill (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

All I want is that this article reflects a scientific consensus and not the views of one or two scientists and just as many who aren't even that which is the case right now. Joe hill (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of their reliability, all the sources solely referring to the Indian Wolf should clearly be removed from this article and moved to Indian Wolf instead, for (hopefully) obvious reasons. --Conti|✉ 17:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Indian wolf's supposed separateness as a species has not been accepted by mainstream taxonomists. Canis indica (as some laypeople like to call it) is noteably absent from the Mammal Species of the World taxonomy list on canids. http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?id=14000691

The Indian wolf is therefore still valid in this article.Mariomassone (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point: we generally use MSW3 for WP mammal taxonomy. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Then the article about the "Indian wolf" ought to be removed... Joe hill (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

All I want is that this article reflects a scientific consensus and not the views of one or two scientists and just as many who aren't even that which is the case right now.

Historical documents such as those are extremely relevant, as many of the facts listed in them are directly corroborated by the Child Lifting in Hazaribagh India document, which is the most recent example. Significant is the recurring theme that attacks by non-rabid wolves occur in the summer period:

From Child Lifting Wolves in Hazaribagh, India p.3- "Most incidences occurred in March to August; i.e. summer and rainy seasons" p-5 "..in this study, most children were attacked and taken during Match to August; i.e. in summer and the rainy seasons. This pattern could be due to i) the availability of natural prey; ii) evening fires during winter frightening wolves, or fewer children venturing out to play in the open during winter.

From Historical data on the presence of the wolf and cases of maneating in central Padania p.7-Figure 4 illustrates the monthly distribution of the attacks and shows a peak in the June-July period in which 45% of the attacks are concentrated, of a total of 377 events for which it has been possible to find the month of the incident. This seasonal peak can probably be attributed to two contributory causes: the birth of cubs, therefore resulting in a greater necessity for protein intake, and a simultaneous arrival of livestock to areas of pasture, which represented an easily accessible and largely available source of food.

If you look at Page 72 here, you can see that similair conclusions have been come to by historians from Holland and Estonia. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gTqYP9mSyoYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hunter+hunted+kruuk&lr=&as_brr=3&ei=CslMS7j7OpOCzATr_PHoCw&cd=1#v=onepage&q=wolves&f=false

From Hunter and Hunted: Relationships between carnivores and people p.72- These figures indicate a striking peak in late summer, just as for wolf predation in Holland. Rootsi gives two reasons for this peak. Firstly, children are outside in summer, playing or helping their parents on the land, and secondly and most importantly, it is the time of year when the she-wolf has to provide for cubs, the time of highest energy requirements.

Note that the above's conclusions are identical to those independently found in the Italian and Indian documents. Attacks by rabid wolves on the other hand are almost always shown to occur in winter years.

From Hunter and Hunted: Relationships between carnivores and people p.72- This seasonality in predation contrasts sharply with that of attacks on people by rabid wolves: in nineteenth century Estonia there were 82 of those, with 37% in spring, 24% in summer, 4% in autumn and 35% in winter.

The wolves in the Hazaribagh case were not rabid. From Child Lifting Wolves in Hazaribagh, India p.5- Dogs are known to transmit diseases to wolves. However, so far, no evidence exists on the role of the wolf as a source of rabies in India.

The attacks by non-rabid wolves in the summer period were almost invariably directed at children, who were clearly treated as prey items (not as enemies or rivals) when no intervention occurred. Again, all the relevant sources come to this conclusion independently of each other;

From Child Lifting Wolves in Hazaribagh, India p.3- In a few cases, wolves lifted the child from the mother's lap or from a courtyard p.4- The child, sometimes equal to the wolf's own body weight, is grabbed by the neck, waist, head, chest or thigh. Feeding takes place in remote areas as far as 1-2.5 km away from the village, as seen from the location of remnants and or clothes of the victim.

From Living with Death in the 1700s p.2- The victims are almost exclusively young shepherd boys; the scene of the tragedy is generally a field as the event never occurs in the vicinity of heavily populated areas. It always occurs during the fair season when livestock enters grazing zones and the wolves must feed their spring-born litters. The attack is directed at the neck or head and the victim is immediately dragged towards a place where it can be hidden; in this phase, the intervention of third parties, be it in the form of adults or bovines, causes the victim to be abandoned. Assuming the victim has not received particularly serious lesions, he/she recovers without any obvious symptom of rabies.

From Historical data on the presence of the wolf and cases of maneating in central Padania p.13- Focusing our attention instead on the other kind of attack, that with predatory purposes, we find that the wolf normally attacked the victim by the neck or head to drag it away. If the attack was not interrupted by third parties, the wolf would “take away” the prey, sometimes whilst it was still alive... For 26 cases it has been possible to find their ages: between 3 and 5 years- 2 boys. between 6 and 10 years- 0 boys and 2 girls. between 11 and 15 years- 6 boys and 6 girls

Also, it should be noted that several of the above documentations have been used as references by L. David Mech (America's most celebrated wolf biologist) in his Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation on the chapter on wolf attacks.

The reason we put these facts here is because they MATTER. Yes, it is extremely rare that wolves target humans as prey (which is already stated), however, it has happened many times, and in some parts of the world (i.e. India), is still going on. This is not a trivial issue. People should stop imposing North American realities on other countries. Wikipedia is meant to represent a global view.Mariomassone (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

All that looks sensible to me... Richard New Forest (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Historians are historians - not experts on wolves. And historical documents like the books you refer to rarely delivers "facts" - most of the time they deliver views or stories. And I think that it's important that we also add humans as potential dog food since there are plenty of lethal attacks on humans made by dogs. Joe hill (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Err, no actually, historians are the best people qualified to determine whether or not old documents are genuine or just stories. Furthermore, in this case, we have pretty much every historical document presented concurring on almost every detail (except for time and place) with a scientific study on wolf attacks on humans done by present day biologists.

Let me break it down for you: if the historical events I've posted are erroneous, then why is it that they present pretty much the same facts on how and when wolves attack people, and all explicitly stress the differences in behaviour of rabid or healthy wolves? If they were all false, then you'd expect them to contradict each other, but they don't, and they are all from different countries and from independent parties. The fact that the findings of these historians bare striking similarities with the Indian wolf document (which again, I stress was done in modern times and by biologists) makes them even more compelling.Mariomassone (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Then the article about the "Indian wolf" ought to be removed..."

No, it just needs revising (which it already has).Mariomassone (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Carrion feeding on battlefields

I recall reading somewhere that in Europe in mediaeval times large numbers of wolves would eat the corpses left after battles. Are there any good refs for this? I see that the red wolf is recorded as doing it in North America (Wolf attacks on humans#North America), but I can't find any other material on it. Richard New Forest (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wolves in the British Isles article mentions how the celts buried their dead on small islands, as burials in the mainland would have been desecrated by wolves. Incidences of wolves eating battlefield corpses are mentioned in the Wales section.Mariomassone (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about medieval times so, of course, there are no good refs. And I hope you wont write that crows, eagles, foxes, rats, flies and other scavangers have human flesh as part of their diet. Joe hill (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

More Review of Hunting Strategies Please

The article makes a few statements I'm fairly sure are flatout false, however I'd prefer to have an expert on the subject confirm or deny. They particularly irked me because they imply a lack of predatory intelligence that deeply misconstrues the qualities and habits of the animal. In no particular order:

"Unlike lion prides, wolf packs numbering above 2 individuals show little strategic cooperation in hunting large prey." I've read numerous accounts of wolf packs demonstrating a planned hunting strategy hours if not days ahead of time and executing flanking and ambush tactics. Can someone confirm this, i.e. with direct evidence in documentary or peer review writing?

"Though commonly portrayed as targeting solely sick or infirm animals,[33] there is little evidence that they actively limit themselves to such targets." Incorrect and needs to be changed. I have seen several video recordings of wild wolves keeping a herd in a holding pattern and carefully herding out a young, say bison, killing it, and leaving the adults alone. While this may not be a universal tactic of all wolves, it is certainly one practiced by some packs.

"Female wolves tend to be better at chasing prey than males, while the latter are more adept at wrestling large prey to the ground once it is caught" Could be true, but smacks of a sexual anthropomorphism to me. Citation required.

That's all, have at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.65.193 (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hertz figures for growling

I've changed the range of frequencies of wolf growls from 250–1,500 hz to 25–150 hz. See piano key frequencies; 250 hz is a touch above the B below Middle C, and I can't imagine anything growling at that frequency. A growl at 1,500 hz would probably sound something like a glass harmonica. A range from 25 to 150 hz sounds sensible to me. Graham87 14:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Distinguishing characteristics from dogs

What is the source for that part of the article? It states that wolves differ from dogs in their yellow eye-color. That is definitely false, since there are dogs with yellow-eyes. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair point; but I have no idea of the source. Rewriting it to include a more definitive list may be the best option. 24.85.47.37 (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Griffin

Not as adaptable?

While the threashold of Wikipedia is not truth, but citability, the statement in the lead that grey wolves are less adaptable should be removed or revised. While I have no doubt someone citable said that, it is a lower adaptability to living with humans that would explain their present range better: their hisorical range was by far the widest of any canid species, leading to the obvious conclusion that they had been the most adaptable canid species of all until the humans came along. Also, the statement is obviously not true according to any standard unless the domestic dog is not a subspecies of the grey wolf, which the article and standard taxonomy say that it is. Chrisrus (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)