User talk:William Harris/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about User:William Harris. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

re: golden jackal

I would like that very much. Thank you Mariomassone (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Mario, the article per se is almost there. There are some pedantic "hoops" the assessors will require it to jump through - formats for the different types of content etc - but nothing too challenging, just laborious and time consuming. I will give the article a good reading this weekend and make some draft edits, where necessary. (As with any edit, these can be challenged or debated.) We can then divide up the work to be done. Following that when we are ready, we invite our friends from the Guild of Copy Editors ("The Spacing Guild") to correct our our split infinitives and other grammatical errors. After that, you can nominate it for FAC and field the assessors questions. Unlike GAC, anybody can participate, but you will be lucky to attract half a dozen. (Additionally, I have also paid a visit to see Mr. Aleksandar, who may not be "assisting" us for much longer.) William Harris • (talk) • 12:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Mario, I know absolutely nothing about jackals and will be guided by your advice, but here are some initial comments:

the "legals" on all of the pix are fine
Refer the section "Subspecies" - we have a pix under C. a. a. of a jackal in a zoo in India - how confident are you that this is C. a. a. and not C. a. i.?
I am concerned about the reference for the ranges, and have placed a general comment to any editor on the Talk page. I have Europe covered by a recent upload to the article, but the taxobox range and the subspecies range will require sources if this article is to be at the "authoritative" FA level, even if these are multiple references, with them best cited in the original copies on Commons. Wozencraft lists the countries as at 2005, IUNC at 2008 - we might cite these for the pix and copy/paste the names of the countries under "Range", citing the refs. I have no idea where to start on the subspecies range. As these have been most recently modified by you, are you well-placed to follow these up?
The bolded "other names" - I now note that you have been busy with the subspecies articles, where the other names are already covered. I am going to suggest that we remove them from the main article altogether (i.e. implying that in the English-speaking world, there is only one common name for the golden jackal across the holarctic, but we have the local variants in the subspecies articles.) William Harris • (talk) • 22:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll get back to you in three days. I'm abroad at the moment. Mariomassone (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Half your luck! It is a wet, cold winter down here. William Harris • (talk) • 00:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Well Mario, work commenced in late August and is now finished in early November. Time is now of the essence, so I will now nominate your GA Golden jackal article for WP:FAC. William Harris • (talk) • 02:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

A quick history of the human/dog alliance

People keep forgetting that there were no lupus wolves in Africa and nobody domesticated the Ethiopian wolf nor the 2 African jackal species, nor even bonobos and chimpanzees - our intelligent, closest genetic cousins. The original Homo sapiens (think tall, thin Ethiopian-like people) came out of Africa and brought the spear with them, hunting the slow megafauna across the dry, cold Mammoth steppe and reaching Central Asia around 45k-60k years ago. In Africa there was wood to build structures to keep lions and hyenas out. However, across the mammoth steppe there was not, so hunter-gatherers on the move needed to (a) construct protection using mammoth bones every time they stopped (time consuming) or (b) they needed an ally to warn them on the move of the approach of cave hyenas (the top predator) and cave lions (second top predator) and cave wolves (third top predator) - we rate only fourth and are disadvantaged with limited night vision. Somewhere in here, the dog ancestor came along (woof! - fifth top predator!). The thoughts of researchers now appears to be that the extant wolf and dogs diverged from a common ancestor 40k-60k years ago. Domestication is now thought to have occurred 22,000 years ago. The dog and humans joined each other as natural allies. Even today, the dog is a scavenging animal with better scenting abilities than the other wild canids apart from the Arctic Fox. Early warning was provided by them and protection/food given by us, we did not "domesticate a wolf", we learned to live with the dog's ancestor. Eventually, their "core range area" and our campsites overlapped, we both became domesticated - we domesticated each other. We lost our fear of each other, and both of our brains shrank in size compared to our ancestor species but with more folding around the outsides - an indication of better processing power.

When the Pleistocene came to an end 13k years ago due to climate change, the rain and snow brought an end to the mammoth steppe. It also brought the rise of the wolf as apex predator as the wolf's paw is better adapted for snow country which led to the extinction of the cave lion and cave hyena, and forests sprouted everywhere due to the increased precipitation. Much of the slower megafauna became extinct as their ranges became broken up by forest. Therefore, the spear was no longer the main hunting weapon as we needed to take a very quick shot at a fleeting prey animal in forest - reindeer, red deer etc - so the rudimentary bow and arrow was better developed for range and power, else we starved. The ancestral dog could scent prey in the forest but could not catch it, we could not scent it but we could bring it down once the dog flushed it out. The human/dog alliance was propelled into top predator position, and we have remained there together ever since. Once we discovered agriculture around 11,000 YBP, we became top consumers together - we have both co-evolved to be able to process grains and fruits.

Science shows that the Homo neanderthalis were on their way to extinction well before the formation of the human/dog alliance. DNA evidence indicates that their population commenced declining after the second-last ice age, around 100,000 years ago. However, they never actually left; those humans that are not of black African ancestry share at least 4% Neanderthal DNA, and in some people it is as high as 20% (all jokes aside). Homo sapiens merged with the remainder of the neanderthals, who were a shorter, stockier, more robust people that could handle more exposure to the cold. The result is us. I do not agree with Pat Shipman that the human/dog alliance caused the extinction of the neanderthals, but I respect her courage in proposing new thoughts - the alliance may have propelled the merger between the two homo species. If we can cohabit with a species from another genus then we can cohabit with a species within our own genus. Shipman has helped reinforce the image of the hunter-gatherer as the domesticator of the dog ancestor rather than the previous view of the scavenging wolves hanging around the rubbish dumps of agriculturalists. Indeed, it has yet to be proven that they had any rubbish to dump. Once agriculture was in place around 11,000 YBP, we humans began to develop villages and to selectively breed plants and animals, including the selective breeding of our ancient and loyal ally into specialised hunters, specialised sleders, specialised herders, and specialised guarders.

Now, note the comparable timing of the human migration from Africa and arrival into central Eurasia, and the divergence of the dog/wolf. I believe it to be a coincidence when these two species first came into contact with each other - the rest is history. Yet, the back of my mind tells me that there are no coincidences in evolutionary biology.........cause is followed by effect! William Harris • (talk) • 21:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Beautifully, clearly expressed! I think your synthesis of what is known now is spot on. I have been on vacation for 2 weeks- I learned that the city dog of Paris is the JRT- I saw scores of the mean little buggers. I also stayed on a farm which had 2 Border Collies- what impressive beasts! Makumbe (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff. As G Larson once said: "the story of the dog is the story of us." JTS - I am convinced that these are derived from dingos!! William Harris • (talk) • 08:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Jackal—dog hybrid

Hi Corinne, I just tried to get a non-controversial technical move listed for action but cold not save the edit because this is the error message that I got. Any ideas?

Jackal—dog hybrid is invalid. Must create Jackal—dog hybrid before requesting that it be moved to Jackal-dog hybrid.

William Harris • (talk) • 09:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Different dashes. Jackal—dog hybrid (your article for moving) is not the same as Jackal–dog hybrid (the current article). Btw, nice work with the article upgrades. Jts1882 | talk 12:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure about that; see the redirect named Wolf-dog hybrid - to Corrine and I the the hyphen is different to the separator in Jackal-dog hybrid. What we are seeing could be a technical issue between web-browsers and the coding for the dash.

There are two dashes apart from the hyphen (-), the en dash (–) and em dash (—). I think your article uses an en dash, you requested a move of an article with the em dash. Jts1882 | talk 16:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jts1882 - I have just about had enough about dashes of all types! William Harris • (talk) • 08:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for support on the jackal, it is now in WP:FAC. I have shortened the first sentence so that people will have a simpler definition, a clear "take home message". William Harris • (talk) • 20:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Jts1882 is right. The problem is that you tried to move an article with a title that did not exist because you typed it with an em-dash. It is sometimes hard to see the difference between an em-dash and an en-dash. So that you can see it better, I've typed the title with an en-dash next to the one you typed as the heading for this section. In the new heading for this section, the first one has an em-dash, the second one an en-dash. Now I think you'll see the difference. In the wiki-markup at the bottom of the edit window, the en-dash comes before the em-dash, reading left-to-right. – Corinne (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, I have no issue with Jts1882's advice - I pinged you for the message that appears directly above the title Golden jackal – Some comments. I should have created a new thread. William Harris • (talk) • 20:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. I was actually a bit puzzled when I somehow reached this section from your notification. I found the message, above, and then read the linked discussion. I'm not going to get involved in that; there are enough who like to keep an eye on the Manual of Style and improve the wording, but it's good you mentioned your concern there. – Corinne (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC) I'm going to remove the second half of the section heading for this section so that it goes back to the way it was, and strike my comment since it wasn't necessary. – Corinne (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Corinne - the issue was my fault entirely; I should have created a new thread. Regarding the hyphen, I would recommend leaving it alone. Firstly, I "crossed-swords" with an old ally of mine initiating it and who is most knowledgeable on WP:POL, and secondly he and his associates will spend hours debating it and finally getting it sorted - it is best left to others. William Harris • (talk) • 00:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Golden jackal subspecies

Hello Mario, regarding the suggestion to consolidate the subspecies articles under the Golden jackal article. The suggestion has merit based on quality, size and the number of visitors:

Golden jackal is about to pass FA, 100kb, 700 visitors per day
European jackal - class B, 26kb, 27 visitors per day
Indian jackal - C, 9.6kb, 41 visitors per day
Common jackal - Low, 3.5kb, 8 visitors per day
Syrian jackal - Low, 5.9kb, 5 visitors peer day
Sri Lankan jackal - Low, 2.1kb, 5 visitors per day

There is the opportunity to consolidate the current articles under the Golden jackal article and converting the current articles into redirects to Golden jackal. The descriptions that currently exist under the subspecies articles could appear under Golden jackal#Subspecies in the "Description" box. The European jackal article is substantial and might warrant keeping, depending on what is replicated under Golden jackal. If you would like to consolidate some - or all - of these subspecies please let me know. The last 3 on the list should be seriously considered. William Harris • (talk) • 01:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Subspecies

I agree with consolidating the Euro, Indian, Syrian and common subspecies. I hesitate with the Sri Lankan simply because it is an island subspecies, and may in future turn out to have interesting genetic findings in future. Mariomassone (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

M, I would have liked to have transferred this from the Syrian jackal to the Folklore section of the Golden jackal, only (a) we have no page number in the citation and (b) no other sources says it: "In Jewish mythology, jackals are portrayed as infanticidal animals which would even kill their own young whilst nursing, were it not for God veiling the mother's eyes."^[1] William Harris • (talk) • 09:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

References

^ Encyclopedia of Bible Animals by Peter France, published by Harpercollins (November 1986), ISBN 0-7099-3737-7

Hello Mario, status to date:

Common, Indian, and Syrian jackal articles now actioned as discussed. I have added a new section to the article on jackal attacks in India.
European jackal: after looking over the article - class=B, size=26kb, 27 visitors per day - my assessment is that you have built up a fine article and that it should be left in place. I can envisage further interest being shown by European readers and editors in the future as the jackal expands further north and west. (Just wait until they finally get into Britain - the Brits will have to introduce lupus to keep them repressed!)
Sri Lankan jackal - class=Low, size= 2.1 kb, 5 visitors per day. We might set it up as a redirect similar to the other 3. If anything interesting turns up in the future then you can simply revert my edit that blanked the article with the redirect, thus bringing it back to life, exactly as it was, with one click.

For your consideration.

Also FYI, sadly our old nemesis, DrChrissy (Chris Sherwin), is no longer with us. William Harris • (talk) • 10:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Central Asian guardian dogs

My canine biology class has had some interesting videos of Central Asian livestock guardian dogs. There is a Facebook page of a person named Dan Russia which has amazing videos of working guardian dogs from Turkey to Mongolia. Scruffy, variable landrace dogs as opposed to the "purebred" Russian Caucasian Shepherd. These dogs are perfectly capable of taking on a wolf and seem to really be necessary for the nomadic herder. (I'm sure you know all this). I do have a question however- why are these dogs able to attain large wolf-like size without any effect on lifespan? They seem to live relatively normal dog lives (10-12 years or longer) and are very healthy and athletic unlike say an Irish Wolfhound. Is this simply their far more natural breeding and lack of inbreeding or is it because a different part of their dog genome gives them the wolf size without all the attendant shortevity? (made up word). I figured that you might have some ideas on this. In the videos there is a distinction made between the "aboriginal" shepherd dogs and the official Russian Ovcharkas and western Anatolian Shepherds which are official breeds. Do check out the Dan Russia Facebook page if you haven't- it is great. regards- Jeff T.Makumbe (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It is wolves in the wild that have shorter lifespans. In captivity the average lifespan is 12 – 15 years. This is quite common with a variety of wild animals as age makes them vulnerable to attack and makes it harder for them to get food. Jts1882 | talk 09:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

How do most carnivores die? They starve to death. If they become sick, diseased, badly wounded, or become just too old to hunt, they lay down and they die. Our hyper-carnivore ancestors from 20,000 years ago probably did the same thing. Wolves in the wild live for around 7 years. Jts tells us that wolves in captivity live 12-15 years. Dingoes in the wild live between 3-5 years with few living past 7-8 years. Some have been recorded living up to 10 years. In captivity dingoes live between 12-14 years of age (Jackson 2003). It is said that very large dogs live 8-9 years, Labradors average 12.3 years (UK figures support this), and your little Jack and its friends 14-16 years. I would suggest that very large breeds today suffer from diseases related to inbreeding, I am not totally convinced that a Western diet does them any good, nor do I believe they get the amount of exercise they need. Contrast this with the Central Asian mastiff-type dogs running about the mountains eating diced sheep etc for most of their lives. They live in a very different world, which in my opinion gives them longevity for their large size.

Now for something interesting. The 33,000 year old "Altai dog" - the nearest skull morphology today is that of the Caucasian Shepherd - not the ones the Russians bred, the original landrace that they based these on. Who knows where that one will go! William Harris • (talk) • 10:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I've watched 25 or so videos on Facebook (Dan Russia) showing "aboriginal" Central Asian guard dogs from Georgia, Armenia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Azerbijan and Mongolia and I would say that morphologically most of the actual working sheep guardian dogs are about 95% exactly like wolves. They have long legs, very athletic bodies and many don't seem to suffer from the 30% reduced skull of most dogs vs. wolves. They often have big heads, long noses, big nasty teeth and their size is that of a wolf. Some have wolf coloration and many have less abrupt color differences than breed dogs. The tightly curled tails, the higher orbital angle on the skull and abundant dewclaws mark them as dogs. The outer trappings of domestication like color, the sometimes jowly faces and their obvious human connection disguise a very lupine structure. I think that a skeleton of one of these huge dogs would be hard to distinguish from a wolf except by an expert. Very interesting that the Altai dog should look like one of these guys. What do the genetics say about these dogs?Makumbe (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Mark has this covered fairly well here1 and here2 William Harris • (talk) • 00:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting- especially article 1. In one Dan Russia video sheepherders in Altai, Russia (ironically) are shown making pets of wild wolves. I've read that this happens also in Kazahkstan, with wolves being kept as pets and used as guard "dogs". I guess it wouldn't be much of a leap to outbreed your shepherd dog to a wolf to make it stronger... Some of these dogs which are dark brindly gray and have their ears and tails cut off look like mutilated wolves. I should tell you Obi Wan that I get more canine info here than at any other source including my class. You have a true overview which I think even scientists in the field can't quite match- most of them are specialists without the time to draw all these interesting strands together.Makumbe (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you have nailed it in one - scientist do not have the time to be across a broad area, which is why I prefer reading the work of multi-disciplined teams. I also keep up with the Mammoth steppe, and have provided thoughts and citations with some of the research teams on that topic. Additionally, I could create a Wikipedia article on all of the things that just don't add up or a quite weird in this field! Have you seen Wucharia? Open up the report under Reference for a pix of it. William Harris • (talk) • 09:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Oddly enough Wucharia was under my bookmarks for "Wolf" but I don't even remember ever seeing it. Weird creature- I must have come across it during my Arabian Wolf summer. Now I'm going to check out Mammoth steppe. Another obsession waiting to happen? What about that Wiki article? What will you call it? ''Canis Soup'' ?Makumbe (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe not an obsession but we need to have some idea about the environment that gave rise, ultimately, to the dog. Canis soup sounds a fine name, should I ever write it. It would include such odd things as Lee 2015, and C. variabilis DNA found in ancient dogs from Siberia dating 11k years ago - C.v. was supposed to have gone extinct over 300k years ago! Like our Wucharia, there may be types of canid around, or recently passed, that we just don't know about.William Harris • (talk) • 09:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Editing - jackal

Hello User:Corinne, what is your opinion on the latest suggested FAC edits - OK for me to implement? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Golden jackal/archive1#A few points William Harris • (talk) • 10:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Dire wolf again

Corinne, as was our experience with Dire wolf after the TFA, we have another sociopath on the loose who acts charming but is willing to do or say anything to get their own way. The relevant Admin has been called. You may be wise not to reply. William Harris • (talk) • 09:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Fox

William, how come there is no cladogram in Fox? I wanted to see how distantly related the fox is to the golden jackal. – Corinne (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, I stop at Canis - Vulpes is best left to others. See the big one at Canidae.

A problem is that the fox article is not about a monophyletic clade. As well as the true foxes article includes the South American foxes which belong to two clades. It would be easy enough to add either the whole Canidae cladogram or a cladogram with Canina reduced to a single node. Jts1882 | talk 11:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

There is need to show how the foxes relate to the wolf-like canids, as Corinne asked about above. I believe that visitors would want to know that. I am not sure how to progress this one. William Harris • (talk) • 11:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Coyote

Hello, William Harris – I have Coyote on my watchlist. Whenever I see an edit summary saying "Fixed grammar", especially from an IP editor or a smart phone, I look at it. I changed "as" to "for" to make the sentence more colloquial, but then I saw that the rest of the sentence is poorly written and even illogically constructed. (How do internal details relate to mistaking a coyote for a dog or wolf, which would presumably occur at a distance?) I have the impression you are staying away from that article. Is that correct? Perhaps the entire article needs a copy-edit, but won't undertake it until I've completed a few requests at GOCE Requests and have nothing else to do. I just thought I'd point out that sentence. – Corinne (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Good after-dinner, Corinne. I do not have a watch on Coyote nor a number of the "Canis" articles, but I do patrol them when vandalism is high just to see what has gone through. I have reverted the edits - including your edit to get to them - as Bekoff did not say that. (I note that the "call of the wolf" has now enchanted you.........) William Harris • (talk) • 08:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Beringian wolf - TFA soon

Mariomassone, in memory of my large and powerful "cave wolf" who passed away last year, on 1 December (US time) the Beringian wolf article will form Today's Featured Article. Being exposed to the world, it will attract some informed edits, and some very uninformed edits. I would appreciate your watch over the article on that day - we may have our hands full. William Harris • (talk) • 10:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, about "an extinct type of wolf that lived during the Ice Age. It inhabited what is now modern-day eastern Alaska, the Yukon, and northern Wyoming but is morphologically and genetically different to the wolves that inhabit North America today. It existed at the same time as the more famous dire wolf that lived south of the glaciers." Thank you also for the sentiment, and we will watch also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

No Problem! 😊

No need to apologize. 😄 Its okay, as your intention was to help wikipedia as well (like mine 😀), I always become happy to see wiki users like you. 😊 Pure conSouls (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and Happy editing to you too. 👍 Pure conSouls (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, William Harris. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Arabian Wolves and Panzer Aces

William- Thanks for the link. I actually used that reference in the article on the Arabian Wolf. It was reference #8 when admixture with dogs and Arabian wolves was referred to in a sentence. Do you think this subject should be emphasized a bit more? It does go to your point about dogs being a potential menace. I am done with Panzer ace for sure. History is a squishy and silly thing for someone to get involved with on Wikipedia. Historical opinions are like the anatomical feature we humans we all share and people who edit Wikipedia historical articles are often the spiritual embodiment of that anatomical feature... So what is new in the canine world? I am still very interested in those wolflike dogs called Central Asian Shepherds- Alabais or whatever. Still waiting for 2018 Canine Genomemageddon... Cheers, Jeff T.Makumbe (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, I did not notice your use of the reference - I just sent it your way when I came across it on a canid website. I think you have dogs covered well enough in the Arabian wolf article. I rarely dabble in "historical" articles - I just consider W to be a poor source of info on many of those subjects, unless you get someone really good watching over the article with a neutral POV. FYI, I have just halved the number of Canis-related articles that I have a watch over; I just don't need the incidental aggravation. I have my core area and that will be enough for me on W. William Harris • (talk) • 09:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks William- I appreciate your sending stuff my way. I agree about Wiki not being such a good source for for historical subjects- the articles don't seem to stick to the bare bones and there's plenty of room for hidden editorializing. On the subject of dogs- I finished my Biology of Dogs course. In general it was great but I was disappointed at the end at how much acreage was given to "scientific" studies of dog behavior. As with human psychology- I don't think this is a science even with all the fancy-pants MRI work and big titles associated with the researchers. Dogs ARE amazing but in real life I think any houndsman in Europe, shepherd in Turkey or just a competent military dog trainer knows far more than these newcomer "scientists". I don't need "dognition" studies to tell me about dogs. As far as comparing wolf-dog intelligence- again- I think the researchers find what they want to. Using western breed dogs and western liberal attitudes they come up with conclusions that fit into the latest paradigm. Put some village dogs in there- or those amazing Alabai types- I don't think Fido will be all that different from a wolf... Again- thanks for sending stuff my way- hope my diatribe isn't too offputting- Jeff T.Makumbe (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not so much that researchers can tell you that "a dog can bark" - it is that they can prove that a dog can bark. They might then theorise that most dogs can bark but that is theory - they will need to do further experiment. The difference is subtle but important. The science can be a little behind the rest of us in the real world, but they will eventually get there. William Harris • (talk) • 07:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing we disagree on this one William. My point is that IMO Psychology and Animal Behavior studies aren't really Science. My dad was a famous plant pathologist (if there is such a thing) and instilled in me early on a deep suspicion of the flooby sciences like psychology, sociology and anthropology. Way too much wiggle room in all of them and way too much dependence on the state of the observer and all that entails. Ironically a lot of psychologists have realized this and now call themselves "neuroscientists" but it's the same game. Just as an example- in one of the "experiments" used to illustrate how much better wolves and dingoes are at solving problems it was actually a Border Collie which beat out all canids in "solving" a problem. Not even mentioned in the results. From what I got from the class it's just people having fun playing around with dogs and hanging out with cute grad students...:)Makumbe (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that is how I would arrange it! William Harris • (talk) • 22:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm just jealous...Makumbe (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Golden jackal for FAC

Hello Corinne. In a moment of weakness or passing fancy, I have decided to put aside my "Rise of the fossil wolves" for the moment and do some development work on an EXTANT(!) Canis species for a change - the Golden jackal. I was hoping to call upon your skills once again; if so, please amend as you see fit. I will follow along for yet another lesson. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, again, William Harris. It's funny, I was just yesterday looking at a television program about jackals in Africa (don't know if it was a golden jackal); it was about a lone female that hung out with a pack of hyenas until she joined a young family of jackals. I'm almost finished copy-editing Hussein of Jordan; after that I really ought to see if someone has copy-edited an article that another editor asked me to work on but I asked the editor to list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Is there any hurry on Golden jackal? – Corinne (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, that was probably the black-backed jackal or the side-striped jackal - both quite rare. As you will discover, that which was once considered to be the golden jackal in North Africa is now reclassified as a separate species, the golden wolf, and it is possible that it may have been one of those in the documentary before the reclass in 2015. I am always surprised how social some animals are, and how the lonely ones find comfort in other species, and not always within their own genus. I am appreciative of your work on Canis - the dog's cousins need all the help they can get on Wikipedia at the present time.

The schedule I have been working to is this: (a) Get the article promoted to FA before Xmas as a number of the promoters are Aussies and will depart on Xmas leave after that for a month or so. So hopefully all done by Friday 22DEC. (b) Articles appear to sit on the FA queue for 4 weeks min. and 6 weeks max. on average, so I will target submission for Friday 10NOV at the earliest or Friday 16NOV at the latest. This gives 2 weeks to the earliest submission date; how comfortable are you with this timeframe? (I have my project manager hat on at present.....) William Harris • (talk) • 08:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I see that. Sounds like a good timetable. I'm pretty sure I can get to it in the next two weeks. The jackals I saw in the program had big black blotches all over their bodies; the ground color was a dull medium brown/yellowish taupe. They looked similar in coloring to the hyenas. That was in semi-wooded savannah. – Corinne (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like the Black-backed jackal. Of interest, hyenas are closer to the cat family than the dog family although they live in packs, whereas the cats are usually solitary apart from the lion. Many thanks for looking at the jackal article. William Harris • (talk) • 20:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I was just glancing at the linked articles in the cladogram of canids and when I got to African wild dog, I saw the picture in the lead, and it was that one, so I guess it wasn't a jackal I saw in the program. – Corinne (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course, that would explain the splotches. Its ancestor came out of Eurasia a long time ago - I have recently developed Xenocyon, one of my favourite contributions. I also helped develop the proposed ancestor of the golden jackal, the Arno river dog, so there is a connection with it and my latest work. William Harris • (talk) • 08:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The article I had promised someone else to copy-edit if it was still in the queue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests when I finished Hussein of Jordan has apparently been copy-edited by someone else since it's no longer there. I accepted another assignment, but will copy-edit Golden jackal first. But since you mentioned Arno river dog, I glanced at it. Maybe I'll take a more thorough look at it later, but I noticed two things I'd like to ask you about in Arno river dog:

1) In the lead we find the following sentence:

The Arno river dog has been described as a small jackal-like dog and its anatomy and morphology relates more to the modern golden jackal Canis aureus than to the larger Etruscan wolf of that time.

(a) Since these are two complete independent clauses joined by "and", there should be a comma after the first one, after "a small jackal-like dog". I can add that.

(b) In the second clause, the subject is "its anatomy and morphology". It is a plural subject (two things), so the verb needs to be in the plural form: "relate", not "relates". If we change the verb to "relates", and add the comma, the sentence would read:

The Arno river dog has been described as a small jackal-like dog, and its anatomy and morphology relate more to the modern golden jackal Canis aureus than to the larger Etruscan wolf of that time.

I wonder if the sentence could be improved even more. The verb to relate can be used transitively or intransitively. That is, it can take an object or remain with no object. Here, it is used intransitively. There is no object (noun or noun phrase) after "relate". It seems to mean something like "connect", or "remind us of". The sentence might make more sense if the verb were used transitively, i.e.:

its anatomy and morphology relate it [i.e., the Arno river dog] more to the modern golden jackal Canis aureus than to the larger Etruscan wolf of that time.

where "relate" means something like "connect".

Would you consider adding "it" after "relate"? If that's not the meaning you were trying to convey, I apologize.

2) In the section Canis arnensis#Range, I see this phrase: "Tasso Faunal Unit of Italy". "Tasso Faunal Unit" also appears in the next section. However, this is not linked. I wonder if you'd like to link it to Villafranchian. – Corinne (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

This is good news for the golden jackal article. Many thanks for the Arno river dog, now actioned - you don't miss much nor let anything slip by, do you? I have nominated the Beringian wolf for TFA on 1 December - "Winter is coming!".

* You might like to amend the single bracket on the end of this section that has been copy-edited:

"believed to be the extinct Arno river dog that lived in Mediterranean Europe 1.9{{nbsp}million years ago."

* Your change of hyphen on the "jackal-wolf hybrid" has caused a link to a non-existent article.

William Harris • (talk) • 07:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, William Harris – Great news re Beringian wolf. I see a lot going on at Coyote, which I suppose you're following. I just finished copy-editing Golden jackal. Feel free to ask me about anything. I didn't see your notes just above until now, but I had already seen those two problems. I fixed the missing second curly bracket. Regarding the "jackal-wolf hybrid" situation, you may be right. I was just studying MOS:HYPHEN, specifically In some cases, like diode–transistor logic, the independent status of the linked elements requires an en dash instead of a hyphen. See En dashes below., but see also MOS:DASH, specifically the examples in In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between. Perhaps the "jackal-wolf hybrid" is similar to the example "blue-green algae", in which, according to this example, since "blue-green" is a "blended, intermediate color", a hyphen is correct. Would you say "jackal-wolf" is a blended, intermediate species, or is it more like "diode–transistor logic"? If the former, then we'll leave it with the hyphen. If it's more like the latter, then it should have an en-dash, and the article title would have to be moved (changed), too. I see Jackal–dog hybrid has an en-dash. As I was reading and copy-editing, I came across a few things I need to ask you about, regarding clarity and sentence flow, but I'd like to wait until tomorrow to find them and write up my comments. Not many. – Corinne (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Corrine. I do not have a watch on Coyote but I did stumble upon the "Coyote incident" before your alert, while doing one of my anti-vandal patrols there. I think the visiting editor raises some valid points that need to be considered, and I may have defrayed the looming edit war between several wilful editors. (The old, grey megafaunal wolf casts his shadow across the page and gives a low growl......)

I think the jackal-wolf is a hybrid blend of dog and wolf, similar to the colour blend blue-green with the algae so a hyphen. However, jackal-dog has an en-dash, which is possibly the one needing moving.

My editing of golden jackal lacked the &nbsp - must add it to the list on the top of this page :-) William Harris • (talk) • 10:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I like to use the template {{nbsp}} unless it's within a cite ref, a reference in curly brackets. I find it easier to type. Do you want to take care of moving the jackal–dog article title to "jackal-dog"? I'll get to the comments I promised shortly. – Corinne (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, leave that one to me; some of these Canis editors can get a "bitey" (as you well know) :-) William Harris • (talk) • 09:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Well Corinne, this will be now be referred to by me as "The Hyphen Incident" - Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:HYPHEN may need minor clarification. One best left for the aficionados to argue over. William Harris • (talk) • 11:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Golden jackal – Some comments

1) The last sentence of the lead is as follows:

In Europe, jackals will not occupy the same areas as wolves, with the jackal's expansion there being attributed to occupying those areas where wolves are few or non-existent.

Although I understand the point, the sentence is not well worded, specifically this part: "Being attributed to occupying". [Read through to the end of this item before making up your mind; I added another possible wording.] Although the -ing form of a verb can be used as a noun (and then is called a gerund), it would be better if a real noun were used instead of a verb form here. Something to the effect: "being attributed to the vacuum/opportunity/ecological niche created after wolves were killed or driven out of the continent". If you don't want to say something like this, perhaps you could avoid using "being attributed to" and discuss only time: "with the jackal's expansion there occurring after/when..." Without reading the article again to look for this, is Europe the only place where jackals will not occupy the same areas as wolves?

I just thought of another possible wording. If you add "their" (meaning "the jackals'") before "occupying", it makes more sense. If you do that, to avoid "there...their", I would just remove "there". I think it is clear enough that you mean expansion into Europe:

In Europe, jackals will not occupy the same areas as wolves, with the jackal's expansion ~~there~~ being attributed to their occupying those areas where wolves are few or non-existent. – Corinne (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

2) Just a comment: I was interested to read in Golden jackal#Etymology the following sentence:

It derives from the Turkish word çakal, which originates from the Persian word šagāl.

The "š" in Persian is equivalent to the English sound "sh". (See Persian alphabet#Letters, third column in item 16.) (I wondered if the artist Marc Chagall's last name was the same word.) But the word for "dog" in Persian (Farsi) is "sag" (no "sh", just regular "s"), but I guess "shagal" and "sag" are pretty close.

– Corinne (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

3) Regarding the last sentence of the first paragraph in Golden jackal#Taxolomy,

Results from two recent studies of mDNA from golden jackals indicate that, on the ~~phylogenetic~~ tree, the specimens from Africa are closer to those of the gray wolf than are the specimens from Eurasia.

I just removed the word "phylogenetic" before "tree". The phrase "phylogenetic tree" had just been used in the previous sentence, so I thought it wasn't necessary to repeat the entire phrase. However, I wonder if "in the tree" is really the right phrase to use. The phylogenetic tree is really a representation of evolution and genetic relationship, isn't it? So, "results from two recent studies of mDNA from golden jackals" have indicated something about the genetic relationships, not the representation of genetic relationships. I wonder if, instead of "in the tree", it would be better to add a descriptive adverb such as "genetically" before "closer" ("...are genetically closer to those of the gray wolf..."), or some other descriptive phrase such as "closer in terms of evolution", "closer on the phylogenetic tree", etc.

4a) The next sentence is:

In 2015 a major DNA study of golden jackals proposes that the six C. aureus subspecies found in Africa should be reclassified under the new species C. anthus (African golden wolf), reducing the number of golden jackal subspecies to seven.

Even though the study was done in 2015, you have the verb in present tense ("proposes"). I suppose that's all right, but if this is still a proposal, and it hasn't been acted upon, then you might consider changing "reducing" to "..., which would reduce...". If this has been acted upon, then you might consider changing "proposes" to "proposed"; in that case, I would leave "reducing" as it is. But I see that you continue with present tense for the rest of the sentences in the paragraph, and if you change one, you'd have to change the others.

4b) I'm wondering about this sentence:

The study found that both species shared a very similar skull and body morphology and that this had confused taxonomists into regarding these as the one species.

I'm a little confused by a couple of things in this sentence. Even though the previous sentence mentions three species, I assume the phrase "both species" refers to the African golden jackal and the "wolf/coyote lineage". When I read "the one species", I wondered, "Which species"? Upon re-reading, I realize you must mean "the golden jackal", but I'm not sure the average Wikipedia reader will figure this out. I wonder if you would consider making this a little clearer:

The study found that the African golden jackal and the wolf/coyote shared a very similar skull and body morphology and that this had confused taxonomists into regarding these as ~~the~~ one species, the golden jackal.

or just:

The study found that both species shared a very similar skull and body morphology and that this had confused taxonomists into regarding these as ~~the~~ one species, the golden jackal.

5) In the third paragraph in Golden jackal#Evolution are the following sentences:

The mDNA haplotypes of the golden jackal form two haplogroups. The oldest haplogroup is formed by golden jackals from India, and another haplogroup diverging from this includes golden jackals from all of the other regions.

The first sentence says X form two haplogroups. The next sentence begins, "The oldest haplogroup is..." Logically, the next sentence (or clause) should begin, "The youngest haplogroup is..." Instead, you have "another haplogroup...includes..." At the very least, it should be "The other haplogroup", not "another haplogroup". Perhaps, "The other, younger, haplogroup diverging from this includes..." I know experts will know that the one that diverges is necessarily younger, but the average WP reader may not. So, if you are not going to use both terms, "the oldest" and "the youngest", or "younger", then there is no point in saying "The oldest". It would be "One hapologroup" and "another haplogroup diverging from this is..." So, how about this? –

The mDNA haplotypes of the golden jackal form two haplogroups. The oldest haplogroup is formed by golden jackals from India, and the other, younger, haplogroup diverging from this includes golden jackals from all of the other regions.

6) Toward the end of the fourth paragraph in Golden jackal#Evolution is the following sentence:

In the Middle East, golden jackals from Israel have a higher genetic diversity than those from Europe.

The phrase "those from Europe" is not clear. Are these golden jackals that migrated from Europe into Israel, or is this merely "golden jackals in Europe", or "European golden jackals"? If the former, why would they have migrated from Europe into Israel? The previous sentence says the golden jackal is migrating from the Balkans into the Baltic.

7) The next sentence is:

This is thought to be due to Israeli jackals having hybridized with dogs, gray wolves, and African golden wolves, creating a hybrid zone.

The phrase "creating a hybrid zone" may leave the reader wondering "Where?" It kind of seems that the hybrid zone would be in Israel, but that's not clear.

8) Toward the end of the third paragraph in Golden jackal#Reproduction is the following sentence:

Compared to wolf and dog pups, golden jackal pups develop aggression at the age of 4–6 weeks when play-fighting frequently escalates into uninhibited biting intended to harm.

The problem with the phrase "Compared to wolf and dog pups" is that there is no comparison here. You haven't mentioned a single detail about wolf and dog pups.

9) Toward the end of the first paragraph in Golden jackal#Foraging is the following sentence:

Jackals search for hiding blackbuck calves throughout the day during the calving period, peaking their searches during early morning and then again in the late evening.

The problem in this sentence is the use of peak as a verb: "peaking their searches". Peak can be used as a verb, but, according to Merriam-Webster on-line, peak (verb) it means something entirely different from what I believe you intended. I think you created a verb from the noun (a common process in English, but in this case it didn't work). I suggest substituting another verb: "concentrating their searches", or re-wording the sentence so you can use the noun or adjective form of the word: "The peak times for their searches are the early morning and the late evening."

10) In the second paragraph in Golden jackal#Foraging is the following sentence:

Pack-hunting of langurs is recorded; also recorded in India and Israel are packs of between 5 and 18 jackals scavenging on the carcasses of large ungulates.

As you may have seen in the edit history, I had re-arranged this sentence. I still think it needs some work. It is a little odd to mention something recorded about pack-hunting of langurs but not mention where, and in the same sentence mention pack-hunting of large ungulates, but this time giving the location. I thought about putting "in India and Israel" within a pair of commas to minimize the information, so the basic sentence structure stands out more: X is recorded; also recorded are Ys. It would be better if the two parts of the sentence were closer to each other in structure, or at least include the location in the first sentence:

Pack-hunting of langurs is recorded in.....; also recorded, in India and Israel, are...

or:

Pack-hunting of langurs is recorded in.....; also recorded are....in India and Israel.

(In my earlier edit, I had moved "in India and Israel" to earlier in the sentence because, if it's at the end, it follows a lot of information that separates the phrase from the verb.)

Is it necessary to have singular in the first clause and plural in the second? It would be good to have singular; singular or plural;plural. Perhaps cut down on the number of words in the second clause:

Pack-hunting of langurs is recorded in.... and of large ungulates in India and Israel.

Well, think about it.

11) The second paragraph in Golden jackal#Habitat is the following:

The jackal's long legs in conjunction with its lithe body allows it to trot over great distances in search of food.

I think I had changed "in comparison with" to "in conjunction with". If you don't like "in conjunction with", perhaps "in combination with" or "..., combined with..." If you prefer to emphasize the relative sizes, which you might have been doing with "in comparison with", you might consider "relative to", but I think I like either the way it is now, "in conjunction with", or one of the first two phrases better.

12) Later in that same paragraph, the first paragraph in Golden jackal#Habitat, you have this sentence:

In India, they will occupy the surrounding foothills above arable areas,[65] entering human settlements at night to feed on garbage, and have established themselves around hill stations at 2,000 m (6,600 ft) height above mean sea level.

In this sentence you link "height above mean sea level", and two sentence later you use the abbreviated phrase "above mean sea level". However, two sentences earlier you give an altitude in the sentence that begins:

They have been known to ascend over 1,000 m (3,300 ft) up the slopes of the Himalayas". Don't you want to give the link to "height above mean sea level" here even if you don't actually write out the phrase? Just a thought.

13) The first few sentences in Golden jackal#Diet are the following:

In Dalmatia, the golden jackal's diet consists of mammals, fruits, vegetables, insects, birds and their eggs, grasses and leaves. In Serbia, their diet is primarily livestock carcasses that are increasingly prevalent due to a lack of removal, followed by small mammals taken alive. Jackals change their diet to more readily available foods, which may have led to the expansion of their population in Serbia.

I wonder if you could make the connection between the second and third sentences clearer. The expansion of the golden jackal population in Serbia is related to both their tendency/ability to change their diet to more readily available foods and the increasing prevalence of livestock carcasses in Serbia, but the third sentence seems to attribute the expansion only to their tendency/ability to change their diet to more readily available foods. If you agree that the connection could be made clearer, let me know if you need my help to reword the third, or second and third, sentences.

14) I notice you have a quote at the right-hand side that you have formatted as a pull-quote. If you read MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, you will see that pull-quotes are discouraged and are only to be used when the words in the quotes are "pulled" from the text of the article:

Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template).

and Pull quote.

Well, that's all. – Corinne (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne, this is all good advice and now actioned (or so I believe....). Regarding point 14, I really like the pull-quote, it is different and stands out nicely, attracting the reader to the section. The advice of MOS:BLOCKQUOTE is for items over 40 words long. I would like to drop the quote in the text as a blockquote, cut back the pullquote, and see what the FAC reviewers do with it. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 01:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations on achieving FA status for Golden jackal! A well-deserved accomplishment. – Corinne (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all!

	We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless! — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	A very Happy, Glorious, Prosperous Christmas and New Year! God bless! — Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas William Harris!!

Hi William Harris, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 15:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wikipedia problems

William- I was asked by people at Panzer Ace for on an opinion on an author. I got into a really weird flame war with an administrator who threatened me with consequences for something I wrote on the Panzer Ace Talk Page. Here's what he wrote: "I don't give a good goddamn if you edit that article or not--you violated the BLP (on the talk page, not in the article, as far as I know) and I warned you not to do so again. Also, it's Dr. Neitzel. Again, your very first sentence just reveals the stunning depth of your ignorance. Note that I never said or implied you're a Nazi--the real Nazis are dead. You seem to be a sympathizer, which in some ways is worse cause you should know better. I'm not sure what you're implying about me (where do I come from?), and I really don't give a damn about that either, since it's neither here nor there. If your ignorance impedes your neutrality and objectivity, as it seems to do, you shouldn't be editing here. Now go away so you can pretend in some other place that you got bullied by some big bad administrator with his MEAN MEAN cudgel who didn't like Nazis. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)"

I know you have warned me about the bad boys over in the History part of town but I really feel this guy is wacky! Should I be worried? Anything I can do? I basically told him he won and I wasn't going to edit the page anymore. Sorry to bother you about this- I just find it disturbing.

BTW- Happy New Year- 2018! The year of the Great Canine Mystery Report! Thanks again- and I will stay away from History from now on. They pinged me about the discussion on their talk page so I was lured back in...Makumbe (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm Jethro. If you want redress of a perceived wrong then ANI would be the most appropriate place to do it, as you have already been advised by others. BUT....it is a blood-sports page, it tends to attract admins that will not only fix your opponent but might also fix you as well! Your own adherence to the "rules" would also come into question, such as putting this stuff on the article Talk page. Innocently enough done, but breaks the rules - these folk love adherence to the rules. If you play chess, it would be similar to sacrificing your rook for his queen - he has the most to lose (being an administrator) and a great result based on a numerical score, but not so good as you approach the Endgame. If he is not admin-sys-deopted through the ANI process and only gets a warning - which I believe is the most likely outcome - you would then have to live with him possibly "haunting" you. You have come to the attention of one administrator; you do not want to come to the attention of many administrators. So far you have experienced only stinging words, you do not need stinging actions. (On a personal note I have found this administrator very diligent, however he has come under personal attack and pressure from sock-puppets that keep appearing like a many-headed hydra across Wikipedia, and have probably caused him some out-of-character behaviours of late.) I know you Americans always like to "get even", however my advice is to let this just pass and find another page of interest. This is not defeat - this is simply evolving beyond the need to "get even", and the smart thing to do. In the end it is your call. William Harris • (talk) • 04:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Very strange. I'll let it go. As always on the internet people can be so big and bad behind a keyboard. You did warn me about this. On a canine note- a homeless person wandering around near my work was in the company of some kind of eastern European shepherd dog- 110+ pounds, massive head and very impressive and scary warning lunge and bark! What a magnificent beast in person. He wouldn't tell me how or where he got the dog even though I paid $5 to photograph it. Since the class I took and just from obsessive youtubing I've come to see dogs with news eyes. I'll talk to you soon- thanks for your help- JLTMakumbe (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, William Harris!

Happy New Year!

William Harris,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Reduced Intelligence?

Hi William- Been off the Wiki for a while but I recently perused the "Dog" article and saw that there have been a few very minor changes all over. One thing that did kind of catch my attention was this: "...known to trigger high sociability and somewhat reduced intelligence..." in reference to the Williams-Beuren Syndrome and the Von Holdt paper. The paper itself is actually sort of equivocal and mentions nothing of "reduced intelligence". 10 wolves and 18 dogs does not a proven theory make and the paper definitely does not say that dogs have Williams-Beueren Syndrome- only that some of the same genes may be involved in making them "hyper-social". I think that phrase "hyper-social" also needs to be looked at. Dogs are very social only to humans and some other dogs they know but I don't think they are any more social than wolves within their own pack are. I think in judging intelligence and sociability only very general trends should be included in the article- a lot of what's "known" even by scientists is just intelligent sounding conjecture. Anyway- I may have a go at editing some of this stuff- I'll run it by you first or at least on the "Dog" Talk page. I see you have your hands full with some stuff- maybe your friend and an administrator friend of mine should meet! Hope your having a good 2017 otherwise- Cheers- JeffMakumbe (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, no hands full at all - the Wikipedia "jackal pack" will deal with this in their own time and in their own way. They are not a group to trifle with and are well-connected. Wikipedia is open to the flotsam and jetsam of the internet, including one behavioural type that will do anything and say anything to get their own way. To me, it is similar to the wind in the meadow - here today and gone tomorrow, with nothing achieved.

I do not keep a watch on the dog page. I do visit it irregularly when looking for something and had noticed that addition. It does need amendment to say something along the lines of "one limited study indicates that....." and it should be in the body, not the lead. As soon as something in the lead is disputed by other editors, it should be moved into the body. Based on WP:BOLD, simply make the change. If it is not agreed then the discussion can commence on the Talk page, and if not then nothing has been lost. The dog article is problematic. It is a compilation of bits and pieces put up by various contributors over the years in no integrated way, some of it should be in side articles, some of it is irrelevant, and some of it is dubious in that what is written may not necessarily be what the researchers said. Dog was once a WP:GA Good Article but has fallen from grace. It faces a number of "drive-by" editors who want to have their say on the dog space, and who continually change correctly cited material into what they think the article should say. It would benefit from a project group formed from the key Genus Canis contributors - similar to the one that I set up for re-engineering Gray wolf a couple of year ago - to get it into shape. Nobody really wants to touch it. William Harris • (talk) • 08:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Who was grandmother?

Hello User:Mariomassone, I know that you keep a watch on this article, however during your break you might take a look at my recently overhauled Great Plains wolf#Lineage. You know where this is heading. (After all of these years, their descendents were still chasing bison across the "steppe" just below what was once the channel in the ice sheets). Word on the street is that Julie M has managed to extract mDNA from the Natural Trap cave specimens (Beringian wolf#Range), which is considered why she was so convinced that these were lupus and not dirus during her morphotype analysis.

I also took a look at the "Rancho La Brea" lupus from the tarpits - Merriam recorded 2 types! One type he named C. occidentalis furlongi (Merriam, 1910) which resembles the large occidentalis northern wolves of today. The other he named Canis milleri (Merriam, 1912) and its skull and detention is described as being somewhere between furlongi and the dire wolf! He gives further description, including its massive P4 and M1 being larger than in any known timber wolves of today - sounds like a Berinian to me. I have shared personal communications with one of the researching morphology experts at RLB, who tells me that they have found forms of wolves taken from those pits that are described as being very "peculiar". William Harris • (talk) • 03:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Dog cleanup

Following on your merge work of a year or two or three ago, I've opened proposals here:

Also opened an over-capitalization cleanup RM here:

Talk:Non-Sporting Group#Requested move 20 February 2018

and in the course of it realized there are some other potential merges lurking in there. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mac - not before time! Support given on each. William Harris • (talk) • 08:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's another big one: Talk:Fédération Cynologique Internationale Groups#Merge from "FCI [Whatever] Group" pages. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you seen this?

Hi William- Have you seen this article on dingoes? https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-domesticated-dingo-no-but-some-are-getting-less-wild-20180123/Makumbe (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I haven't, thanks Jeff. They are speaking to all of the right players in the dingo field. Kylie is the young woman to watch, and we have exchanged emails in the past. My thoughts are that today's "domestic dog" and the dingo are both descendants from the ancestral "dog", which itself diverged along with the grey wolf from a common ancestor 40-60k years ago. How the ancestral dog got together with we humans is the subject of great debate, theory, and conjecture. One thing is emerging for sure, as stated in the article, is that we humans and the ancestral dog have both gone down the same path and have "domesticated" each other. William Harris • (talk) • 22:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

One of the things that I noticed was this statement: '“Dingoes can truly survive without humans,” Cairns said.' Is this to say that dogs wouldn't survive without humans? Aren't there truly feral dogs running around in the world? I thought even in Australia in the Blue Mountains there are truly wild dogs which have supplanted dingoes and who hunt just like them. Anyway- it just struck me that dogs not surviving without humans was a question I hadn't thought of as a scientific position. I thought that if humans died out many if most dogs would die out but a significant proportion would survive. The Moscow street dogs for instance have a small population which lives like wolves on the more rural edge of the city- hunting and avoiding man. Just curious- just biding my time 'til the release of the Big Paper. BTW- it is a pity that the Dog article is so chaotic now- Makumbe (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, take a look at the last two paragraphs which I have added to Dingo#Interbreeding with domestic dogs. It would appear that the hybrids are not simply half-way between a dog and a dingo! Dingoes are different to dogs, thus the debate about a separate species. The canids along the Great Dividing Range are hybrids. And yet, I have met one out in the Northern Territory, over a hundred kilometres from the nearest settlement or road or track, indicating that it was truly wild. We stopped to look at each other only 20 metres apart, with me carrying a rifle but without any fear - the "old bond" was still there. We simply surveyed our surroundings and each other for half a minute then he led me down the hillside, and was gone when I reached the bottom.

Did you notice: "When he compared the genomes of the mine and outback dingoes, he found that the two groups, separated by distances easily traversed by most dingoes, had ceased interbreeding. As the dingoes spent more and more time around humans, they grew increasingly isolated from their wilder counterparts." The first steps in genetic isolation.

For dogs, based on the work of Boitani in the Apennines mountains of Italy, feral dogs are not that feral, including ones born out there. They operate on a continuum between feral and home-based, with home-based dogs sometimes becoming feral if not looked after and feral dogs sometimes taking up residence with humans. Dogs are dependent on human sources of food, and always operate near humans and where they can get food in some way, supplementing this with small game such as a rabbit, lizards, carrion etc. ( Boitani, L. and Ciucci, P. (1995). "Comparative social ecology of feral dogs and wolves". Ethology Ecology & Evolution. 7 (1): 49–72. doi:10.1080/08927014.1995.9522969.) In an act of great humanity, Ciucci returned to Rome with one feral girl that he had bonded with during their study. There has never been found a population of wild dogs living off the land. I would suggest that if we go, most of them would as well. Nonetheless, there have been times when home-based dogs will form a pack and kill sheep for "fun" (possibly testing their hunting skills without knowing it). Some, but not all, dogs would survive. "Fido" is, after all, a wolf derivative and some hear "the calling of their people" more than others. William Harris • (talk) • 20:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting this sentence: "Dogs are dependent on human sources of food, and always operate near humans and where they can get food in some way, supplementing this with small game such as a rabbit, lizards, carrion etc." Sounds like another medium sized canid which lives around garbage dumps in the Middle East. C L Arabs. Growing up in upstate New York we had a problem with feral dogs who mercilessly killed deer. I would see them when I was out riding- a motley collection of farm dogs and true strays. One of my dogs (Ruffles) was shot by a warden for chasing deer.Makumbe (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

And yet, wolves in both Israel (arabs) and Italy have hung around garbage dumps for millennia yet have taken no steps towards domestication. William Harris • (talk) • 10:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I read your paragraphs about hybridization. Very cool. So I see now that when dogs and either dingoes or wolves (possibly coyotes too?) mix the outcome will still be mostly a wild animal both genetically and behaviorally. The dog part is basically human bonded and will be subsumed. Interesting still to me that there are really no wild familiaris populations. Again- mind blown! Thanks Obi-Wan...Makumbe (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Based on these two studies, we can only be sure about a dingo/dog hybrid. We will need to conduct testing on the others. Remember that we are not completely sure who the dingo ancestor was, but we believe it to be the ancestral dog. I understand that down in the Rancho La Brea Tar Pits, they have pulled out types of wolves that look very peculiar and we are not sure what those are. William Harris • (talk) • 20:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes yes- I'm always an overly enthusiastic simplistic Dr. Watson to your Holmes! I saw the earlier section about "Grandmother" but was perplexed. So MAYBE it looks like there were dog-type wolves before domestication? A type which was predisposed? A slightly shorter-nosed, big-jawed CL perhaps a bit different than your average Holocene wolf? The chase is afoot!Makumbe (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC) (Sorry to be such a dork:))

Absolutely correct - it would appear that the "ancestral dog" diverged between 40-60k years ago, domestication occured 22k years ago, and selective breeding 11k years ago. The ancestral dog probably looked much like you have described. With a full wolf coat based on the 4k year old Newgrange dog. It was probably a scavenger, worked in a pack, and did something unique: it communicated with its kind over long distances - Woof! Which attracted Homo sapiens to them - "I gotta get me one of those!" William Harris • (talk) • 08:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This is super-cool stuff. BTW, I created redirs for Newgrange dog and Altai dog to sections there, since people may encounter these terms in the wild, as it were. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mac, much appreciated. You might enjoy reading above my "A quick history of the human/dog alliance". Now Mac and Jeff - today my favourite evolutionary biologist stated that there is no firm evidence of human intentional domestication!

The problem is that there’s no solid evidence that humans domesticated anything deliberately (with the possible exception of tame foxes that were bred for scientific purposes). There’s no unequivocal case where humans grabbed a wild animal with the express intent of domesticating it. Instead, for example, it’s likely that scavenging wolves were attracted to human hunts or refuse piles, eventually developing a more tolerant attitude that led to their transformation into dogs. Similarly, mice were attracted to our grain stores, and cats were attracted to the mice. “There is no why to domestication,” says Larson. “That implies a directedness that appears not to exist.” - G. Larson - https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/eh-whats-up-doc/553304/

William Harris • (talk) • 07:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's been well understood in paleoanthropology circles for a long time, when it comes to dogs and especially cats, though the jury's still out on a lot of the livestock animals. If you're not already agricultural (which doesn't even yet guarantee wheeled vehicles), horses serve pretty much no purpose (other than as food animals) except riding them. Similarly, goats, sheep, and cattle provide milk and eventually cheese even at the migratory horticultural level of culture development, long before agricultural use, wool weaving, etc., so there's an incentive to round them up and keep them around for the milk. Cattle and sheep (aside from rutting males) even today are so skittish, and all are so dependent right up until living memory on grass, hay, and other non-human fodder, that it's not really credible they domesticated themselves. Goats and pigs could have; they'll eat almost anything, are hard to keep away from refuse piles, and are still as often aggressive as skittish. Larson's correct that we have no direct evidence against auto-domestication of cattle and sheep and horses, but it seems unlikely. We already had dogs we could use (not very much early on) to herd them, so trapping them to milch off of them seems like the answer. An interesting thing is that cattle seem to be the product of two and possibly three different domestication events, and dogs possibly more than one as well (even just among the surviving stock, never mind extinct paleolithic dogwolves). Maybe even cats, though only one lineage survives (the earliest decorated cat found with a human burial, on Cyprus, is a different subspecies that the one all modern housecats are descended from). