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? This article poses concern to me in that Minnesota is not mentioned at all in the article, though has, according to MN DNR one of the highest populations of wolves and wolf densities in the world. With 2600 wolves in just the northern half of the state, MN has more wolves than all of Western Europe and the Middle East, yet both maps provided show only a marginal population. In addition much of the research done for the article comes from Dr. David Mech, of MN, the international Wolf Center in MN and various other sources which relies on MN long and sustainable wolf population. This is particularly important as discussions of wolf classification and hunting rages throughout the US. West. With only around 500 wolves in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, an area much larger than Northern Minnesota, the argument of needing to hunt wolves, when compared to wolf management and cohabitation with humans seems to be put in a new light. I fear that not including both the realities of the MN wolf population, population density and realistic maps undercut both the human and wolf possibilities that do exist currently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megiziii (talk • contribs) 05:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

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 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)

"Timber Wolf" redirects here, and there is no mention whatsoever anywhere in the article any more of the "Timber Wolf." -Artificial Silence (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Chrisrus (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Yeah, it's fixed. Anyone searching for the ambiguous term "Timber wolf" is sent to the Timber Wolf disambiguation page. Sorry about that, and thanks for pointing this out. Chrisrus (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Captive vs Wild social structures

As you may have noticed, the new Shaun Ellis (wolf researcher) book is used as a reference. His insights into wolf social behaviour is deep, but based on captive wolves. He consistently uses the terms "alpha", "beta" etc., and stresses the importance of "beta" individuals acting as "bouncers" or "security guards" when assessing whether or not strange wolves (or handlers) are trustworthy enough to be accepted into the pack, something which does not appear in the recent works by L. David Mech and others who study wild wolves.

The point is, should there be two sections on social behaviour? One for wild wolves, another for captive ones?Mariomassone (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Mario;

Please read and consider joining the thread on the discussion page for the article dog section “pack structure”. It goes to this question above and how we present the facts about canid social structure to the reader.

In my mind, it comes down to this: is David Mech correct to assume that if we use terms like "social hierarchy," or "alpha, beta, gamma, delta" will this imply violence in the minds of the readers?

If so, some kind of disclaimer should be added, that even though these terms do accurately describe canid social groups, this is only the case if the reader does not assume that this is always created by violence, that there are other ways such a hierarchy can be maintained other than violence.

Now you and I know that social hierarcies can be formed in canids by body language or the kind of gentle domination mothers give puppies or just a nature of individual animals to simply adopt or accept a hierarchy. I never assumed that the use of the term "hierarchy" or "alpha, beta, delta", etc. implied violence. In my case, when I read about canid social structure and see these terms used, I never assume that there must have been these dramatic battles he refers to “in literature” and these terms have never implied any such thing in my mind, so Mech’s “corrections” to scientific understanding of canid societies just caused me to shrug and figure he must be talking to someone else, someone who had understood those terms in that way, apparently himself! His "corrections" must be for someone who grew up reading some novels about wolves that I never read, (White Fang wasn’t a member of that family to begin with, he was an outsider who wanted in, so that case doesn’t apply). I grew up watching nature shows on TV and living in human society around lots of dogs, so I always assume that wolf packs were just families and therefore came with ready-made alphas, the mom and dad, and that most of the “violence” wasn’t really violence at all but just a lot of gesturing and posturing or during play-fights that test the strongest, or hierarchies were established by the force of personality that allows Diva the Pekingese to dominate not only my spaniel Casey but every other dog in the entire neighborhood including Zander the hugely powerful boxer/pit bull mix; or like my mother’s ability to make to hop to it when she said “take out the trash” though she never laid a hand on me.

So Mech’s “revelations” about canid societies to me added nothing to my personal understanding of canid societies, and I guess not yours either, but there is something important for these articles in them ‘’’if’’’ it is true that terms such as “social hierarchy” and “alpha, beta, etc.” come with them the danger of creating this whole dramatic scenario of violence in the minds of our readers, as he claims. If so, the entire significance for the articles might be easily dealt with by using some kind of disclaimer, maybe just a footnote stateing otherwise.

However, it seems to me that, from my experience on Wikipedia, another quite different type of disclaimer would be very helpful. It should be made clear to the readers that NOTHING Mech has said implies in any way that social hierarchies don’t exist among canid societies, that unfortunately if you’re sort of an anarchist by nature as I am, we cannot look to the wolves for an example of an equalitarian model of society, or for proof that letting your dog look at you as a beta to him shouldn’t cause problems, because some people seem to be walking away from his presentations with that impression, perhaps forgivably given the way he presents these ideas.

So thank you for hearing me out and I hope this helps in some way. Keep up the good work; if I stop sending you those “thanks…” messages every time you improve something, please assume I had, because it’s just that it got to be a bit much sending them to you so often, and so please take it for granted that I am watching and find the process fascinating and educational and appreciate everything that you do, and you have an audience out here and so “Thanks…for your contribution to all the canid articles!” should be assumed from me from here on out.

Canis lupus dingo

P.s. Please check out some day Canis lupus dingo, which is in need of expert attention. What are the anatomical and genetic markers that unite all C.l.dingo from all C.l.familiaris, or is there some kind of natural/artificial selection predominance that would put such animals as the Thai Ridgeback, a breed which was bred from C.l.dingos, in the latter taxon? Wikipedia has to get this straight, all our dogboxes come with "Canis lupus familiaris" pre-loaded, yet Laurie Corbett has put not only that ridgeback but also the Telomian, New Guinea Singing Dog, Carolina Dog and several others as C.l. dingo. Chrisrus (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Towards a clearer picture

Chrisrus, These taxons ebb and flow like the tide. I've said 20 times that there is no universal agreement on the Cld and Clf designations. As to wiki, yes there needs to be a change so there is some flexibility. Wiki is behind it seems, on the latest trend for "dingo types" to go with Cld. ISIS is also off track perhaps as they classify New Guinea Singing Dogs as C l Hallstromi. Just rearrange the words a bit and you'll find someone who agrees with it. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus, BTW, we applaud your work toward moving dogs from familiaris to dingo. There are still some inequities involved, but it looks as though text explanations are the best ways to handle them. This kinship of dingoes throughout an extended area of the world is most interesting and gratifying. I simple find it odd that great scientific minds have not made the corrections and connections over the years. We are extremely upset with the entire scientific community for the slipshod way they have treated dingo type dogs(in truth, they have not treated them at all, but rather have ignored them.) At any rate, as conservators of New Guinea Singing Dogs, we really do appreciate your efforts and those of others who have taken a genuine interest in these animals. My wife and I have 14 Singers right now, down from a high of 22. Some of our Singers are very old. Some are young. Everyday when we minister to their physical needs we also talk with them and reassure them that they are not alone or forgotten but that there actually are some humans who have their best interests in mind. In the 20 plus years we have known Singing Dogs we have seen interest in the dingo types start to perk, attracting more and more people willing to help in their conservation. Articles that you have aided contribute to the available knowledge about these animals and thus boost interest in overall conservation efforts. Thank you! osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, forget taxonomy for a second. It has too many legitimate ways of looking at things. Let’s think and talk in terms of Cladistics, which is not hard to do, you just have to imagine things in terms of a tree-shaped diagram, like an upside-down family tree. These Canis lupus articles have to be organized so that a person walks away from it with the understanding that one gets when you walk into the | the animal exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History in NYC, they have this big evolutionary tree at the beginning and with smaller versions emphasizing where on that “tree” you are as you go from exhibit to exhibit. That way, you always know where you are. People get lost in these articles in places because it’s hard to see how everything relates and fits together because they don’t have Clade diagrams. They are not hard to make, and each of the articles should have one that comes along with the taxobox.

The problem with that that I foresee is that, in some cases, such as the Red Wolf, Eastern Wolf and Doberman Pincher, the branches meld back together after having separated for a while, and your simplest clade-drawing programs don’ t seem to allow for that. But we could still discuss it here if everyone had the same basis of thinking and envisioned it the same. Actually, this conversation is not about this article, it’s only taking place here because the referent we call Canis lupus is the father. What would be the ideal place to discuss this, Wiki-project Dogs? Chrisrus (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you are talking about a global change to the taxobox, WikiProject Tree of Life is the place to discuss adding a "tree" diagram to the taxobox.Coaster1983 (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. That indeed was one thing I was talking about and very much would like to talk about more where you suggest.

The other might be a new dogbreedbox that doesn't necessarily come with Canis lupus familiaris already pre-packaged, take it or leave it, with no option for articles like Telomian, Thai Ridgeback, New Guinea Singing Dog, Caanan dog, Carolina Dog, or even Thai Dingo (which doesn't exist, yet, a huge lacuna that I need help filling), or actually even Australian Dingo that either clearly are Canis lupus dingo or arguably are. That's a topic for maybe the dog project or somewhere.

And the third thing I was talking about was this, the referents C.l.dingo and C.l.familiaris, how did that work, clade-wise? Because it looks like, despite what some articles around here might tell you, that all familiaris come from dingo, that C.l.dingoes from any country are basically nothing but the original familiaris, an animal that had just been domesticated, not a pet or a helper, but a commensal animal still wearily on the edges of human society, and animal whose existence as a separate kind of animal is owed to it's relationship with man, but not really a fully domesticated animal like my spaniel, for example. So this is a discussion we should probably take to the talk page of Canis lupus dingo. Chrisrus (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Alpha and Omega

Wolves hunt in packs,and the pack can have more than 6 wolves in it.There are two complete oppisites in the pack,the alpha and omega. The alpha is the leader and the strongest of the pack.Regular wolves of the pack fear the alpha so does the omega but there is a differance between the omega and the alpha.Omega is the weakest of the pack.The regular wolves pick on the omega.MetalShark (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you even read the social behaviour section of the article? Mariomassone (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Subspecies in picture

I love the lead picture. Does anyone know which subspecies it is? Chrisrus (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No description is given in the info box, except that the user who uploaded it is norwegian. Supposing the specimen was photographed in the wild in Norway, then the only candidates are the Eurasian Wolf or Tundra Wolf. Just looking at it, I'd say it was the latter, but I wouldnt wager anything.Mariomassone (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Norwegian? Was his name Tom? Chrisrus (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Original uploader was Chris Muiden at nl.wikipediaMariomassone (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The deleted file description page on nl.wikipedia doesn't contain any additional information. The user who uploaded it is not Norwegian, and no wolfs occur in the wild in the Netherlands. Ucucha 06:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Wolves as pets

FTA: " While dogs typically alter their behaviours to accommodate their handlers, the opposite is true for tame wolves." What exactly is the opposite ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.71.114.220 (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The owners have to modify their behaviours to accomodate the wolves.Mariomassone (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Gray Wolves

In the introduction for [Coyote] it says "Unlike its cousin the Gray Wolf, which is Eurasian in origin, the coyote evolved in North America during the Pleistocene epoch 1.81 million years ago[7]." Am I correct in understanding that this means that Gray wolves are not native to North America? Are they an invasive species brought by white settlers? Or does it mean that when the European continent and North American continent shifted and touched each other millions of years ago, some gray wolves left Europe and settled in North America? I'm confused because I've never heard anyone say that gray wolves aren't native to North America.

Also, for the person talking about Alphas and Omegas. I read somewhere that there are not Omegas in wild wolf packs. They only exist in man-made wolf packs where unrelated wolves who weren't raised together are forced to live with each other. The phrase-title "barely tolerated and barely allowed to live" is more appropriate than the status-term "Omega". As for captive wolves, being the omega doesn't mean that the wolf is the weakest in the pack. It is the scapegoat, the sin eater, the outsider. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the background, but it most likely means that the species Canis lupus originally evolved in Eurasia, and only later spread naturally to North America. On these timescales, continental drift is irrelevant, and gray wolves certainly weren't introduced to North America by settlers. Ucucha 19:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that settlers bringing wolves to America was pretty stupid -- because Europeans hated European wolves -- but they had to be introduced either by natural forces or human forces, so I had to ask. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Canis Lupus Dingo

I have to challenge editors of this article to provide proof regarding the first two lines of this article wherein it states that Canis lupus dingo are domesticated. Please provide proof of this origin for Canis lupus dingo. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Are there any references that counter these claims of domestification? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see Australian Dingo, which gives MSW3 (Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M., eds. (2005). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494.) as a ref for this and discusses the point thoroughly. As there seems no doubt that dingos were brought to Oz by humans, they must have been domesticated to some extent at one time at least. Richard New Forest (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Oldsingerman20, it would probably be better to say that Cld _were_ domesticated. Few would be considered tame now. Note that there are feral Clf as well.Ordinary Person (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The dingo is domesticated in the sense that it was physically and behaviourally altered as all dogs are to suit human interests (indeed, compared to Asian wolves, dingoes have piebald coats, small brains and mate with other dog breeds readily). As to whether or not they are "tame" is another story Mariomassone (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Mario, where in the world did you ever get the idea that AU Dingoes were altered by man? WHO exactly physically and behaviorally altered AU Dingoes? Are you sure that humans altered them or was it their environment? Quite the contrary. Richard, Yes they were most likely brought by man, maybe, but then, those travelers could have transported wild, undomestcated dogs just as easily as they could have traansported tamed ones they raised in they back yards. The truth is, there is no one who can look back 3,500 years and be certain of it. As for MSW3, they are even wishy-washy about all of it because it's such a debated subject. If you're going to put in the article that AU Dingoes evolved from feral domesticated dogs, then kindly also put in there that there are many people who disagree with that fantasy. I see no reason for wiki to perpetuate ideas that are unfounded. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that you all tire of my arguements. For that reason and also for the fact that arguing with you takes a lot of time and at my age every hour has value, I'm going to cease my arguements. Leave things as they are, incorrect or not. Just be advised that I want to go on record as having opposed lumping AU Dingoes and NGSD into a group wherein they obviously do not fit. I know there are those of you who agree with me on this and maybe you can figure out a way to at least give unknowing readers an option of ideas. I do think that those people who believe the AU Dingoes and NGSD are feral, wild, and pariah will one day have to eat crow and will be recorded in history as having an adverse affect upon those two breeds' survival. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(This discussion really belongs at Talk:Dingo...) Oldsingerman: are you seriously suggesting that hunter-gatherer people would bring a truly wild dog across the sea in a dugout canoe, drag it on a bit of string across numerous Indonesian islands and into and out of more canoes, then having got to Oz, untie the string and say "shoo!"? Oh, of course not just one, but enough to start a population, and for some reason leaving all other wild animals behind. If you can find a authoritative ref for this theory, then yes, we do need to change this and the dingo article. However, I don't really see what objection you can have for the obvious alternative theory: hunter-gatherer people had hunting dogs which they valued enough to take with them wherever they went (as hunter-gatherer people do), and some of them established themselves in the wild in Australia. This does not necessarily mean they were nearly as strongly domesticated as most modern dogs, and indeed we do know that they were still "wild" enough to become fully feral, which is unusual in other dogs (I think perhaps unknown). Richard New Forest (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Richard, The fact is that no one can reach back to the time of ancient travelers and discern what happened. I do know, as do many others, that there is sometimes a fine line between "tamed" and "domesticated". Whose to say? Thing is, wording in these articles needs to be unprejudiced so that readers can either see both sides of arguements or neither side at all. Sometimes ignorance is bliss. To blatantly say AU Dingo and NGSD are descended from feral domestic dogs may be accurate, but then again, it may not. One thing is certain, AU Dingo and NGSD have had thousands of years to develop without any domestication, period. Both AU Dingo and NGSD very nature is human avoidance. That is part of their natural makeup. Avoiding human contact is quite evident even in the captive Singer population. We have proven thundreds of times that if Singers are not "tamed" as puppies they are very difficult to make human friendly later in life. Singing Dogs learned long, long ago to stay clear of humans. That is why we embrace Peter Fleming's definition of commensal eg: "developed independent of humans..." rather than the other thoughts regarding commensalism which say that"where one benefits and the other is unaffected." Simple observation of captive Singers(and I can't speak for AU Dingoes) says immediately that even "semi-tamed" Singers couldn't care less about humans. They prefer to be left alone to their own devices and will escape whenever there is the slightest opportunity. They not only do not need human contact, they loath it. Those of us who have succeeded in making over Singers into people friendly companion dogs have generally done so by starting the socialization process at an early age. Now, let me say yes, I think ancient travelers took Singer ancestors as food for the journey. If I were an ancient traveler knowing I might be out a long time, I would take tamed and bred female canines along as food for the journey. She could survive on meat from other dogs carried along and she would be a renewable food source. As for turning enough of them lose to populate NG or AU, Wilton etal in their last DNA article in 2010 states quite clearly that DNA sampling shows the entire Dingo population in AU and NG evolved from as few as one single pregnant female. Not only that, modern Singers can escape from enclosures and slip out of leads and harnesses so easily it'll make your head spin and I doubt that they were any dumber several thousand years ago. So you see Richard, even though you make fun of my ideas, they are not quite as far fetched as you would want others to believe. The problem, of course, is how to adequately convey information to readers that gives an accurate account of things. Of course most all of this is theory and conjecture. I think what we have to do is look at the specimens we have nowadays and help readers realize that AU Dingo and NGSD did not evolve in the same manner as other Dingoes. Even the American Dingo has had more human contact, more "domestication" than either AU Dingo or NGSD. As far as we can tell, both AU Dingo and NGSD were virtually left alone by the native human populations of NG and AU. The humans and dogs coexisted without bothering each other. They developed side by side with little interference from each other. What to do about it? I dunno. It seems writers are bound and determined to lump all dingo types together even though their development during the last several thousand years has varied. There are other differences as well. Singers are not pack animals. They prefer to live alone or in pairs. Singers cycle once yearly unless they don't breed, then they will come back in heat again. Nature's way of producing offspring to perpetuate. The physical mechanism for producing their unique howl is unlike any other animal. Tamed as puppies, they do not just "tolerate" humans. They bond with them. So, given these differences alone, please try to understand why those of us who have dedicated large portions of our lives to these dogs ponder the ways they are viewed by the average reader. We must not allow Singers to viewed as "just another feral dog." That would be so very wrong and could ultimately contribute to the extinction of a unique animal. All I'm saying is to please, please either educate yourselves about Singers before you write about them or enlist the help of those of us who do know about them. The problems are with "good" citations, I know, but sometimes it is better to say nothing in an article than to present only one side. And yes, I know the wiki rules, but it might be better morally to say nothing as to say something that will harm the 2-3 hundred remaining animals, words that would set readers against the animals and contribute to their extinction. There are those wiki editors who do not think Singers or AU Dingoes are unique. Sadly, these people are either prejudiced for one reason or another or they are simply ignorant. Please inform, not prejudice. Just off the cuff, I would estimate there are less than 50 NGSD worldwide in the captive population that are breeding able. That is, intact and young enough to conceive and whelp. That's counting all of them in zoos as well as in private hands and that's not saying aword about inbreeding or genetic diversity. There are maybe another 100-125 worldwide that are either too old to breed or are spayed and neutered. We have not idea what is in the wilds of PNG. Maybe now you can see why we are so deeply concerned. It is absolutley essential that writers such as yourself put forth a postive image. Science has not been very beneficial to NGSD. It's going to take a positive attitude by the general public if they are to be saved and you are the people who can make the difference. You don't have to tell me this discussion belongs in Dingo ro NGSD. I think this discussion belongs right here where dogs originated. There are some really great editors here who truly know their stuff about wolves, but maybe, just maybe, they as I have limited themselves. What I'm saying is that I know nothing about wolves and very little about dingoes other than NGSD and maybe, just maybe, there are other editors who are also limited. Anyway, those are my thoughts. The Singing Dogs and I appreciate your patience. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting stuff. Just three points:

