Talk:Red wolf

+

Eastern Canadian Wolf

I was fortunate enough to have attended a seminar on the Eastern Canadian Wolf while stationed at Queen's University Biological Station, and so I've started (slowly) a page on the Eastern Canadian Wolf. I also added in the page that there is also genetic evidence to support the descent from the Red Wolf based on DNA samples from existing Canadian wolves in Algonquin Park and museum samples of Red Wolves obtained from several southern US states. Hearing it from the horse's mouth makes it hard to have it in writing! Just to let you guys know, and great work so far on this page. --Waterspyder 21:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

---

WHUT?

Just because an animal was extinct doesn't mean they were not in captivity! They could have been extinct from the wild not from captivity . They must have mated some red wolfs and let them in the wild and they made it happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.9.251 (talk • contribs)

I'm confused:

Three subspecies of Red Wolf are recognised. Canis rufus floridanus has been extinct since 1930. Canis rufus rufus was declared extinct by 1970. And finally, Canis rufus gregoryi, now focused on in wolf recovery plans, became extinct in the wild by 1980.

There are around 270 remaining Red Wolves; about 100 in the wild in North Carolina and 170 in captivity.

Does this mean that there are other red wolves still in the wild who are not members of the three subspecies? RickK 01:52, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I was going to post the same complaint, Rick. Then I re-read it and figured out what the entry was trying to say - with some difficulty, I might add. No, it doesn't mean that, it means that Canis rufus gregoryi is the only surviving subspecies. But it's very badly written - I'll attend to it shortly. (But first, I'll look them up again and do some double-checking.) Tannin 02:00, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Tannin. If I'd understood it, I would have changed it myself.  :) RickK 02:02, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one ever fixed that. I just did now, 2 years later. Redwolf24 9 July 2005 12:22 (UTC)

---

Below text was moved here from "Texas red wolf", which I (Infrogmation) turned into a redirect to this article:

"Texas redwolves are extinct because farmers thought they were eating their cattle so the killed them almost to the pointof extincttion. in 1970 they started to breed them but it did not work."

Additions

The article consisted of the intro and a long section on taxonomy with nothing about habits, social structure or even physical appearance. I have added two sections which I think fills it out nicely. Marskell 17:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Adding External Links - I added a link to my site and it was deleted. My website is about wolves and has several pages and sections dedicated to the red wolf. Just trying to figure out why it was removed and what changes I need to make to have it listed here. I realize Wikipedia is not a link exchange or advertising pool, but my site is about wolves and is a valued resource in regards to the red wolf. Iamloup (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC) iamloup

Are you sure you added it here? I don't see it in your contributions [1].—Sandahl (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought I did, I got a message that said it was removed and if I had questions to visit the talk page. I tried to post it again under my user name - I just got an account so maybe that makes the difference? Not sure. Thanks. Iamloup (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)iamloup

You might not have been logged in when you added it. Check just under login where it says keep me logged in for 30 days and it will prevent you from inadvertently revealing your IP .—Sandahl (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It is there now - so I guess it worked. I am a noob here but trying to figure it all out. Iamloup (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Iamloup

Hybridization

Is there any data on whether Red Wolf-Grey Wolf/Coyote hybrids are in fact fertile or not? If some info on that could be found, it could shed some more ligh on the problem: If they are fertile, that could mean they're of the same species; if not, they would probably be of the same genus but not the species. --Arny 21:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm 99% on this (that they are fertile) but we don't have a definite source, so that would be good until I track down one tomorrow (or next year...). Lupus (wolves) and familiaris (dogs) have fertile hybrids and I don't see why rufus and latrans would not. The whole lot of them can interbreed as far as I know. Indeed, the canines are a bad choice if you want to argue "species" = "intra-breeding only". Marskell 22:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Just read a paper on wolf coyote hybrids in canada that says wolves, dogs, and coyotes all prodcue fertile offspring with each other (coy-dogs, coy-wolves and wolf-dogs) so that answers that concern, but I agree with the discussion below that fertility itself isn't the sole criterion for species distinction.--Paddling bear (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The research that I have read indicates that all Red Wolves are in fact hybrids. This research is not final (as far as I know) but Red Wolves are fertile. The fact that they are fertile, however, is not dispositive of the species question. There are many examples of inter-species hybrids that are fertile. Wolves and Jackals reportedly produce fertile offspring as well as dogs and wolves producing fertile offspring. The real question is if they are a hybrid of two species rather than a n independant species themselves, do they warrant protection. Right now our conservation regulatory structure is not set up to protect a hybird no matter how rare. I will find the cite for the research--Counsel 22:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"Not dispositive of the species question"--no indeed, and the assumption that non-inter-breeding indicates a distinct species (or that inter-breeding does) is a mistaken one. This is worth emphasizing with this genus particluarly. Marskell 22:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a reference to genetic research on diversity of canis by Roy, but can't get it to link. Someone please help.

The info that's referenced as "more recent" and cited as evidence that the red wolf is a coyote/gray wolf hybrid is over twelve years old. The ability to interbreed with gray wolves and coyotes does not reasonably establish an argument that it's a hybrid between the species. Coyotes and Gray wolves can produce fertile offspring but nobody argues that they are two distinct (but closely related species). Why then is it surprising that red wolves and coyotes and red wolves and gray wolves can produce fertile offspring? I read an article that I have to find where they found fossil evidence that indicates that red wolves have been around in the southeastern USA for thousands of years as a distinct species. Also, the kind of hybridization between gray wolves and coyotes that would be required to produce red wolves is pretty fantastical based on their respective behaviours. --TaeKwonTimmy 08:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Twelve years old is reasonably recent in light of the wikipedia publishing policy. Also this is not computing. In Biology twelve years is a recent change in theory. The fossil evidence you quote falls back again to morphological evidence, which has not been at the forefront of species categorization for a number of years now.

Yet the cross breeding potential that is mentioned is poor evidence. Many species can cross breed, but that doesn't prove they aren't distinct species or even subspecies. As I said earlier, all wolves and coyotes can interbreed and produce fertile offspring but that doesn't mean wolves and coyotes are the same species. --TaeKwonTimmy 20:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just like gulls and waterfowl, members of the genus Canis can interbreed very freely. The only practical criterion for species in this group which retains the interbreeding concept at all is whether the level of interbreeding is low enough to keep the group distinct. By the pure rule that "if the hybrids are fertile, they're all one species", there would be only one Canis species, and waterbird and gamebird taxonomy would be destroyed (where inter-generic hybrids are not particularly rare, and even inter-familial hybrids (yikes!) are possible) . 24.167.74.103 02:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Kep in mind that the definiton of species includes those animals that don't normally breed, but SOME can. The definition includes those that don't breed not only because they can't, or produce infertile offspring, but those that don't because of behavior, different habitats, etc. In the real world, it can get messy. Tigers and lions have fertile offspring, but in wild don't interbreed. Polar bears and brown bears can interbreed, and are fertile, in fact recent work suggests polar bears split and descended from brown bears, so we call them separate species. Zoos often find out by accident which species can interbreed, but that is nor a normal situation. Note on red wolf being just a hybrid, this is highly contentios still, even the wolf experts are still undecided and arguing the points. Just cause a new paper comes out doesn't mean it's accepted and correct.--Paddling bear 18:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Again these are hardly "new" papers. In some cases the refutations of species status are decades old. Just because it goes against what you'd like to believe doesn't mean it's not accepted. Red wolf status as a seperate species has much more to do with politics than science. Also interbreeding is not the main indicator of the papers cited. The papers cite Genetic evidence. Interbreeding has not been the standard for species for some time. Genetics has taken the place of old, yes i mean OLD, standards of breeding and morphology. Genetically Red Wolves are not a seperate species. Get current and quit talking about all this "new" research that is largely over a decade old. Perhaps we should base all computing articles on twenty and thirty year old science as well. 74.188.22.225 20:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

American Bison and domestic cattle can also interbreed and produce fertile offspring. That does not make them the same species. Red wolves and coyotes can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. In the wild these are almost exclusively male wolf/female coyote crosses since female wolves are not inclinded to breed with coyotes. At the Alligator River Preserve this has been managed by producing buffer zones around the red wolf experimental population area. In the interior area coyotes are captured and permanently removed. In the surrounding buffer zone coyotes are captured and sterilized then returned. As the control area for the red wolf population has expanded the buffer zones have expanded as well.

Genetic studies continue to be ongoing. When both coyote and gray wolf markers were found in the earliest studies the theory proposed was one of hybridization. Subsequent studies have suggested the red wolf genome is older rather than younger than that of the other two species - suggesting the red wolf is the origin of the other two rather than a hybrid. Opinions do vary, and both the discussion and research are ongoing, but the most widely held view is of the red wolf as the originating species.CharmsDad (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Assimilation Sex Dominance

I firmly believe that the redwolf is in fact simply a variation of wolves and coyotes. I think that lesser male wolves are responcible for breeding with female coyotes, leaving out the “submale” coyote. This would create the “redwolf.” Would it be safe to say that female coyotes prefer wolves? So in a sense, male coyotes compete directly with lesser male wolves. However in the “red wolf/coyote” breed, it would probably be a male coyote’s advantage to mate with a female redwolf. (~PassiveBluffing~)

Your beliefs are not what we put into the article. We document the relative (in this case) scientific literature on what this species is. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like your trying to disavow my accuracy or pretending to not to acknowledged my reasoning. Seems a tad nit close-minded and you did not even care to comment of my original inquiry, probably because it has validation and has caused you discomfort. What “scientist” is to say there determination is correct? Science always changes due to new perspective/determinations. But go ahead and steal my thoughts if that’s what you intend to do. ~PassiveBluffing~

No, what I'm saying is that Wikipedia is not a place for your own views. We maintain a neutral point of view and do not conduct original research. Wikipedia is a place to report on the information and research that exists. If you can show published works that include your theories (but not published works of your own), then you can put that information into the articles. I'm not saying you don't have a valid point. You may. But it is not what Wikipedia is about. Please read the links I've provided in this edit, as well as the links I've provided on your talk page so that you can better understand how to contribute in a productive manner. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, can't we all just get along!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.139.86 (talk • contribs)

Remember: Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research, well reasoned or otherwise. This is from the Wikipedia editing article "This is also not the place for "original research"—that is, new theories, etc., that haven't been supported by peer review. For more details about what Wikipedia should include, see What Wikipedia is not, Criteria for inclusion of biographies and What's in, what's out (the latter is an early guideline of Wikipedia)."

