Jump to content

Talk:Wolf/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

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:

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

"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)

I think the article should just be called "Wolf" -- I see no point in calling it Gray Wolf or Grey Wolf and further confusing people.Thoralor (talk) 09:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, why is it called "Gray wolf" anyway? --WikiDonn (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
It's a headache. They moved the dog to Canis lupus, but we can't merge the articles Wolf and Dog in response. We used to have a hatnote to Subspecies of Canis lupus which is the closest thing we have to an article about Canis lupus in full, but someone always deletes it, I figure because everyone "knows" that Canis lupus = wolf and the subspecies article doesn't do the job of explaining the situation. The reason it's called the gray wolf was to distinguish it from the red wolf, but then they also moved the red wolf to Canis lupus. Still, it serves to distinguish it from the Ethiopian wolf and Maned wolf and others. Chrisrus (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, "dogs" have their own page that is linked with Canis lupus familiaris. Usually when there is a dispute about common names the scientific name is used, i.e., Canis lupus. Using the name gray wolf is also problematic because much of the English-speaking world spells it grey wolf. Some of the Wiki links also use this spelling. Using the scientific name removes this problem and respects that dogs and dingos are also canids. Dger (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why you thought to tell me that Canis lupus familiaris has it's own page. I'd just said that we don't have an article about Canis lupus per se, this is about only wild Canis lupus, not all or even most Canis lupus, just the old Canis lupus of the old taxonomy.
It's spelled the American way I think because the person who started it was American and we don't care which type of English is used and there is so unless there are special ties to a particular country there's no reason to change it. It's the same with the article Blue being in British English, we just started it that way and there is no reason to change it that's all. For what reason should it be moved to the UK spelling? I can't think of one. There are no special ties of wolves to UK English. In fact, there haven't been any wolves in the UK for quite some time. Chrisrus (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2012 (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

GA toolbox
Reviewing
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 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)
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)

(slight segue, and forgive me "Wiki is not a forum" types, but I did a visit to Alligator River and went for an evening talk and tour and try to listen to the red wolves. Felt very cool and such. All that said, kind of disappointing to learn that they are essentially coyotes.64.134.168.97 (talk) 06:35, 24 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) 15:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, about the first map you want to improve, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Wolf_distr.gif, can you point to a map which shows the changes to the green shade encompassing parts of Ethiopia and Eritrea? We will need to show the that to the graphicreq people so they can do it correctly.

Also, the red dots in the Lower 48, I know there are good and more current maps of how they have expanded since this map was done. Please point me to one we can show to graphicslab. Also, if we're going with the decision to call it "Canis lupus rufus", the iffiness of which being dealt with in text, we should show their historical range and color the whole US southeast green. I understand your misgivings but MSW3 fortunately has thought that through for us and ruled they are C.lupus and so their historical range should no longer be admitted. Hey, whataya think, we have both a historical and a modern range map for C.lupus broken down into subspecies, found for example at Subspecies of Canis lupus, don't we? Are they more or less accurate than this one? Graphicslab people could make the maps you describe out of them quite easily, I would think. And those two should agree with http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Wolf_distr.gif or one of them would have to be wrong.

I can't find any maps illustrating the range of the African wolf. It can, however be constructed. From what I've read, it occurs throughout all of Egypt and Eritrea (no mention of it being in Sudan), but it's Ethiopian range will be difficult to construct, because it only occurs in the Highlands (however, here's a map illustrating them: http://www.ilri.org/InfoServ/Webpub/fulldocs/Bulletin17/image/FIG%201.jpg). I'll have to get back to you on the other points raised.Mariomassone (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, regarding modern North American range, I'm not entirely sure it's changed much since the latest range map update, though I've read that a single wolf crossed into Newfoundland's Bonavista Peninsula (though I don't think the occurrence of a mere single specimen counts).
I've yet to be answered by Materialscientist regarding a hybrid map. In any case, the hybrid range (basically all eastern coyote, eastern wolf and red wolf territories) should consist of Ontario, southern Quebec, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and northeastern North Carolina.
For the moment, I'm not that keen on a subspecies range map. Let's take this one step at a time.Mariomassone (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, let's take this one step at a time. The simplest is the modern c.l. rufus distribution, is it not? I found this map of the modern distribution of rufus: Red wolf modern distribution. Red Wolf Distribution map]. It's just a blob in North Carolina, that's all. However, Red_wolf#Geographic_distribution says they've been living on some islands off the coast since some scientists put them there. I don't know if that counts as a natural distribution of a sort of semi-captivity. The lead says that prior to 1987, there was no distribution of that subspecies as they had all been in zoos and such for some time. Shall we just get the rufus distribution made first? It's very simple and at least it's a start. We'll ask the graphiclab people to reproduce this North Carolina blob and label it rufus and then we can worry about adding the Eastern Timber Wolves and the Eastern Coyotes in successive steps until it's done. Whaddaya think? Chrisrus (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. One population/state at a time. I like that.Mariomassone (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Good and bad news. I found conflicting maps as to where exactly within North Carolina red wolves have been re-introduced. I think the best one is this: http://www.graywolfconservation.com/images/history/map-1990.jpg, but it's only till 1990, which is quite a while ago now. It is much more up-to-date that the present map, though, as far as the distribution into the lower 48 goes.

Tangentally, this looks like it's gonna take awhile, and I'd like to say that please do go ahead with the re-write if you would, and don't wait for updated maps. We can always keep working on the maps and I don't want to make the better the enemy of the good, if you will; article improvement is article improvement and shouldn't have to wait for other forms of article improvement. Chrisrus (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so we added the range of Canis lupus rufus to the exterpated range of Canis lupus. As to what to do about the present range of lupus DNA in Eastern Coyotes, (Experts found one individual in Maine that was %80 lupus!), I think we might not need such a map here at the moment. The crying need is for the Eastern Coyote to get an article of it's own and then see what kind of map it needs. Chrisrus (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 July 2012

There is a typo in the first paragraph of the section Uses. "In Scandinavian folklore, wolf-skin girdles assisted in transforming the wearers into werewolves, while **everal** Native American tribes used wolf pelts for medicinal purposes." Should be "several" if I'm not mistaken. 71.87.25.73 (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks for pointing that out. RudolfRed (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 July 2012

under Etymology, Local and indigenous names, Chinese: 郎 (láng)[19] ↑ above is incorrect, 郎 means a man, gentleman, young man, or son

where as 狼, is the correct Chinese character for wolf

besides most, if not all, literate Chinese would approve, Wiktionary would say the same

also, I am not sure about the pronunciation key,(láng), but the word is pronounced like "lúng", ascending, when speaking in Mandarin 223.143.225.245 (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Looks to be a bit of old vandalism. Corrected.—Kww(talk) 15:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Range map

Shouldn't there be at least a dot on the map for the gray wolves in Oregon? They certainly do exist, and we can't forget about Journey. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone there? Jsayre64 (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd say that one wandering wolf does not effect their present range. However, you are right that the US distribution should be updated. Can you find a reliable update C. lupus range map somewhere on the internet that you could point us to? Chrisrus (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
In case you misunderstood, there isn't just one gray wolf in Oregon; there are four separate packs in the northeastern corner of the state (see links above). OR-7 came from the Imnaha Pack, and has traveled across much of Oregon since last fall, but he's actually not in Oregon right now; he's in California. I found this map of Oregon's wolf packs, by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, which may help you update the world range map. But unfortunately I can't find any other up-to-date gray wolf range map. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Good work, my friend. This is what you do next:
Take those two maps, Kanha1.jpg and Wolf distr.gif, to the Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop and ask them to combine them. Use few words and don't mention Journey (wolf) or any other unnecessary information. Next, stop by this article every now and then until you see that it has been done. It may take a week or so, but they will get it done. When they do, go back and see who did the work and thank them.
Thank you for contribution to Wikipedia. If you do happen to find more such maps to add to ours, please don't hesitate to repeat the process. Be WP:Bold! Chrisrus (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 Done Request made here. I also uploaded File:Oregon_wolf_population_map.jpg. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

To anyone reading these words: can you find more maps we could use to further update our range map? Please be WP:Bold and bring the maps to the Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop and ask them to use them to update our range map. We want to keep the range map as up-to-date and accurate as we can! Chrisrus (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The March 2010 issue of National Geographic had a long article on wolves in Yellowstone (with a detailed map), and it also discussed the spread of wolves to Idaho and other neighboring states. [2] Do the two small green squares on the map represent those wolves, or is this something new that needs to be added? — Lawrence King (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Excellent! Please click here Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop and give them this link: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/03/wolf-wars/wolf-interactive and ask them to use it to improve our range map. Don't give them the same link you gave me because they may miss the map. It may take a week or so, but when you see that it has been done, return the map lab and thak the person who did the work. That is all you have to do, and thank you for your contribution to Wikipidia and specifically this article. Chrisrus (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Subspecies map needs to update

There are few issues about the map, first, C. l. lupus is found the throughout the Northern Turkey (Thrace, Black Sea Region and some parts of Eastern Anatolia) as well as C. l. pallipes. I, travelled most of Turkey, saw that the wolves on the Northern parts has darker furs, longer coats, smaller eyes, bigger jaws and massive, large bodies than Souther ones. Those conspicuous differences strengthen the possibility that they are two distinct subspecies. Northern one most most probably belong to C. l. lupus. Also, C. l. cubanensis and C. l. campestris are now invalid species and believed that belongs to C. l. lupus. Another subject is, are there wolves on the Gobi desert? If so, what are their subspecies? Desert regions widely found on Asia, can Northern wolves adapt those environments? And C. l. occidentalis extended its range into Montana, Idaho, Wyoming (out of Yellowstone), Washington and even Utah. A change is an urgency right now. And last, are we sure that C. l. albus are found of the whole Kamchatka Peninsula? ISBN 0-226-51696-2 book stated that current subspecies on the Kamchatka could be lupus, communis and albus. Most probably, C. l. albus does not exist that much souther. Needs a care.--Westnest message 11:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help us update this map. Please scroll up and read Talk:Gray_wolf#Range_map, which might help you get the subspecies maps changed. Do you have updated maps? You seem to know what you're talking about and could I suppose have those maps updated (they aren't in this article; but maybe should be; we seem to be talking about the maps at Subspecies of Canis lupus. Anyway, while we could go on your apparent expertese and maybe get away with changing things just based on that, we aren't supposed to do that because we need a citation, so please try to find updated maps in some kind of WP:RS which have updated maps you could show to the graphics lab maps working group. I notice you do provide an ISBN for one of your statements, all of which I belive just because you seem to know what you're talking about, but is there a map there you could show updated maps in this ISBN? Thank you for your efforts; we know that are maps are out of date so please don't stop trying to help us fix that. Chrisrus (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I am researching wolves for near 6 months. I will try to find citations all of my statements. There are some maps you can use just for United States, but the Central Asia and Turkey, there are no wide studies. But it is hard to believe that wolves(I mean, the Northern ones) can survive on very dry desert ranges of Asia. I am still researching it. For Turkey, I am sure pretty much that species of the Northern regions are belong to C. l. lupus. Because the winter conditions of mountanious ranges of nortern Anatolia are very harsh than C. l. pallipes (mostly adapted to deserts and warm climates) can tolerate. Also Northern Anatolia was on the C. l. lupus's migration path on Pleistocene Age(til the last Ice Age). Unfortunately, there are not any studies on subspecies on Turkey, but I just wanted to share my wolf sightings through the country and saw that there are 2 distinguishable species. Finally, the Kamchatka, C. l. albus is an Arctic adapted animal and will go through the wringer on taigas of Kamchatka. The book is either not sure of species of Northern Asia, but Kamchatka is a long peninsula that lies down through Russia. It is not hard to presume that C. l. albus will not prefer that much south. As the map, I am not an graphic and illustration connoisseur, so I use MS Paint instead of expensive software like InDesign etc. (but it works on minor changes) . But I have some friends that can handle those drawings. I will try to proffer a new map as soon as possible.--Westnest message 19:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please go to Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop and give them or direct them to the most updated maps you can and ask them to use the new maps to update the subspecies maps in the article Subspecies of Canis lupus. You do not need to do any of the graphics work as the friendly folks at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop will do it for you, although it might take a week or so. Just tell them you want them to use map X or maps x, y, and z to update the maps on the article Subspecies of Canis lupus. Just give them a copy of the updated maps or tell them where they can find the latest maps; show the graphics lab's map workshop the any new map(s) they could use to update our maps on the article Subspecies of Canis lupus. Thank you for your kind contribution to Wikipedia and let me know if I can help you further. Chrisrus (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there ANYTHING missing?

I think I've covered just about every conceivable thing relating to wolves. Is there actually anything else warranting inclusion?Mariomassone (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There are still a few "clarification needed" hatnotes throughout the article, but otherwise, the article is in very good condition. Jarble (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I was tempted to add a "Habitat" section under "Ecology", as Mammals of the Soviet Union and Wolves devotes many pages to it, though I'm hesitant, as wolves appear not to be picky at all about their living space, and simply thrive wherever there is sufficient prey. Mariomassone (talk) 11:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to see the Hebrew indigenous name along with all the rest in the table at the top. The correct spelling is: "זאב". There are no alternate spelling. Here are a couple of references in case they're needed: http://translate.google.com/#auto/iw/wolf http://www.morfix.co.il/wolf Placebo69a (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Kudos

Kudos to Mario and everyone involved in the recent overhaul! Chrisrus (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are wolf attacks rare?

The lead says that such attacks on humans are rare because humans are not wolves natural prey. This is of course not cited as we don’t cite the lead, we cite info in the body the lead summarizes the body. But many reasons the body gives for fact that attacks are rare don’t seem to include this reason. It gives other, quite different reasons. We should edit the lead so that it accurately summarizes the reasons the body gives for this given for this. Otherwise, the lead gives one reason and the body another, so it's incoherent. Perhaps something like this: “Non-rabid wolves have attacked and killed people, mainly children, but this is unusual, as wolves are few, generally live away from humans, and have been taught to fear humans by hunters and shepherds.” Chrisrus (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Or should we just delete the part about "not natural prey" and not replace it? Chrisrus (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, basically, this is the summary NINA offers on that citation: Eles (1996) provides a good summary of the wolf attack data; wolves have killed people, it has been mainly children, it is unusual, people are not part of their normal prey.. Perhaps we should include this in the Attacks section?Mariomassone (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I see. Do they elaborate on that statement? It’s a bit strange for the reader, at least this reader. I mean, if, for some bizarre reason, a penguin waddled by a lion, one wouldn’t expect the fact that penguins aren’t lions’ natural prey to prevent an attack. Maybe the lion would hesitate and be confused at first, but surely the lion simply attacks anything in its prey range, whether it’s their "natural prey" or not? Once I saw a picture of a lion killing a seal on a beach. They can be expected to eat whatever, and when they don't, as here, that begs explanation. The explanations in the body, such as the low chance of meeting a wolf and the fact that hunters and such have taught wolves to stay away from people, make obvious sense. But yes, if we do want the keep the "not natural prey" reaso in the lead it should be explained in the body as you say. Chrisrus (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The more I look at it, the stranger it seems. Please hear me out; I hope to convince:
Imagine I said “A doesn’t prey on B because B is not the natural prey of A” in any other context. Is that even a reason? Isn't it a bit like saying "it doesn't happen often because it doesn't happen often"? I mean, what does “natural prey” mean? The thing one preys on most often! “They don’t do it often because it’s not what they do often.” See what I’m saying?
Nevertheless, my primary objection is still this: Even though this is the reason given in that citation by those experts, it's not what our article says. Our articles gives other reasons, and the lead is supposed to summarize the body. That is all. We don't have to follow this citation if it's not logical. It is nothing like the reasons actually given in the articles, it begs explanation, clarifies really nothing, and it’s not explained in the citation. Please let's get rid of or replace it with what the body says. Chrisrus (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I hope I've convinced. Chrisrus (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
To use your penguin/lion analogy, I'll try to elaborate; there's no doubt a lion would eat a penguin if it came across it, but would it make a habit out of hunting them? A penguin would be a meagre meal for an animal requiring a whole ungulate to satisfy its dietary requirements. Sure, a lion may resort to penguins if it was hungry enough, but I can hardly imagine it making it routine.
The fact that non-rabid wolves require such long periods of habituation and experimentation before targeting humans simply testifies that we are not its natural prey. Even young captive wolves, released into the wild, won't hesitate to chase deer or rabbits, yet treat humans with more caution. If that still isn't convincing, perhaps the lead should simply omit ... as humans are not part of the wolf's natural prey. What say you?Mariomassone (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I wish I was Gary Larson because then I'd do a cartoon of two penguins crossing the African savanna past a pride of lions and one says to the other "Don't worry; we're not their natural prey." About the phenomenon you describe ("The fact that...treat humans with causion") seems to me more easily explained by the fact that we are their natural enemies. So I say "fine" to your proposal. We can always replace it later with a summary of the reasons given in the body if that's what we want to do. Chrisrus (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I would have to agree on the argument that it should be re-written, but a good explanation as to why humans are not the "natural" prey of wolves is pretty simple: We're not worth the fight.
The average human weights in at roughly 150lbs (Body weight). On top of that, we're also predators, with much larger brains and capacity to wield weapons (Thanks to those thumbs), enhancing our lethality. If a pack of 6 wolves were to attack a semi-prepared human, they would most likely win, but at the cost of at least 2 of their pack.
A deer, which weights in anywhere from 70 - 700lbs (Deer)), and doesn't put up as good of a fight as a human, is much more bang for your buck (No pun intended). Plus, if a human kills the deer (Think ancient human), we'd be hard pressed to carry all that meat. Much better to follow the human around and wait until he's done to get a free meal. Or, as they were domesticated in the past, just cooperate with humans and get easy food. SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army Infantryman (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"Game animals and shooting in North America"?

This is one of the templates at the bottom of the article. Is this really relevant here, or should it be removed? I'm surprised that this template was included here in the first place (given its narrow geographic scope, and controversial assertions). Why should wolves be explicitly classified as "North American game animals"? Is this based on the legality of hunting certain animals in North America, or does it merely reflect the opinions of certain editors? Is it even appropriate for an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia to have a template that advocates the hunting of certain animals, given that this is a controversial subject? Jarble (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this template should be moved to a section or article where it would be more relevant, such as wolf hunting. Jarble (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I find the geographical terminology debatable too, but the fact of the matter is, wolves can be legally hunted as big game in both the USA and Canada. And I fail to see how the template "advocates" hunting. It's simply stating a fact; that the listed animals can be, and are, hunted. Also, templates such as that are almost always placed at the bottom of the article, and I can see why, as putting it under "wolf hunting" would clutter the "Relationships with humans" section.Mariomassone (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Since we're discussing the purpose of the template, this discussion would be more relevant here: Template talk:North American Game.

Mystery of the Southeast Asian Wolf

Reading this article and looking at this map below, the blank space in Southeast Asia seems quite mysterious. Is it really true that there were never any wolves in southeast Asian places such as Thailand? Why not? Have no experts ever noticed and commented on this in a citable way? To me it seems very strange and mysterious. I wonder why no wolves apparently ever occupied Thailand, Vietnam, and neighboring areas. Chrisrus (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Dholes probably keep them out; in India, wolves live in open areas, while dholes inhabit dense forested areas. As southeast Asia's prime habitat is of the former category, I imagine the presence of Cuon alpinus prevented wolves from establishing a niche there. Mariomassone (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Also, we say at Wikipedia that at least one theory of the origin of dingoes and dogs is that they evolved from southern Chinese wolves, but this shows that there never were any southern Chinese wolves! Chrisrus (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Look how these two maps line up. Intersting? However, notice that neither map covers southern China, despite the oft cited theory that dingoes come from southern China.
  • Why no wolves in Southeast Asia?
    Why no wolves in Southeast Asia?
  • Look how these two maps fit together.
    Look how these two maps fit together.

Necessity of describing "how to hunt"s

Hello Wikipedia users!

First, I live in Germany and even I know Wikipedia for years, I never edited articles before here. Before just deleting textes I don't indentify by Wikipedia, I prefeir to discuss it with you all.

However, I know the Grey Wolf article since a long time now and something is annoying me all the time.

One of the Wikipedia's rules says, Wikipedia and its articles have to be neutral. So why is there a need to describe the different ways how to hunt Wolves (like the falcon practice or imitating the howling). The same problem in the passage about the fur and its use (thinner than dog fur and so on …)

I think this goes to far. This is an article about the animal. Of course the history of Wolves sticks close to the human's. But these two passages look like a manual "how to hunt Wolves". This may be a topic for a hunter's magazine, but not for an encyclopaedia. You don't tell the users in which way you can kill most men in the Heckler and Koch article, do you?

An encyclopaedia needs to be neutral and objective. And even it's very normal in the United States to kill Wolves, Wikipedia musn't become a manual for "best hunting on Wolves". We know, there are many web sites in WWW which exactly tell you this, but it shouldn't be Wikipedia.

I don't want Wikipedia to drop the hunting article. I just don't want to read it as guidance for blood-minded men. Thank you.

92.206.96.185 (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Manidi 16th November 2012

Does the article on torture count as a "how to guide"? No. It is simply a legitimate description of something that is notable and encyclopedic. When researching the history of wolf/human interactions, hunting is one of the main, if not most fundamental aspects, and thus merits in-depth coverage. Mariomassone (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes but not advice on how to best hunt them. Just the facts that they have been hunted and why or why they shouldn't be. Dger (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a difference between explaining things and giving advices, writing a kind of advertising. I can't see an advice "how to torture your victim so it doesn't die too early" in the torture article.
The point is not to hide that Wolves are hunted (especially in USA and Russia) and that their fur sometimes is used by the hunters or other people. I've a bad feeling reading "how to do THIS in the best way" and that's how the article is written.
You can choose any Wikipedia article you want, unless it's about a weapon, about torture or just about e-mule, you won't get advices by Wikipedia. Wikipedia tells us about it, but it doesn't put lipstick on the pig.
And I don't agree with you. This article is not first of all about the hunting. It's about the animal; its anatomy, its behaviour, its habitat. Hunting is the dirty reality, but not the main fact.
This is as you'd say the article about Dresden is first of all to describe the nights from 13th to 15th February 1945. But that's wrong.
It would be the best to remove the advise-like passages and just to tell that there IS a hunt by humans; a hunt by traps, poison, firearms and airplanes/helicopters. Look at foreign Wikipedia Wolf articles, if you don't think this could work.

92.206.116.219 (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Manidi

Hello Jarble
I especially mean these lines (first of all the hunting- and trapping part)

QUOTE

In areas where wolves are a threat to livestock, the destruction of spring-born litters in their dens is a sure way of keeping wolf populations to a minimum.

QUOTE

Foothold traps are effective, as long as no long lasting human odours are present on them.[295] Many Native American tribes favoured deadfall traps in capturing wolves

QUOTE

Hunting blinds can be effective against wolves, though they are seldom used, as their use requires much patience.

QUOTE

A popular method of wolf hunting in Russia involves trapping a pack within a small area by encircling it with flag poles carrying a human scent.

---

Sorry, but this just looks like a kind of advertisement, advices how to do it "the best way".
"very effective", "can be effective", "is a sure way" ...
But Wikipedia only should give information about a subject. IMHO this goes to far. I'd really like to cut some of these descriptions out and write something new. Something, that tells the user, their are these things, but not how they are done with most sucess.
Thank you.
And have a nice christmas everyone!

92.206.63.222 (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Manidi 1:53 pm, 24th Decembre 2012

Some hunters are able to lure wolves by imitating their calls, a method which is especially useful in winter and the mating season.

You are correct Wikipedia is not supposed to be a how to guide (for hunting wolves or torture). The passages mentioned above should be removed. The reasons for the hunting or not hunting of wolves are appropriate. Dger (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

perhaps someone with an account can add under 'heraldry and symbolism'

Wolfsschanze (Wolf's Lair), Adolf Hitler's World War II Eastern Front military headquarters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.238.127.243 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Only if there's a reputable source to back it up.Mariomassone (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Add text

To section on recovery in Europe I want to add: Wolves were spotted in the Netherlands and Belgium in 2011. Economist, Dec.11, 2012, p.126. I see this article is semi-protected. Now what? HilyardHilyard (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Done Dger (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

REDIRECT WRONG

Canis lupus redirects to gray wolf - this is wrong, Canis lupus contains dog, wolf, jackal and much more. Somebody who knows about the subject needs to do a new page, otherwise I will attempt a bare-bones page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.61.172 (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The article clearly states that the dog is a subspecies of canis lupus, among others including the dingo. This is likewise confirmed in the article on dogs. The jackal however is not a canis lupis subspecies, they are a separate branch of Canis. No change or addition is required. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge

I propose that Migration patterns of the gray wolf be merged here if there's anything worth merging, for fairly obvious reasons.--TKK bark ! 17:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should just be deleted. The referenced info is already pretty much covered in this article, and the rest is uncited.Mariomassone (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the article should be redirected to this article instead of being permanently deleted. I don't want the other article's revision history to be lost, even if its content is redundant. Jarble (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC

Text checks

This content is plagiarized from this source page 4/ 4.3. I really hope this is the only instance, but I'll be starting at the beginning of the article and checking all text against all sources. (olive (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC))

Actual predatory attacks usually involve single wolves, or packs that learn to exploit humans as prey. Such attacks may be preceded by a long period of habituation, in which wolves gradually lose their fear of humans.[17] The victims are generally attacked in a sustained manner around the neck and face, and are then dragged off and consumed, unless the wolves are disturbed. Such attacks tend to cluster in time and space until the offending animals are killed. Linnell, John D. C. (2002). The Fear of Wolves: A Review of Wolf Attacks on Humans. NINA. ISBN 82-426-1292-7.

Removed. --TKK bark ! 19:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Changing a few words here and there isn't enough. Wikipedia has stringent standards for what does and does constitute text that is plagiarized or a copyright violation. Sorry, I can't do more on this right now. I hope to get to it in a day or two.(olive (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC))
  • Technically the content is not truly plagiarized since it has been sourced. The content's close proximity to the original text is a more of a copy vio issue. (olive (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC))

Attacks by wolves acting in a predatory manner usually involve wolves acting alone, or packs that learn to exploit humans as prey. Such attacks may be preceded by a long period of habituation, in which wolves gradually lose their fear of humans.[17] Victims of such attacks are generally attacked around the neck and face, and are then dragged off and consumed, unless the wolves are driven off. Such attacks tend to cluster in time and space until the offending animals are killed.

  • spotted/mottled: Mottled comes right out of the source as did the original text about colour in this article. I think "mottled" is fine now since the surrounding text has been changed, and mottled is definitely more accurate than spotted. There may be more copy vios in this article. I suspect there are. This is a serious issue especially given some of the incidents on Wikipedia in the last year or two on copy vio.(olive (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC))

In looking at this article, I see another instance where content from a source was used with only one word change. If anyone knows this article better than I do, I'd suggest looking for more instances of this kind of editing. I'll make more checks; its a huge job to work through each ref and locate the copy vios. I assume whoever wrote the article or at least parts of it thought this was an appropriate way to create article content from sources. (olive (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC))

Edit request on 26 April 2013

In regards to references 110 & 111, mounting between same sex animals have been erroneously attributed to homosexual behavior.

Published on July 20, 2011 by Stanley Coren, Ph.D., F.R.S.C. in Canine Corner Mounting behavior (colloquially referred to as "humping"), where a wolf clasps the hips of another wolf and stands on two legs while thrusting his hips, is part of sexual behavior in wolves, however, in most common interactions among canines it has nothing to do with sex, but a lot to do with social dominance.

You can see that mounting behavior can be relatively independent of sexual intentions by watching the behavior of very young puppies. Well before they have reached puberty (which comes at about 6 to 8 months of age) they are already showing this kind of activity. Mounting in puppies appears shortly after they begin walking and appears when they start playing with each other. It is a socially significant behavior, not a sexual one. For young puppies, mounting is one of the earliest opportunities for learning about their physical abilities and their social potential. It basically represents an expression of dominance. The stronger, more authoritative puppy will mount its more submissive brothers and sisters simply to display leadership and dominance. These behaviors will then carry on into adulthood, with the significance being power and control, not sex.

Diazm102 (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree - its a social behaviors not sexual - it is unlikely to be related to dominance but rather to social bonding. Will let next editor to come by see what they think ....as I am having trouble finding a source.Moxy (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Not done: No specific change requested. --Michael Greiner 21:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 July 2013

Please add Oregon to the range of the Grey Wolf in America. My source is here: http://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp 74.209.145.16 (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Done - Thank you for your contribution! Signalizing (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

domestication origin

It is the sole ancestor of the dog, which was first domesticated in the Middle East.[16]


There are numerous research papers that demonstrate that dogs were domesticated over 30,000 years ago, and likely first in NE Asia. Just because new lines were introduced during the advance of the Neolithic, this does not mean those were the first dogs, nor that earlier dog lines are no longer present, today.

See for example this new paper, and references therein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurologist (talk • contribs) 11:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

While this is true for MOST domestic dog breeds, it doesn't hold well for SOME domestic dog breeds. The American Indian Dogs are known to have coyotes in their genepool while the Sulimov dogs originated from an experimental crossbreeding between domestic dogs and Golden Jackals. Overall, while most dogs are indeed grey wolves, there are some that actually have different species of canids mixed into them Nosferatuslayer (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it has been found out that wolves were domesticated into dogs in south-eastern part of present-day China. Anyone who can verify this?

2015-01-03 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Are they Nocturnal, Crepuscular, or what?

I came across this page from the Diurnal page, which mentions in passing that domestic dogs are different from wolves in that dogs are typically diurnal to match humans. That page doesn't clarify how wolves behave in this area, so I came here. The time of day is not mentioned anywhere in the article except that at least one resting time is qualified to be diurnal. Obviously they are active for at least part of the day, judging by the pictures in the article. So I ask: for how many hours out of 24 do wolves typically sleep, and at what time(s) of the day/night? --Noren (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Wolves are definitely most active in the daytime. They are pack hunters, and this requires daylight as coordinated attacks are almost impossible at night, even for animals with good low light vision. Communal activity such as howling does take place in the evenings, but generally they do not do a lot of running around at night. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Subspecies section conflict with Red Wolf page?

The 'subspecies' section currently asserts that the Red Wolf is no longer considered a distinct species, citing a 2011 study. However, the Red Wolf page describes some significant controversy about that same study, and seems to assert that they *are* still considered a distinct species. Should that info be included here somehow? 141.211.198.115 (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Wolves in Nazi Germany

The article states "In 1934, Nazi Germany became the first state in modern history to place the wolf under protection, though the species was already extinct in Germany at this point." I don't have access to the source but you can find several sources which list wolves being shot in Eastern Prussia until the what is basically the end of World War II. This raises two concerns: 1. How can a species be called extinct if it can still be hunted? 2. How did the protection introduced in 1934 actually look like if it still allowed hunting?

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01956830 --91.61.113.188 (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no reference to a famous painting by Sassetta which shows St. Francis of Assisi taming the wolves of Gubbio who had been preying on children. This would be a historical and colorful addition to the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.163.97 (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This article contains many links to sub-topic articles. To find what you're looking for, link Gray_wolf#In_culture to find the link to Wolves in folklore, religion and mythology, which has a section about the wolf in Christianity that summarizes and links to the article Wolf of Gubbio, both of which use the painting to illustrate. That article doesn't, but probably should have a section about the Wolf of Gubbio in art. Any info you can site about that painting should go there, including the fact that it was just stolen. Chrisrus (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Diagram/Map of Wolf Evolution

Heya, can some of you please come over to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop#Map_of_wolf_evolution and give us some advice as to how to proceed? Thank you very much.--DLommes (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

wolves in Greece

Please correct the sentence about wolves in Greece: They are about 800 (136 of them leaving in Central Greece) and they are fully protected. http://www.callisto.gr/en/lykos.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.102.197 (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

article too long.

There's no reason why this article should be 185,028 bytes. That's way longer than elephant and lion. Tiger is currently at GA review and that article was trimmed to as fairly manageable level. No reason why this article can't. LittleJerry (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Too long for what? Many articles have been spun off from this already. If it is shortened, what should be lost? This is all good information, shall we spin off even more articles? If you shorten it, use the deleted material to create sub-articles, but I don't think that's necessary. Chrisrus (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's longer than the other aforementioned articles. Look at the start of the third paragraph on the intro: The gray wolf is one of the world's most well known and well researched animals, with probably more books written about it than any other wildlife species.. It even has a source from a reputed wolf biologist. Mariomassone (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
So because an expert says wolves are one of the world's most well researched, animals and may have more books written on it, that justifies 185,028 bytes compared to 134,083 for lion, 121,014 for polar bear, 120,104 for elephant and 103,569 for tiger?
The article is bloated, particularly in the "range and conservation". Why is it necessary to have detailed histories on their decline for NA, Europe and Asia each? Lions were also widespread and declined. LittleJerry (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
First, I don't see this article as you do. When I read this article, I don't see anything in particular that seems overly detailed in this context. To me, Wolf is longer than, say for example, lion because this English Wikipedia and so there's more out there to summarize here about wolves and lions.
However, if you want to shorten it you may: just take any material you remove and make a new article out of it. That's absolutely normal here, and elsewhere, so you can absolutely do that. When bloated the thing to do is the thing we've always done: spin off a sub-article. That's fine; I'm sure; so go ahead. It would not be good, however, would be just delete good stuff and trash it. There's no reason for that, so please don't do it. Chrisrus (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
IMO it is not too long. And the scope and diversity of it's locations, interactions with humans, place in culture etc. means that there is a lot more material than most other species. North8000 (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Dog isn't nearly as long. LittleJerry (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Haven't you considered that that is dog's problem, not Gray wolf's? Mariomassone (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree the article should not be shortened through removing content.(I watch listed this article after doing a few edits). The article is well researched and written. No need to lose content or sources; better to split off content rather than lose it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

vukovi

https://www.google.hr/search?q=hv+vukovi&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=g01QU9CrMqq8ygPa-4HwDQ&ved=0CD8QsAQ&biw=1366&bih=641 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.140.241.213 (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

CONSERVATION STATUS INCORRECT

Wolves are not endangered "least concern", please fix.

Sorry, IUCN trumps all. Mariomassone (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Wolves may be endangered locally in some parts of the United States and some other countries, but are quite abundant in Canada, Russia, and Alaska particularly in northern regions. As a species they are doing quite well (thank you very much), and in no danger of extinction. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Broad sense and narrow sense: confusion within the article

A major problem with this article, as well as that for Dog and other related topics, is that in some places Gray Wolf is used synonymously with Canis lupus (which of course contains the dingo and domestic dog) and in other places Gray Wolf is contrasted the domestic dog, or said to be the ancestor of the domestic dog. I'm going to have a go at fixing this up, starting from an assumption that Canis lupus contains the domestic dog and dingo, but also explaining that the term Gray Wolf would not normally be used to refer to domestic dogs or dingos. I'll then move on to some of the other articles about canids. Ordinary Person (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's confusing. The source we are using for the taxonomy, Mammal Species of the World, has extensive notes including caveats, which are not noted carefully enough. They say that Canis lupus should only be considered to include the "domestic dog" as a subspecies under the proviso that it be understood that we understand that familaris and dingo should be liked inter-taxonomically, if you will, under the term "domestic dog" meaning one subspecies. This is not their fault, taxonomy ends at the subspecies level so there's not way to indicate the sub-branches. Chrisrus (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Description of changes to the Subspecies section

I found the section difficult to read because it hopped back and forth in space (old world to North America) and in time (older studies, new studies, more older studies). To releive both I have made subsections for old world and NA wolves, and have followed a time sequence in each. Also I added information about subspecies taxonomy controversy over time for NA Pacific coastal wolves. Coastwise (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

More About Dogs

The article should mention more about dogs because they are the most widespread and numerous subspecies of gray wolf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.130.53 (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

the page contains links to the article on dogs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.196.147 (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, dogs are a subspecies of gray wolf. But, this article is quite long as is, and the subject of dogs is even more involved. Identifying dogs as a subspecies and linking to dogs is more than sufficient. I suggest that this talk entry be removed. Peter M. Eggers (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No, talk page comments should never be removed unless it is a gross violation of the talk page guidelines, such as blatant trolling, libel or outright personal attacks. A good faith comment about the contents of the article and a corresponding response as to why it's not needed are perfectly acceptable talk page material and should not be removed. oknazevad (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning the Jungle Book in Fable and Literature

I think the jungle book should be mentioned in the section Fable and Literature. The stories about Mowgli feature a positive depiction of wolves, that predates Never Cry Wolf. The article claims the latter to be the first positive depiction of wolves in popular culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.159.75 (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2014

The picture illustrating the article has a caption locating the picture in Netherland. This seems suspicious in regard to the current and historical extent of the wolf population, The picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf#mediaviewer/File:Wolf,_voor_de_natuur,_Saxifraga_-_Jan_Nijendijk.5097.jpg must have been taken somewhere else by the author. Can someone review it as I do not have access to edit. thanks 137.229.94.104 (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you go to question the authenticity of a image. try the Wikipedia:Help desk and see if someone can direct you better. Cannolis (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Evidence for hybridization section

I read the study you included Gene Flow between Wolf and Shepherd Dog Populations in Georgia and would argue that more scientific evidence supporting occurrences of hybridization such as this one would benefit this article. The example you used is only one study explaining recent examples of hybridization. Adding more evidence will only make this section stronger. In relevance to the Caucasus Region of Georgia you speak of in this article, there is a study conducted by Dr. Natia Kopaliani and Dr. David Tarkhnishvili from Ilia State University Department of Ecology that supports the claim of hybrid ancestry. I would also include some background information about the techniques utilized by scientists to study hybridization. In doing so, the reader becomes more knowledgeable of the overall topic at hand. I would argue that in order to understand hybridization that occurs between subspecies of Canis the techniques such as comparison of microsatellite markers and tracing of Mitochondrial DNA would better explain hybridization in its complexity.

Eberly.52 (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Gage Eberly

Lead rearranged

"Re-arranged lead. Also, timber wolf and western wolf are still in use...."- MM. My comment: only in North America - I am not sure what a global reader (e.g. in Poland or China) would make of these terms. We appear to be more focused on the names applied in the USA to a thing rather than initially defining what that thing was.203.1.252.5 (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2014

Please replace "though its occasionally used for" with "though it's occasionally used for" Contraction of "it is" In uses of fur section. Cheers :) 122.62.254.83 (talk) 08:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Assertion that the Gray wolf is the sole ancestor of the dog

The article lead currently asserts, "It is the sole ancestor of the dog, ...", citing in support: O. Thalmann et al., "Complete Mitochondrial Genomes of Ancient Canids Suggest a European Origin of Domestic Dogs", Science, November 14, 2013, 342(6160):871-4, DOI: 10.1126/science.1243650.

However, "Old Dogs Teach a New Lesson About Canine Origins". Science. 342 (6160): 785–786. 15 November 2013. doi:10.1126/science.342.6160.785. says that the leading theories suggest that dogs were domesticated either in the Middle East or in East Asia and that a new theory (the one cited in this article's lead) comes to a third conclusion: Dogs originated in Europe, from a now-extinct branch of gray wolves.

It appears to me that the present assertion is much too firm, giving undue weight to the source cited. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how "Dogs originated in Europe, from a now-extinct branch of gray wolves" conflicts with "dogs are domesticated gray wolves". Extinct branches of gray wolves are still gray wolves. Chrisrus (talk) 04:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


Only Thalmann didn't say that; Elizabeth Pennici interpreted that in her article. Thalmann stated that the research indicates that the ancestor of the dog was a now-extinct European wolf-like canid. At least that is Thalmann's university's understanding of his contribution: "It also became apparent that no extant wolf population is more closely related to modern dogs than the extinct specimens suggesting that the population of European wolves that ultimately gave rise to today’s dogs has gone extinct." http://www.utu.fi/en/news/articles/Pages/mans-best-friend-originated-in-europe.aspx Also his editor for that article: "The data suggest that an ancient, now extinct, central European population of wolves was directly ancestral to domestic dogs." http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6160/871

There is much debate regarding what the genetic markers are indicating, it is an exciting journey with fast-developing tools, and Wikipedia should be reflecting this debate rather than taking one side, which in itself is simply what some of the research indicated. William of Aragon (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Thalman says "no extant wolf population" and "European wolves that ultimately gave rise to today's dogs". Wolf is often used as a synonym of grey wolf, unless other species like red or Ethiopian wolves are also mentioned. There's little indication that the animal mentioned is not of the Canis lupus species. Indeed, there don't appear to be any proposals over changing the dog's binomial name.Mariomassone (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"Wolf is often used as a synonym of grey wolf" - That is your personal assumption. "There's little indication that the animal mentioned is not of the Canis lupus species". Another assumption. In my opinion, you should not be interpreting the findings for others based on your assumptions. There was never full agreement that Canis Familiaris should have been changed to Canis Lupus Familiaris in the first place, so there is certainly no reason for anyone to be wasting their time proposing a change now. William of Aragon (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


Pray, elaborate on the idea that Canis familiaris is a valid binomial name. Mariomassone (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


Dear Mario, I am not going to debate this matter further as it serves no purpose. I am currently compiling a restructure on the Origin of the Domestic Dog page, the DNA Evidence section, which is out of date and even has a comment logged against stating that it is out of date. I am only trying to help here, and I will let the science argue for itself. Thalmann was just one of the first on this topic - there are others more recent now. There is also a valid refutation that the Gray Wolf was involved at all. However, as I keep arguing here, genetic analysis is only an indication - none of this is conclusive unless we can travel back in time and give the dog's ancestor a pat.

We approach the close of 2014 and we need to keep up. When I am ready, there will need to be some minor amendment to the Gray Wolf page. You will have to decide whether you accept it or reject it. Either way, it won't make any difference to the published research and the ongoing debate. Regards William of Aragon (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


Hello Mario. Thanks for tweaking the Wolf/Ancestry section with info I had combined it with that was taken from the Origin of the domestic dog page. I have now removed completely that information from the Origin of the domestic dog page and placed a link to the Wolf/Ancestry section from there. I think it appropriate that the editors on the Wolf page maintain this information, especially as new wolf evolution information comes to light. Regards, William of Aragon (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Domestication - Megafuanal Wolf/Beringian Wolf

Hi Mario,

1. Regarding Bob Wayne's comment on the ancestor of the dog being a Megafuanal Wolf and then you linking that to the Beringian Wolf. Thalmann's findings were very specific about this - the ancient Alaskan (Beringian) Wolves were not related to the dog's ancestor clade, which appears to have originated in Western Europe. Therefore, I ask that you remove that link as it is not accurate.

There is probably not enough material to warrant a Megafuanal Wolf stub at this stage, however there exists an opportunity to add an additional paragraph under Ancestry. It could have links to the Beringian wolf and the Dire Wolf. The timing would be Late Pleistocene and the diet Pleistocene megafauna. Only Canis Lupus survived the Quaternary extinction event (plus the dog or its nearest ancestor, but I am happy to leave that one alone).

2. Additionally, under Ancestry, there is the following comment: "The earliest identifiable C. lupus remains date back to the Middle Pleistocene, and occur in Beringia.[1]" I do not have access to the cited document, however Wikipedia tells me that: "The Middle Pleistocene, more specifically referred to as the Ionian stage, is a period of geologic time from ca. 781 to 126 thousand years ago." This appears to be too far back.

Thalmann studied what was referred to as the three northerly permafrost wolves (Alaska, Eastern Beringia - Alaska 28,000, Alaska 21,000, and Alaska 20,800). Leonard's radiocarbon dating of 56 ancient gray wolf specimens from permafrost deposits in Alaska showed ages from 12,500 - 45,000 years of age.[2] I would be pleased if you or one of your "wolf" colleagues could review the older citation for accuracy. Beringian wolves in the Late Pleistocene places them in the time when we have evidence of the greatest wolf diversity.

I have now read it. The problem with quoting from Wang and Tedford is that they offer no citations against the text in their book, and raises the question of on what basis are they stating this. Quoting from research articles holds much more credibility. Regards, William Harris (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

3. Is Canis Lupus still the ancestor of the dog? Hard one to call, so we keep an open mind. Of interest, in 1999 Villa and Wayne both wrote papers rejecting that other canids were responsible for the origin of the dog and the nearest relative was the wolf. [3][4] Based on these indications, the domestic dog was reclassified in 2005 as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of the gray wolf Canis lupus in a professional reference.[5] Based on the genetic evidence provided at that time, that was a prudent move. However, both Villa and Wayne were contributors to Freedman's paper this year.

We have not yet heard the last of Bob Wayne's carefully orchestrated global research, and I am sure he is working to a plan. From what I understand, Canis Lupus is the dog's sister, not its ancestor. Cross-breeding has resulted in near-exact match DNA. They are both descendants of a "large, wolf-like canid". Very large. For some reason, our ancestors, who were people not unlike you or I, became allied with the biggest, most powerful wolf we could find, for some reason or purpose. Should the dog be reclassified from Canis lupis familiaris? I do not believe so until we have the fossil of the common ancestor and we can be very sure about what we are saying. No doubt, universities, museums and private collections of fossils in Europe are now being revisited for what they might reveal. In the meantime, doubt remains.

Regards, William of Aragon (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mario for the delinking, much appreciated. Of interest: Thalmann stated that the species classification of both the Altai dog and the Goyet 36,000 dog remains contentious. They both appear to be morphologically ancient dogs but based on our current genetic technology we see no relationship with neither modern nor ancient wolves - at this stage we are not sure where they came from! Goyet 36,000 was deposited in GenBank with accession number KF661079 and cataloged simply as Canis species. Regards, William of Aragon (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
My apologies Mario, I may have misled you - I have removed completely the reference to the Beringian Wolves from the Origin of the Domestic Dog page. I originally had them included because it indicates that there was much and unusual grey wolf genetic diversity in the past that required further analysis, therefore Thalmann included them in his study. I can see now how a reader could be led to believe that the Beringian wolves were the ancestor of the dog.
Of interest to you, a researcher by the name of Pei back in 1934 indicated that a small and now extinct sub-species of Canis Lupis, whose remains can be found across Eurasia, might have been the ancestor of the dog given their very similar morphologies. No need for "domesticating" a smaller skull and closer together teeth in comparison to a large wolf - this one already had those and more. (If this is correct and humans were later involved, their contribution was not to cross-breed a hard-to-control large wolf down to a dog-size, they cross-bred a small and easier-to-control small wolf up to a larger size.) The current genetic research is focused on comparisons with the larger extant Canis Lupus sub-species - they just might be looking in the wrong place! I will look into this further. Regards, William of Aragon (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Timber wolf

It means any North American grey wolf. It basically was invented to distinguish the animal from prairie wolves (which are coyotes). The term has stuck, whereas prairie wolf has not. Mariomassone (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Wolf's bite pressure

"The gray wolf's jaws can exert a crushing pressure of perhaps 10,340 kPa (1,500 psi) compared to 5,200 kPa (750 psi) for a German shepherd. This force is sufficient to break open most bones"

The above is a misleading adaption from Barry Lopez's book 'Of Wolves And Men'. It should read with the word "perhaps". "The animal can develop a crushing pressure of *perhaps* 1,500 lbs/in compared to 750 lbs/in for a German shepherd. This is enough to break open most of the bones the wolf encounters to get at the marrow."

1500 psi PERHAPS may be incorrect, it's not like Barry Lopez actually did any sort of bite pressure testing back in the early 70's. Barry was just speculating, nothing more. For some reason wolf orgs and internet sites like the wikipedia, have deleted the word *perhaps*, and are erroneously spreading this information on bite pressure as fact.

You can find the exact quote halfway down this page. http://www.amazon.com/Wolves-Men-Barry-Lopez/dp/product-description/0684163225

99.157.192.253 (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Mike Eisenfeld 12/30/2014

Location descriptions

As stated on the edit history page, "It is standard procedure in both zoology books and online animal resources to add location." This has never been an issue up until now apparently.Mariomassone (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You suggested on the Coyote page that I take this issue to that article's Talk page, so I'm not sure why you are now raising the issue on a different talk page. I suggest that for the convenience of others, you reply to my posting where you initially asked me to raise the issue.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
@Mariomassone: If you're going to do this across articles I suggest you get consensus first. --NeilN talk to me 18:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Wang, Xiao Ming & Tedford, R. H. (2008), Dogs: their fossil relatives and evolutionary history, Columbia University Press, p. 148
  2. ^ Jennifer A. Leonard, Carles Vilà, Kena Fox-Dobbs, Paul L. Koch, Robert K. Wayne, Blaire Van Valkenburgh - Megafaunal Extinctions and the Disappearance of a Specialized Wolf Ecomorph. Current Biology Volume 17, Issue 13, p1146–1150, 3 July 2007
  3. ^ Wayne, R K and Ostrander, E A (1999). Origin, genetic diversity, and genome structure of the domestic dog. BioEssays 21:247–257, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) {247-257}
  4. ^ Villa C, Maldonado J E, Wayne, R K (1999). Phylogenetic relationships, evolution, and genetic diversity of the domestic dog. The American Genetics Association 90:71-77. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) {71-77}
  5. ^ Wozencraft, W. C. (2005). "Order Carnivora". In Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wolf/Archive_5&oldid=1136390220"