• If your theory about dingos as walking larders has reliable refs, please include them. If not, it is not verifiable. Personally I think it sounds most unlikely: why not use the dog to catch a tree kangaroo or two? How many dogs would you need to take, if all they're eating is other dogs? It also fails Occam's razor: it is an unnecessarily complex explanation, when a simpler explanation fits the facts.
• Take care not to confuse con(sub)specificity with exact identity. In other words, just because dingos and NGSDs are considered to be the same subspecies does not necessarily mean that they are considered to be the same in all respects. King Charles Spaniels and Huskies are the same subspecies, but no-one expects them to have the same behaviour, history, or potential to become feral (I think we're all probably safe from feral toy spaniels...). Different strains or breeds of the same (sub)species can still be valued perfectly well in their own right.
• Wikipedia is not the place to put forward either positive or negative images. It is an encyclopaedia, and should be strictly factual, dispassionate and objective, written from a neutral point of view.

Richard New Forest (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I don't have any response for you. I think your remarks speak volumes by themselves and will stand alone. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Polygamy and infanticide?

The reproduction section says that "polygamy" is common in captive specimens and multiple litters often don't survive because of "infanticide" by the females. Both these terms are extremely anthropomorphic. I mean, would a wolf, a wild animal, really be considered homicidal for killing her offspring. A wolf doesn't know any better, so it is not the same as a human mother strangling her baby. There are no homicidal maniacs in nature. And polygamy relates to marriage, but a mated pair would not be considered a married couple, it is simply sexual instinct. Someone should edit this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.175.248 (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Both words are used in zoology. See Infanticide (zoology) for more info.Mariomassone (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from SOLMSL, 27 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}
The Map that shows the present distribution of grey wolves is incorrect. In South Korea, wild wolves are believed to have gone extinct since 1930s but the map indicates that they are still present in that region.

SOLMSL (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

 Note: SOLMSL is presumably referring to the map under Gray_wolf#Range_and_populations, which is ultimately based on this map from the IUCN Red List, presumably a very high-quality source, which does show the Gray wolf present in South Korea. However, the range map in the Taxobox shows South Korea in red, indicating former range. I can't tell where this map is sourced from. I need to run now – I'm just writing this for the benefit of anyone else following up this request – but SOLMSL, if you could cite a source that supports what you say that would be terrific. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

And another thing, the subspecies map includes geographic variants which are no longer recognised by MSW3.Mariomassone (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide some more information & detail (as in the reference/source for such a change). By the way, any autoconfirmed user (usually accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits) are considered autoconfirmed and can edit a semi-protected article. Shearonink (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"...from Canada to the Northern Rocky Mountains..."

While re-reading the section under discussion above, I noticed that it says "...from Canada to the Northern Rocky Mountains..." What can this mean? I think it means from Canadan Rockies in those US Rockies adjecent to the Canadian Rockies. Chrisrus (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Eye colors

I think its important that the possible eye colors that a wolf can have be mentioned, because many people think that wolves can have blue eyes when really the culprit for these blue eyed wolves is most likely them having green eyes and being in the path of sunlight making them appear blue. ItsWolfeh (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I found a source that talks about the eye colors, if anyone wants to add the information, since its locked.... http://www.runningwiththewolves.org/Anatomy.htm ItsWolfeh (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I once encountered a black wolf outside of Fairbanks, Alaska. At a distance of ~1½ feet, I got a good look into his eyes. They were exactly the color of reindeer moss, the lichen that is the major ground cover in the arctic. I was impressed by his movement away from me. Staying face toward me, he seem to float away as his legs waved like reeds in the wind across the ice. My Flatley (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection

I see the lack of stable versions is still causing our our most important pages to be locked down. When is this article due to be unlocked? Wikileadspresident (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Misleading

In the article under attacks by wolves it is stated that wolves can distinguish between armed and unarmed persons. This is simply not true as written. The source given specifically states that the wolf can distinguish between a hunter and a passerby. The passerby could be armed, while the hunter, as referenced, is looking for the wolf. I found it implausible that a wolf could see a man and know he is carrying. Therefore, I followed the link given, #219, and found it to be misrepresented in the article.Bikercj (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).--Danger (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

mortality due to territorial fights

The Article states:

"Territorial fights are among the principal causes of wolf mortality: one study on wolf mortality in Minnesota and the Denali National Park and Preserve concluded that 14–65% of wolf deaths were due to predation by other wolves.[92]"

92 points to ^ Huber, Đuro Huber; Josip Kusak, Alojzije Frković, Goran Gužvica. "Causes of wolf mortality in Croatia in the period 1986–2001" (PDF). Veterinarski Arhiv 72 (3): 131–139. http://www.environmental-studies.de/Wolf_mortality_Croatia.pdf. Retrieved 2007-07-20.

So this is study about Croatia, and not about the Denali National Park and Preserve which is in Alaska. So either the biography linking is incorrect, or the sentence is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.49.167 (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Read the file. It is mentioned there. Mariomassone (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Scientific news

Hi All, here are some scientific news from the Wolf Science Center about Gaze Following Abilities, please see the article in Science now and the original paper in PLoS ONE Development of Gaze Following Abilities in Wolves (Canis Lupus) Cheers, SlartibErtfass der bertige (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

the good and bad in gray wolfs

may the gray wolf be bad or good they are loveing creatures and if your good with dogs and wild life they may make good pets but do have to be carefull makeing them your pet i would get one from a wild life pet center were there not as wild they can be killers and as for them being bad there hunters they need to hunt if they attack man or woman its from us entering there land its becoeming more and more of deal with evey kind of creature they kill cows sheep what ever it may be from them hunting and as for pet i guess they got in there way i don't know that one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.110.103 (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Japanese Translation

Towards the bottom in the cultural significance of wolves section, the article states that ookami, as wolves are called, means great god in Japanese. This is incorrect. The ookami for wolf is written with the character 狼 (or in katakana as オオカミ) while "great god" is 大神. They are homophones. Some people have noted and punned on the sound - the video game Okami, for example, stars a wolf, but is written the second way since the wolf is the incarnation of the sun goddess Amaterasu - which is where the confusion for English speakers may have arisen.

I propose that the reference to great god be removed - though the cultural significance of wolves in Japanese culture is valid and could remain.

Himejijo (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Indian wolf by cknara (2).jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Indian wolf by cknara (2).jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Confusing statement about common ancestory with the the domestic dog.

The statement, "DNA sequencing and genetic drift studies reaffirm that the gray wolf shares a common ancestry with the domestic dog" is misleading, suggesting other than the statement in the domestication section, "wolves are the exclusive ancestral species to dogs".

It would be quite a small change but would improve the quality of the article noticeably. Mashzeroth (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Or maybe even easier for the reader "...is the animal from which dogs were bred" or "...were domesticated" or ever "The DNA shows that dogs come from wolves" or some such even simpler, non-technical language that would still be accurate.Chrisrus (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Aiming to be accurate but non-technical, I changed it to "Genetic studies reaffirm that the gray wolf is the ancestor of the domestic dog." More detail is in the Domestication section Mashzeroth (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Social structure paragraph in the introduction

I changed the social structure paragraph in the introduction to be more concise and to get away from the scientifically unsupported aggressive hierarchy model of wolf behaviour⁶³Mashzeroth (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

change in article's name

The article should be called "Canis Lupus", because one of the subspecies of "Canis Lupus" is the domestic dog, and it is not a wolf. Please understand the change that has to be made. Althought they are mostly considered the same species, wolves are wolves and dogs are dogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cid Campeador3 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Per the note at the very top, this page covers all subspecies of Canis lupus besides C. lupus familiaris and C. lupus dingo (domestic dogs and dingo. Thus, the title Canis lupus would not be appropriate. --Danger (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the confusion may be that the article doesn't describe a proper clade. Dogs are a subspecies of wolf, but not all wolves are dogs and those that aren't are the topic of this article. (I struck my above comment because you wrote the note and thus have obviously read it.) It seems non-ideal to me. Is it standard to refer to "the grey wolf" in the scientific literature? --Danger (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Article is Very Well Written, But Some Paragraphs Are Way Too Long

Some of those huge paragraphs (lower down in the article) need to broken into smaller paragraphs, for example, the section "Hunting and feeding behaviours" has a 30 line paragraph in it. Even some of the other, considerably shorter-than-30-line paragraphs are still a bit too long. Most people need shorter paragraphs when reading.

Otherwise, its a well-written and very informative article.

69.171.160.116 (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This article should reviewed for featured status

The article covers pretty much everything on the wolf and is well sourced (page numbers and all). I did not contribute to it, so if I nominated it, would the users that did be willing to respond to / handle whatever the reviewer comes up with? LittleJerry (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that good article status is probably doable, but I don't think that this is likely to pass at FA. --Danger (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

LittleJerry, please review the advice Andy Walsh gave you on your talk page, here. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, what if I give it a GA nomination. LittleJerry (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Facultative carnivores

It should say that they are facultative carnivores. And they are, because of their teeth. 65.43.225.183 (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC) Anonymous

Dubious hatnote

The thing is, "Canis lupus" used to be just wolves, but now includes dogs. But even though taxonomy has merged the wolf and the dog, we don't merge the articles wolf and dog. Canis lupus directs here because most people who search for "Canis lupus are looking for this article. Chrisrus (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Section: subspecies

Just removed this sentence − formerly the last sentence in this section:

Though different in behaviour and morphology, northern and southern wolves can still interbreed: the Zoological Gardens of London for example once successfully managed to mate a male European wolf to an Indian female, resulting in a cub bearing an almost exact likeness to its sire.

because: 1. am sure the writer had in mind a cross-breeding between a male European wolf and a female Indian wolf but surely not an Indian female (-- how funny ¿); 2. even if 1. is true, this one-time incident is not relevant in this section about subspecies; 3. the referenced source -- The Living Age, Littell, Son and Co., 1851 -- is so very vage as author, title of article, volume and page nos. of this journal is missing; at least 2 volumes, namely 30 and 31 were published in 1851. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As subspecies, it would only be worth mentioning if the cross breeding attempt had failed. Chrisrus (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Section: anatomy.

Under Anatomy, Description should be one of the first paragraphs . The basic information of height and weight is more useful to the majority of readers than the amount of food its intestines can hold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malitic (talk • contribs) 14:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead (lede) sentence

The gray wolf, is the largest existing member of the dog family of carnivorous mammals, the Canidae.

It is also known as the Arctic wolf, the common wolf, the Mexican wolf, the Plains wolf, the timber wolf, and the Tundra wolf.

Please have a look at this lead sentence(s) and feel free to edit the above, or comment below.

Section Set aside for comments on the above text, which you should feel free to edit

Please have a look at these subject complements; nouns or noun phrases that refer to the subject of the sentence: Chrisrus (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hyponym Removal

Several of these are not full synomyms, but rather hyponyms, because they link to specific subspecies:

1. Artic Wolf
2. Mexican Wolf
3. Tundra Wolf

Let's remove these. Ok, that's done.

Next, please click on timber wolf. It is an ambiguous term, but consistantly seems to be referring to a particular sub-group of wolf. Let's remove that.

Ok, that's done. Now, please consider the red link plains wolf. Here we don't have a redirect to any other article or disambiguation page, but I'm abaout to remove that one as well, and I'll tell you why. If you see above in context, it seems to be a sort of informal taxonomy of North American wolves: those of the forests, wolves of the desert, the tundra, the arctic, or the plains. This seems to correspond to the subspecies of Canis lupus in some crude part, but it seems pretty clear that "plains wolf" is an attempt at another hyponym of some kind. More importantly, we have no proof that this is a synomym for "Gray Wolf".

Ok, that's done. Now let's turn our eye to the term "common wolf", another red link. I just did a Google Scholar search for the term in quotes, and I was able to find this: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1948.tb00558.x/abstract. It does indeed seem to be another term for "gray wolf". Could someone who is an expert please check? I'm pretty sure it does, however, so I'm going to use this to cite that term, and create a redirect for the red link to make it blue and send the user to this article, on the basis of this one citation alone. Please do check up on me and let me know if I should undo what I'm about to do. Chrisrus (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 March 2012

Please change "In contrast to dog pups, which are able to be socialised to humans at up to ten weeks of age, wolf pups are unable to do so after 19 days" to "While dog pups still have the ability to be socialized at up to ten weeks of age, nineteen days may be too long to wait to begin socializing a wolf pup."

This is what the Coppinger source actually says on page 22: "Wolf biologist Eric Zimen in Germany found that when he attempted to socialize his captive wolf pups after they had reached about nineteen days, he never succeeded. Compare that with a dog, which still has the ability to be socialized with humans at ten weeks of age."

My revision more accurately states the proposition for which the source is being cited, and I think the original sentence is pretty confusing.

Thajjar (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done by User:Pinethicket. — Bility (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gray wolf/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LittleJerry (talk · contribs) 16:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Article looks good overall, however there are a few things that need to be fixed.

• The lede doesn't seem complete enough. It should also summarise their anatomy, appearence and communication. Also, the first and second paragraphs should be merged as they both talk at the wolf's historical range and persecution.

• The first, third and fourth paragraphs of the "Evolution section" as well as the last paragraph of the "Enemies and competitors" subsection, could use more cites. There are large chunks of information without cites inbetween.

• The citation for Japanese wolves does not have page cites.

• This is in marked contrast to the feeding behaviours of dholes and African wild dogs, who give priority to their pups when feeding. This line cites an book on dholes. Does it even mention African dogs?

• I don't suppose "hackles" needs to be linked.--GoShow (...............) 00:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess I had to fix it myself. The book on Japanese wolf is a minor issue for GA anyway.

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: LittleJerry (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

OR-7, Journey the Wolf

See OR-7 if interested in expanding the article about this individual wolf. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Addicted to livestock

"certain wolves may become "addicted" to livestock, as the stomach lining of domestic ungulates has a higher calorific value than that of wild herbivores". What does that even mean? In what sense are these wolves addicted? Do they suffer withdrawal symptoms? And how can stomach lining have a higher calorific value? Stomach lining is glandular tissue, how can the calorific value vary between mammal species? And even if it does, how does that lead to wolves becoming addicted to livestock? Do they perhaps smoke the stomach lining? Mainline it? The entire sentence is one gigantic non sequitur.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This article needs a re-write anyway, considering it uses Shaun Ellis as a source, and doesn't say anything about wolf genetics. I'll get to it ASAP.Mariomassone (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Size

You guys are way off. The Montana wolve population was nearly zero, and so Alaskan Wolves were introduced to the area. The population swelled(And the elk population decreased, the smaller wolves who were barely known were killed off. We've been allowed to kill a few, and some were over 230 pounds, both male. I can get a picture if you'd like, and you tell me it's not over 200(It's bigger than the man).--Not a user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.238.157 (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What part exactly are you saying is "way off"? Chrisrus (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, wasn't very clear. The size. Thought it was kind of self explanatory, but I guess I wasn't too clear. Just the size. It says the largest one was 190 lbs. We've got wolves over 200 where I am now. I'll try and make sure it's all true, and get a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.238.157 (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Great article

I do find it confusing to have the article be covering essentially all wolves (Arabian and such not), but not dogs or red wolves (which may really be coyotes anyway). Maybe some sort of graphic. Not nesc a clade, but just an explanatory graphic of article coverage would be helpful. It is also inherently confusing to talk about a gray wolf, when really that means "wolf".69.255.27.249 (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Re-write coming up

For some months now, I've been in the process of re-writing this article in my sandbox (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mariomassone/sandbox ). It is nearly finished now, but I'll give you some time to browse through it and give input.

Changes include:

• Complete removal of Shaun Ellis reference. The man's an obvious quack.
• More detail on wolf evolution in India.
• How the eastern and red wolf relate to gray wolves (i.e., they've been proven to be hybrids and not distinct species).

Mariomassone (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks great. Just if you could update the old map, which seems to have been done back in the days before the Red Wolf was included in C.lupus. I'm looking at the blank space in the southeast USA.

By the way, does anyone have any thoughts on the blank space in southeast Asia? What explains that wolves never lived there? What's the connection with C.l. dingo? Chrisrus (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There aren't any spaces between the paragraphs in the subsections discussing wolves in Europe and Asia, also why are the sentences in "Viral and bacterial infections" formatted that way? Other than those, prefectly fine. LittleJerry (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. I shall apply the new version of the article in two days time, just to give other users more time to check it out and give input.Mariomassone (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've postponed applying the changes for now, as I've just come across the International Wolf Center's magazine pdfs on its main website. I'll browse through them to see if there's anything worth adding.Mariomassone (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The blank space including Florida chould be colored in and marked "C.l.rufus", as that is it's traditional range. The problem with that is recently we learned that every single living individual has been tested and shown to be part Coyote. This article and the slated replacement both explain this, but maybe not as bluntly as they maybe should, and the MSW3 comments at the Canis lupus make me sympathetic as to the impossiblity of their situation as the taxonomic authority on mammals forced to decide as we are whether rufus is a lupus or not. As Red Wolves are called and generally thought of as "wolves" and clearly mostly genetically lupus they maded the call to go with lupus and add explanitory comments, so maybe they have made the decision for us and we therefore should put them on the traditional C.lupus range map, maybe with an asterix to respect their comments that it's also C.latrans.

The blank space in Southeast Asia, Australasia, etc. corresponds to the map at the article "C.l.dingo", but including them on a map of gray wolves is a bit iffy because it's a "domestic dog" according to the notes on it's taxon page at MSW3 and may not improve an article about the wolves in the common sence of the term. This goes to the nature and scope problems we often have with common name articles that don't overlap perfectly with thier correspoding taxa. You've done a good job discussing dogs in this article about wolves in an apprpriate way, but the map and the rest of the article could still limit the scope to wolves only, not dogs, even wild true dogs. So maybe we leave that corner of the map blank.

What do you think?

I propose leaving the pariah and dingo dog sections of the map blank, as that would basically call for adding dingo/pariah dog characterstics on the behavior and physical description sections, which would overburden the article too much. I guess my point is, naturally evolved Canis lupus only!
As for red wolves, I'm open to adding their range on the map (in a different colour of course), but only if other mixed coywolf populations get the same priviledge. Perhaps a new map should be made exclusively for the coywolf section, showing how lupus and latrans ranges overlap?
Ultimately though, this is a service I myself cannot provide, as my paintshop skills are incredibly rudimentary. Someone else needs to take responsibility in this regard. Mariomassone (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Not bad so far. I think your version has a shot at FA status. However if you decide to go for it, I would recommend getting it peer reviewed or copyedited first just to make sure. Any second opinions? LittleJerry (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(Note: "edit conflict" chonological continuity error with LittleJerry's comment, above.)

Agreed. I especially liked when you acknowleged that despite the treatment of familiaris and dingo in certain sections of this article (both as it stands and that in your sandbox which slated to replace the article), the scope of this article must be limited to "naturally evolved Canis lupus" as you say. That's perfect. "Naturally evolved Canis lupus" actually overlaps perfectly with the percieved contextual referent of the word English word "wolf" as found in context, (not to mention the referents of any of the many other northern hemesphere languages that you have there on the replacement article). The problem lies in the fact that, since dogs were shown to be domesticated wolves, Canis lupus no longer overlaps perfectly with "wolf". The solution that Wikipedia concensus has evolved is the independant Canis lupus hatnote that sends one to the article Subspecies of Canis lupus for the modern referet of the taxon in full. This hatnote frees the referent of this article, including its historical range map to be that of the common term "Wolf" ("Vulk", etc). I ask that you remember to keep this in mind when replacing the article and preserve (or even improve) the independant Canis lupus redirect when you make the change.

I volunteer to take responsibility not to make the changes to the map myself, but rather to see to it that the proper work order is filed at the proper place on Wikipedia to get the work done, if you would just describe again exactly exactly what changes you want to the historical range map.

I also volunteer to help you get the lupus/latras emergent hibrid species range map made by someone. Describe it exactly once again just to be sure we understand and I'll find the graphic art work request place and get someone to do it for you. There are, I'm sure, many Wikipedians who will jump at the chance to make such a map if you can describe it exactly, it's a matter of finding the right request place and writing the request well, that's all. In fact, there may be someone with the graphics skills to do that reading these words right now!?! The only thing is, I think you'll agree, this should be different from the historical range map because as an emergent species known only coming into existance now, the Eastern "Coyote" has no historical range. This other map should not worry about subspecies of lupus, don't you think, and just show the modern ranges of (1.) C. latrans x C. lupus, (2.) C. latrans, and (3.) C. lupus. That'd be fantastic! Then people could look out there windows and know what to expect based on where in North America they are, finally, and we'll all be in your debt for that knowledge. Chrisrus (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Here goes: I have in mind two new range maps. One is simply an updated form of this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Wolf_distr.gif (the green shade should now encompass parts of Ethiopia and Eritrea, and perhaps some recolonised parts of the USA).
The other is the wolf x coyote + hybrid range map: This will (obviously) simply be a map of North America. I realise now that this will be somewhat complicated to pull off: my original proposal was to have coyote and wolf ranges in different colours (e.g. red for wolf, blue for coyote) which, when overlapping into hybrid zones, would be a different colour altogether (e.g., purple). The problem here, is that there are plenty of places in North America where wolf and coyote ranges overlap without hybridisation. How are we going to distinguish (through colour) between areas where hybridisation does and does not occur? The alternative is to delineate wolf/coyote ranges not through colour, but through lines (unbroken lines for wolves: _______, broken lines for coyotes: - - - - - -, and slightly broken lines for coywolves: ---------). Obviously, the slightly broken lines will predominate on the east coast and the former red wolf states.Mariomassone (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to talk about the second map first: Let’s break this into steps. Let’s collect the maps we need and decide how to combine them. We find a map of ‘’lycaon’’, a historical plains-range map of latrans (or maybe a latrans expansion map), and a map of Eastern Coyotes, and and give it to the graphics request people with the instructions. Is that correct? We may have the first two somewhere in Wikiland, but what we don’t seem to hhave is an Eastern Coyote map. Then we can ask the graphics department to combine them and add circles and arrows and whatever you may require. I saw here: http://www.earthtimes.org/conservation/dog-days-north-virginia/1549/, evidence that this article here http://www.asmjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1644/10-MAMM-A-223.1?journalCode=mamm, might have a good map of the distribution of the Eastern coyote, but I couldn’t get past the paywall to see. Next, do we have a good map of the original historical range of latrans, or better yet an expansion map with arrows radiating from the historical range or concentric blobs with years? We could have an arrow or some such showing how they went through the ‘’lycaon’’ area (where’s our best lycaon map?) and came out as the new “Eastern Coyotes” on the other side of the Great Lakes where ‘’lycaon’’ range ends. Then and radiating across the top through Ontario, Quebec, to the Maritime Provinces; down to New England, and now into the Middle Atlantic States, just below which (Virgina) they are now meeting up with latrans who took the other way around the lakes or went down first and are making their way back up through the Carolinas. Roughly Virginia is where we’ll see who’s fittest. The reader could just look at that see what is meant by this “Canis soupus” concept quite easily - that there’s a complicated messy situation unfolding and there really isn’t a very clear line between latrans and lupus in these areas and the situation is dynamic and unfolding but in this form C.l. lupus is back in the Northeast, that's the main message for this article. The articles Coyote, Eastern Coyote and Lycaon should all get copies for their articles, but the main message of the map in those contexts may be something differnt. By the way, when will we get a WP:GOODARTICLE about the Eastern Coyote? All we’ve got is a subsection of the article Coywolf. A crying need there is for someone pretty much exactly like you, Mario, or more like you than like any other Wikipedia I know, anyway, to create a good article about the Eastern Coyote. We in places like NYS are facing a new creature we don’t really understand and need your help.

Graphics Lab will do your map and diagram (I'm not sure if it is a clade, or perhaps more something like a Ven diagram). They are really the sweetest people on Wiki. Some good ones are Fallschirmjaegger, MaterialScientist, MissMJ, Jon C. And many more. One thing I recommend is to keep asking for revisions until it is right. (They are very patient with that.) It really is a collaborative type thing since they have the skills, but you have the knowledge and also perhaps more idea of what the effect you want to have on the reader is. Good luck! 64.134.168.97 (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)