These are hardly "new theories". The genetic comparison of red wolves to grey wolves and coyotes, as well as the debate of the legitimacy of red wolf species classification, goes back for several years. There are multiple papers detailing the lack of mitochondrial genetic differentiation, all peer-reveiwed and published. What does not belong on Wikipedia is political positioning to craft science into a justification of a political action. IE: The Red wolf status on endangered lists. I've twice seen references to legitimate research in this article removed, for no apparent reason than that they disrupted the presentation of the red wolf as a distinct species.

The presentation of the red wolf as a distinct species is not supported scientifically. At best we are unsure, as there is no genetic support for this classification.

I've added about half a dozen references, some from both sides of, and am trying to get them to link into the article itself. Someone please help with this. I've also removed a large amount of very emotionally biased wording, replacing it with references to peer reviewed research.

Out of the blue - Doesn't it seem unlikely that the Red Wolf could be genetically identical to both the Gray Wolf and the Coyote? The source for this statement doesn't really stand muster either. There must be a more authoritative article than a 40 year old work on the art of Audubon. V —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.159.138 (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the works cited aren't 40 years old, I don't see your point. And it doesn't seem unlikely at all. Does it seem unlikely that africans and caucasians are genetically the same species? I'd say not. They are not genetically identical any more than a borher and sister are, they are genetically the same species.

The bibliography page on the Red Wolf Recovery Program's web page has a rather extensive list of legitimate peer reviewed scientific publications. It is located at http://www.fws.gov/redwolf/biblio.html. The Red Wolf is not identical to either the Gray Wolf or the Coyote, but it is closely related to both. As to the comment about humans and their relationship, I see that as rather badly expressed and in poor taste. In the first place, people from Africa are not all of the same race, religion, culture or ethnic background. Secondly, humans are far more closely related to each other and have far less genetic variation between them than do most other species. The earliest genetic testing that confirmed the close relationship between Red Wolves and the other two species was published in the mid 90s. The original authors proposed this supported the theory that they were hybrids. Genetic testing has progressed substantially over the last decade and more recently published studies indicate both mitochondrial and nuclear genetic testing suggests the Red Wolf genome appears older than that of either of the other two species. This seems to support the theory that the Red Wolf is the origin of both other species rather than a hybrid of the two. Though generally rare, there are hybrids of both Red Wolves and Gray Wolves with Coyotes in the wild. These tend to be exclusively from a cross involving a male wolf and female coyote. Observations indicate female wolves (both Red and Gray) do not tend to be receptive to coyotes. When the female coyotes are not in heat the male wolves are generally not tolerant of their presence and, along with other pack members, will frequently actively pursue and kill them.CharmsDad (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There are no documented cases of gray wolves and modern red wolves either mating or poducing offspring. Both male and female red wolves will mate with coyotes under certain circumstances. It is not a directional hybridization. I believe this is documented by the recovery team and a wildlife geneticist they contract with, but I do not know if it has been written up in scientific publications yet. Tdelene (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is it "Red Wolf" or "red wolf"? This article uses the former, but (for instance) the Red Wolf Coalition seems to prefer the latter. Most Wikipedia articles seem to use the latter as well. If no one objects, I'm going to change this; I can't think of a good reason why "Red Wolf" should be capitalized but other animals' names shouldn't. Switchercat ^talk_contribs 17:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I object to this. I see no reason to change the name to lower case, and I have no idea where you got this idea. I have yet to see any animals in Wikipedia which have lower case names, and if there are, I think you should use your editing capabilities and capitalize them. Vortex 22:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

All right; here are some examples.

• Leopard
• Sea anemone
• Black toad
• Jaguar
• Human
• Wolverine
• Quagga

As for "where I got the idea," I was looking around at the external links for this website. As I stated before, the Red Wolf Coalition does not capitalize the name of the species; the red wolf entry on the ARKive doesn't, either. (Admittedly, in the Wikipedia entry regarding naming conventions of fauna, it is written that "[m]ammals are mostly capitalized." However, I take mostly to mean not required.) It seemed to me that it would make sense for Wikipedia to follow along these lines as well.

That is my reasoning. But, if you dislike jumping onto the stylistic bandwagon that other websites have, I'll withhold my urge to lowercase everything!

*trying to be nice* :P Switchercat ^talk_contribs 22:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

See WP:BIRD for the rationale to using uppercase for species' common names. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That applies only to birds, however. Switchercat ^talk_contribs 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, WP:BIRD only applies to bird; I didn't say that that project can define how this article is named. However, the logic of the capitalization scheme layed out in WP:BIRD is sound. I've had WP:PRIM, WP:CEPH, and WP:MaM all point there for the rationale for why those projects are using the same capitalization scheme. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I believe we should look at the other wolf sub-species on Wiki. They capitalize their names as well. The Red Wolf should be no different. I'm starting to think it would be more correct to be in lower case though, as most books and sites seem to keep their names lower case, or at least the animal in particular, such as Red wolf, or Marine otter. Wikipedia seems to have many capitalization problems. XD Hmmm... Quite a dilemma. Vortex 00:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The developing convention is caps for mammals, fish and invertebrates are often in lower case.--Peta 00:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the assesment that the name "Red Wolf" should be de-capitalized (is that a real word??) But then again, I am not an authority on the matter so I guess my opinion doesn't count. Solon89 18:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Red Wolf Entirely as Gray Wolf/Coyote Hybrid, Not Separate Species?

I read an article recently (sorry can't cite) that there really is no such thing as a red wolf species -- genetic testing has determined that the entire group of animals was founded by Gray Wolf male/Coyote female hybridization.

This was a popular news article though -- could have been confused.

74.188.22.225 20:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC) read the citations listed at the end of the article. They are all scientific papers.

Researchers at UCLA, University of Idaho, Virginia Tech, North Carolina State and others were, and have continued to be, heavily involved in the Red Wolf Recovery Program in the Alligator River Preserve here in North Carolina. Working on other canine projects I have had a small number of occasions to speak with the program director for this project and various associated researchers and all are primarily interested in finding historical and evolutionary fact rather than promoting a political agenda with no significant conservation significance. Early genetic analysis did find markers in the red wolf that indicate a historical relationship with both coyotes and gray wolves. This created the very controversy you indicate. More recent studies (see citations in main article) have tended to support the theory that the red wolf is the originating species for both of the other species rather than a hybrid of the two which is now the generally held view. There are still those on both sides of this controversy and research is ongoing.CharmsDad (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Two photos are better than one

There seem to be 2 Red Wolf photos associated with this article: the current slightly fuzzy one, in the taxobox, of a running wolf, and the one I added fairly recently, of a captive specimen which shows better detail. Someone replaced the running wolf with the captive wolf in the taxobox, bringing us back down to a single photo. Now the taxobox photo has been exchanged for that of the running wolf, and we still only have one picture. Please, if there is an argument about which one is better for the taxobox, just switch them around. It's nice to have two distinctly different pictures. Tim Ross·^talk 15:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Classification

I've tried to add a 'synonym' section to the taxonomy box like the black bear has for Eurctos, but it's not working. I tried to paste this "| synonyms = Canis rufus" which was cut from the bear page. Can anyone fix it? Also, it'd be nice to add where the 3 subspp. were from, I'll see if I can find it. Would the trinomial authority still be the same as the old binomial we've got listed? Shouldn't it be the updated person who suggested we lump them? --Paddling bear (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I see now why my attempt didn't work! After more thought, I think the species authority does just translate to the new level, now as the subspp. for the red wolf. What happens to the 3 subspecies of red wolf though? Perhaps if we had more of teach of the 3, we'd be able to resolve this taxonomy debate more clearly. However, taxonomists back then were splitters, there were something like 28 subspp. of 'grizzly' bear in the US at one point, some of the type specimens were from the same area but one was older and male and the other younger and female, so later people decided they were not valid. The old literature isn't always correct (I wonder about the NY trapper records, how do we know where they trapped them? Another reference said PA was the northern limit). Lots of curiosities with this animal.Paddling bear (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

At the beginning of this article the classification for the red wolf is listed as Canis lupus rufus (gray wolf subspecies). In the rest of the article where I noticed the classification seems to be listed as the more commonly accepted Canis rufus (separate species). While there continues to be some controversy around these animals, the most widely held opinion still seems to be to consider them as a unique and separate species. As such, shouldn't the correct listing for the classification be Canis rufus? CharmsDad (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We follow the listing in MSW3, the canonical listing of mammal species taxonomy and common names. As such, we should amend the article to use C. l. rufus where applicable. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Why that publication rather than more accepted standards such as Encyclopedia of Mammals (Oxford University's classification system) or the accepted classification published by the Smithsonian?CharmsDad (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Department if Interior) which oversees the recovery project, US Department of Agriculture, American Zoological and Aquarium Association, National Parks Conservation Association, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN - Red Wolf is red listed as critically endangered) and most others all use the Canis rufus classification. The use of a non-standard classification is one more supporting indicator of the unreliability of Wikipedia information.CharmsDad (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the IUCN listing for this animal the classification is also listed as Canis rufus and also lists the authority as Audubon & Bachman, 1851 - the same as claimed on this page. (Reference: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/full/3747/0 ) Interesting that the IUCN classification is the same as that of other accepted authorities but here you use a classification that declares this animal a subspecies of the Gray Wolf. In reality, this Wikipedia article does NOT use the Audubon and Bachman classification (which agrees with the Oxford and Smithsonian systems on this matter). You are using the Wilson and Reeder system which is not even remotely as accepted. Once again, Wikipedia is using someone's personal view rather than that of the general scientific community.CharmsDad (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that, at some point, the classification was corrected to fit the accepted standard without so much as a note about it.CharmsDad (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

CharmsDad, we have to have one or at least very few specifically agreed upon authorities to go by when sources disagree on these things or we'll have chaos. On Wikipedia that authority has been Mammal Species of the World. They are the authority that we look to keep up with everything and weigh everything with a panal of experts tasked with defining the term "current taxonomy" when it comes to such things. They have an article with commentary if you will search for Canis lupus there and you will see how they have looked over everyone's evidence and weighed it all and hashed it out and have decided that, at least for the moment, it's "Canis lupus rufus", why, and where to go for more summary of their thinking. They are just doing their job to be aware of all the arguments on all sides and to change quickly as more information comes in. They admit they are not sure, as should this article. It could turn out that it's a species of it's own at some point in the future, but so far, there's to such thing as "canis rufus" until a search for it on this page: http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/ produces a hit. I'll wait a bit to see if it's not agreed yet, but then we're changing this article, starting with the binomial at in the infobox.

Last chance to object; I'm changing to Canus lupus rufus!?!?!?

No objections from me Mariomassone (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've made a start with the infobox, but there's still a lot to do in terms of the text of the article. According to the Canis section of the Mammal Species of the World, where the website has its article with commentary, the editors believe that the balance of evidence show it to be a wolf/coyote hybrid or some such. They sort of apologize for categorizing it as a sub-species but, what else can they do, you know? It'd certainly be pushing the limits of the definition of the word, but the naming system doesn't know what to do with Ligers and whatnot. If anyone feels themself able enough to read and understand the relevant sections of this page http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?id=14000738, please do so, compare its conclusions with this article, and make the necessary changes to bring it in line with current taxonomy, I'll try to help. Chrisrus (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, if you are actually looking for consistency and accuracy why not use one of the more widely accepted classification systems? In the infobox you list the source as Audubon & Bachman, 1851, yet it is actually the less accepted Wozencraft point of view (Wilson & Reeder) that lists the Red Wolf as a subspecies. It is also important to note that IUCN protection does not apply to the subspecies level. While there is disagreement within the scientific community, the most widely held position is still to recognize the Red Wolf as a distinct species. A&B Classification: http://sn2000.taxonomy.nl/Taxonomicon/TaxonTree.aspx?id=66432 IUCN Classification: http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/3747/0 In all honesty, I see this part of the article as promoting a point of view rather than attempting to present an accurate and neutral scientific explanation of the history and controversy regarding these animals, thier history, or the classification dispute.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CharmsDad (talk • contribs)

You are confusing classification system with taxonomic description. rufus was described by Audubon & Bachman in 1851. No matter whether it is listed as a subspecies or a species or a subpopulation, that authority holds true. The references for the taxobox (which is the classification) is still Wozencraft in W&R's MSW3. We chose MSW3 because overall, it is the most authoritative listing of mammal species. Yes, it gets somethings wrong, and where it does, we try to note the discrepancies in the text of the article, while leaving the taxobox consistent with the other related articles. Haven't we said all this before? I feel like I'm repeating myself..... - UtherSRG (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I wondered why the page used Canis lupus, and was surprised that MSW3 would put them as hybrids when such tomes are usually conservative and await a consensus before changing the status quo (I use Walker's Mammals of the World). BUT since I agree Wikipedia should use one source for listing, and discuss other sources, I'll let it go. I do think that some of the MSW3 comments might be better incorporated into the page on hybridds or classification. I think it's important that mtDNA study is limited to the few specimens that can be tested. When they captured the last wild red wolves to start the captive breeding program, they had such trouble deciding which were coyote-hybrids that they had to develope a morphological limit, and smaller ones were removed from the program. Right there we find that the earliest captive breeding were hybridized to some degree. Since coyotes were absent from Eastern North America, I look at red wolves as full species with a recent split from an ancestor shared with coyotes. With such a distinct original range, there couldn't be hybridization throughout the red wolve range. --Paddling bear (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

MSW3 comments: "Provisionally includes rufus, (recognized by Paradiso, 1968; Paradiso and Nowak, 1972; Atkins and Dillion, 1971; Paradiso and Nowak, 1972; Nowak, 1979, 1992, 2002) although this problematic group (rufus, floridanus, gregoryi) should probably be best listed as incertae sedis. The widely used name C. niger is invalid (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1957a). The validity of rufus as a full species was questioned by Clutton-Brock et al. (1976), and Lawrence and Bossert (1967, 1975), due to the existence of natural hybrids with lupus and latrans. Natural hybridization may be a consequence of habitat disruption by man (Paradiso and Nowak, 1972, 2002). All specimens examined by Wayne and Jenks (1991) had either a lupus or latrans mtDNA genotype and there appears to be a growing consensus that all historical specimens are a product of hybridization (Nowak, 2002; Reich et al., 1999; Roy et al., 1994, 1996; Wayne et al., 1992, 1998). Hybridization between wolf and coyote has long been recognized (Nowak, 2002). Two recent studies make the strongest case for separation. Wilson et al. (2000) argued for separation of the Eastern Canadian Wolf (as Canis lycaon) and the Red Wolf (as Canis rufus) as separate species based on mtDNA, but see Nowak (2002) who could not find support for this in a morphometric study. Nowak (2002) in an extensive analysis of tooth morphology concluded that there was a distinct population intermediate between traditionally recognized wolves and coyotes, which warranted full species recognition (C. rufus). The red wolf is here considered a hybrid after Wayne and Jenks (1991), Wayne (1992, 1995), and Wayne et al. (1992). Although hybrids are not normally recognized as subspecies, I have chosen as a compromise to retain rufus because of its uncertain status. Also see Roy et al. (1994, 1996), Vilá et al. (1999), and Nowak (2002) who provided an excellent review of the situation." --Paddling bear (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand what a taxonomic synonym is. Canis rufus and Canis lupus rufus aren't synonyms, they are more closely related than synonym status. If, for example, Canis lupus utherus were at one point considered a distinct taxon from C. l. rufus, but it was then determined that it is really a subpopulation, then C. l. utherus would be a synonym for C. l. rufus. The quotation from MSW3 says nothing about synonyms. I suggest you look at other MSW3 entries to see what a synonym looks like. (And you don't have to quote MSW3 to me. I own my own copy of it and can read it just fine online.) - UtherSRG (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Now now, take it easy you two. The quote is useful here because we have to agree what it means and how to "de-technicalize" that exact section where it refers to red wolves and explains where things stand at the moment in current thinking on this matter and get it all into the article in the appropriate wording. MSW3 are just explaining what the evidence shows at the moment of writing. The problem may have something to do with the amount some good people have invested in their being a species, or at least a subspecies, not just some large coywolves. We have to be careful, we don't want to do any harm, but that's not our job to worry about that too much, we just tell the facts and let the chips fall where they may. Anyway, if PaddingtonBear or I or anyone else doesn't understand this term or that term you should straighten us out, that's good, but I appreciate his quoting that text there. Uther; I think you understand this technical talk better than most, better than me. I think I know what it's saying, but I need to hear it from you. In layman's terms, what is that section saying about Red Wolves? I don't want to write this alone based on just what little old me thinks it means. Chrisrus (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I believed Paddling bear was posting that because of his addition (twice), and my subsequent removal (twice), of C. rufus as a synonym in the taxobox. If not, I apologize and remove my grumbling attitude.

::::Chrisrus writes as if UtherSRG and I were in some kind of feud, when I am not. You were removing my attempt to add a synonym WHILE I was adding it, so I didn't know it was working, nor that someone was removing it on purpose. As I wrote, I saw the black bear page, and thought 'old' names like Euarctos was similar to an 'old' name of C. rufus. Uther may know more about taxonomy than I do, so I'm fine with his decision. I was trying to make it easier for people who went to the page and were expecting C. rufus to see that it was the same animal.

Uther, I'll admit that I don't understand your example. Your example of a synonym shows one distinct taxon being moved to a subpopulation of another, how is that different from C. rufus being a distinct taxon but being moved to a sub of C. lupus? Either way, I'm not arguing over it. The quotation from MSW3 had nothing to do with this 'arguement' that I didn't know was happening. I noticed most of the edits were years old, and one mentioned that more details were needed to clear up the debate over C. rufus vs. C. l. rufus. I thought posting it here would help people add parts as they could.because I know I don't have time to really work this over. I do think that genetics is causing a lot of debate and rethinking over taxonomy when the genetics don't fit the older morphometrics or other methods used to classify animals. Policy doesn't change fast either. Genetics can tell us things are MORE related than others, but there is not code that says 'species'. Paleontology finds evidence that red wolves were here before grey wolves crossed from Asia, so we need a theory that matches all evidence. Perhaps what the fossil evidence shows isn't clearly understood. I've seen a paper that estimates how long ago American black bears split from Asiatic black bears, which fits the fossils and the known opening of the Bering Strait pretty well. I don't know the wolf literature that well, but from reading the links, it's not that clear cut. We don't have many (or any) samples of pure red wolves, even the 14 they used to start the captive breeding project might have been hybrids of some level. I want this page to be clear about the debate so that it doesn't have to be edited every time a new paper comes out with a new viewpoint. Nature is a continuum while humans are trying to put distinct labels on things. All species originally start out as a population only slightly different than the parent group, something interupts the frequency of interbreeding and time builds up diverging genes until even if they could breed (like lions and tigres) they don't, in the wild. I agree with what Uther writes below, MSW3 is showing that the evidence is equivacal, and more data and analysis will be needed to clear it up. mt-DNA only shows the direct mother's line and y-chromosomes only show the direct father's line, we don't know what happend to the father's mother or the mother's father, etc. Are the wolf genes not from their common ancestor? I don't understand what humans have to do with the hybridization of wolves and coyotes. From the fossil evidence, I assumed the suspected hybridization of eastern wolves and coyotes happend a LONG time ago (fossils suggest coyotes were in the E. North America 10,000 years ago, but not in historic times). I could be wrong on the time that the geneticists were hypothesizing since I didn't read all the scientific literatuer, just some of the links. I surely didn't mean to start any arguement. I just know that there is a lot of room for debate on what the genetics mean, especially when the data is corrupted (as our source for red wolves are), that is why so many publications still debate it. If it was clear, it'd be over and we'd just site the final publication. I agree with Uther's problem with pigeonholing exactly. I don't think we are that far off.Paddling bear (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What I believe MSW3 states is that there is no strong evidence for any ranking of rufus: there's evidence to make it a species, a subspecies, or a hybrid. None of the options have any greater weight. Part of the problem is that there is a broad range of species concepts. Part of the problem is that all known samples of rufus mtDNA matches either lupus or latrans mtDNA as well. (mtDNA is passed from mother to child nearly intact, so the mtDNA shows that females of both latrans and lupus mated with males of the other species and that the offspring all formed a single population.) Part of the problem is that human habitation and killing has made resolution of the issue very difficult.

The species problem: One of the most simple species concepts are two populations of distinct organisms that can not interbreed to continue either of the populations. C. lupus is a species and C. latrans is a species. They can interbreed, but the results do no produce viable lupus nor viable latrans. What results is a hybrid: possibly rufus. (Think horse + donkey = mule.)

The subspecies problem: rufus can be shown (but is refuted) to be morphologically distinct from lupus, perhaps on the level of a species in distinction. The refutation says, "nah, it's not that much different".

The hybrid problem: While mules can not interbreed to make more mules, rufus interbreeds to make more rufus. rufus acts like a species, but may have been originally formed from a hybrid population, and has genetics and morphology somewhere in the species or subspecies range.

The author's conclusion was to take the middle of the road approach: there's too much similarity to call it a species, and too much stability to call it a hybrid, so for now we'll call it a subspecies until we can call it something else.

My take on it is that species/subspecies/hybrid definitions are too pigeonholing to cover ever existing population, and rufus is one of the biggest showing points for the issue. Indeed, the species concept was initially created and refined over many years before we had a good grasp of how DNA and gene transference works! Would rufus have come about if humans had never come to North America? We'll never know. Maybe yes, maybe no. Does rufus have a distinctive morphology? Maybe. How distinctive? Dunno. Does rufus have a distinctive genome? Not entirely: all rufus individuals can potentially be traced back to a lupus or latrans ancestor via its mtDNA. Given what choices we have (species, subspecies, or hybrid), I actually think subspecies is the worst answer. But my opinion is that of a layman. I think the best answer is to have some greater gradiation of terminology: we should abandon the simple terms "species" and "hybrid" and instead use terms that describe what kind of species or hybrid definition the population is. But to do so goes against some 300+ years of taxonomy! - UtherSRG (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah - one last thing: If it's a species, then rufus is listed as C. rufus. If it is a subspecies, then it is still the same population (named rufus), but it is listed as C. l. rufus. I believe animal hybrids are not given toxonomic nomenclature, even though plant hybrids are. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed hybrids for mammals are listed like "Ursus maritimus x U. horribilus" since they are usually individuals, unlike plants that hybridize more often, if it's habitual someone redefines the species (like they are working on now). But your not saying an individual hybrid, so it's either determined to be a subspp. of grey wolf as C. l. rufus, or it's determined to be something else. Paddling bear (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Geez, I love ambiguity! What a challange this article is! We do this job right and we'll have really done something awesome. Should we check another source before proceding? Which one(s)? (not too many, something newer....)

We can't do much better than we have: follow the respected published works, and describe the controversy. When the controversy is settled, we change to follow the settlement and perhaps keep the description of the previous controversy. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I was trying to help, not argue.--Paddling bear (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Subspecies of red wolf

Does anyone know a citation for the 3 subspecies? I've left it as it was, reather than adding it with the taxonomy, because the debate doesnt' seem to be at that level. Since 2 are extinct, I don't know if the 3 will be lumped under C. lupus rufus or if they'll all be equal subspp. of C. lupus. Does any of the pubs you guys have read even touch on that?--Paddling bear (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

MSW3 says "...(rufus, floridanus, gregoryi) should probably be best listed as incertae sedis..." That's all out the window now, I suppose, if they're coywolves. You'd figure they'd vary alot, I suppose, some more wolfish and other more coyotesque, so maybe it was a mistake to identify them as subspecies. Chrisrus (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a paper I read some years ago identifying the subspecies and discussing the concerns this brought to the Red Wolf Recovery Project. It may take a while to find it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CharmsDad (talk • contribs)

The original paper dsecribing the three subspecies was by mammalogist (and wolf expert) E.A. Goldman in 1937. I've added the reference in the main article (09/04/2011). The three exhibited a size cline east to west, with the largest being Floridanus. They may have also had an increasing size as they ranged north. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdelene (talk • contribs) 01:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nature and origin of this animal

With regard to this:

"... which once roamed throughout the Southeastern United States and is a glacial period survivor of the Late Pleistocene epoch"

MSW3, as I read it, seems to state that this is not the current explanation for this wolf with noticeably coyotesque genetic material and morphology. The new consensus seems to me to be that these facts are best explained by understanding the Red Wolf to be a coywolf, albeit one that tends to breed like a subspecies. They don't seem sure when this happened, but imply it could be a result of changes caused by humans in North America, and as such would or could be much younger than that epoch (which is when C. latrans and C. lupis diverged explaining why that epoch was assumed to have been when the divergence happened.

There are also several other places in the article where the older take on the nature and origin of the Red Wolf needs updating in this respect. Chrisrus (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd need more time to read up, because the fossil and genetic don't agree and fossil references I've seen are old. I can't combine the book I have that suggests red wolves evolved from a wolf-coyote while an earlier wolf-type, which suggests a common ancestor to wolves being a few million years ago (I'd have to check that) verse the genetics that suggest much closer relation. I couldn't tell if that meant the fossils weren't understood correctly or whether the post-European settlements just allowed these two similar animals to hybridize again, swamping the red wolf with grey wolf and coyote genes. Or am I totally misunderstanding this debate?--Paddling bear (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Nowak's point of view NOT a hybrid

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2386371Chrisrus (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That was 1992. How about something more modern, since our prime reference is from 2005? (And sign your talk edits, please!) - UtherSRG (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes,that's true. I'm working on it, feel free to help. I just found and read that and thought I'd leave it here, might be referred to as at least the historical arguement, later. Hey, what do you think about what I said in the secion just above?Chrisrus (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a 2002 paper by Nowak asserting (again) that they are not hybrids. He's still using morphometrics, which doesn't really answer the genetics debate. I think it's a question of how different is enough to be a subsppecies?--Paddling bear (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no known instances of red wolves and gray wolves hybridizing. Ecologically, this is unsupported. Only the eastern wolf, currently classified as Canis lupus lycaon, breeds with both gray wolves and coyotes. The red wolf is known to hybridize only with coyotes. If red wolves and coyotes share a common North American evolutionary history, one that led to a New World lineage of canids that came to look wolflike due to convergent evolution, then that may explain the propensity of red wolves to hybridize with coyotes. (Newly diverged species are more likely to cross with each other.) For an expanded discussion on this, see the Wilson 2000 reference in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdelene (talk • contribs) 01:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Very good article, I think.

http://www.wolfsongalaska.org/red_wolf.html

Extant Red "Wolves" are all part Coyote

Facts:

1. The decline of Red Wolves in North America was due to three factors: habitat destruction, hunting, and hybridization with Canis latrans (Coyotes). (1. Nowak, R. M. North American Quaternary Canis (Mongr. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, Lawrence,1979). 2. McCarley, H. Southwestern Naturalist 7, 227−235 (1962).
2. These hybrids became more numerous, adjusted well to live on the outskirts of human civilization, and moved eastward. (Citation One, Citation Two, and 3. Young, S. P. The Wolves of North America (Dover, New York, 1944); and 4. Lawrence, B. & Bossert, W. H. Am. Zool. 7, 223−232 (1967).
3. After Red Wolf extinction in the wild, (1967) a program started to re-introduce captive individuals to the wild. As a part of this program, scientists were contracted to design a way to distinguish between pure rufus and rufus/latrans hybrids.
4. The results of these findings was that all captive Red Wolves were hybrids.

But because the average substitution rate of mitochondrial DNA in mammals is much greater than that of nuclear genes6, mtDNA analysis is a more useful way of distinguishing closely related species. We have now analysed mtDNA restriction-enzyme sites and cytochrome b gene sequence variation in captive red wolves and in 77 canids sampled during the capture period. We also used the polymerase chain reaction to amplify and then sequenced mtDNA from red wolf skins collected before substantial hybridization of red wolves with coyotes is thought to have occurred. Phylogenetic analysis indicates that red wolves have either a grey wolf or coyote mtDNA genotype, demonstrating hybridization among these species. Thus, the red wolf is entirely a hybrid form or a distinct taxon that hybridized with coyotes and grey wolves over much of its previous geographical range.

[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v351/n6327/abs/351565a0.html%7C "Mitochondrial DNA analysis implying extensive hybridization of the endangered red wolf Canis rufus" R. K. Wayne Department of Biology, UCLA & S. M. Jenks Department of Physiology, U of C San Francisco, San Francisco, California 94143, USA Present address: Department of Psychology, UC Berkeley]

Chrisrus (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Red Wolf "Packs"

According to Smoky Mountains National Park "The red wolves are not pack-oriented like the gray wolf. Red wolves give birth to five to seven pups in April, but a few usually die. Parents raise the family together. As the pups mature, the family may remain together and appear to make a small pack."

Is this accurate? The Wiki page doesn't really say but it gives the impression that the young don't typically stay with their parents to form a "pack". You can find my source here. It is the second-to-last section.

Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Anybody there? I asked if Red wolves are more or less pack oriented than gray wolves? If the answer is unknown at this point or debated, telling me that would appease me, too. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

i wont to know WHY red wolves are "endangered" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.219.248 (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

this page dose NOT tell you about why they are endangered —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.219.248 (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Canis rufus?

That's wrong, it's concidered Canis lupus rufus, a subspecies of Gray Wolf with a certain percentage of latrans DNA. Please fix taxobox and text. Chrisrus (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature retains the Canis rufus designation. Isn't that what should go in the taxobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdelene (talk • contribs) 01:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

about the red wolves

i would like to know about these red wolves because i have to do a research on the red wolves and i need some help if you could please email me morganjcfcf272@aol.com thank you

please help me about the red wolves

i would like to know about these red wolves because i have to do a research on the red wolves and i need some help if you could please email me morganjcfcf272@aol.com thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.186.26 (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)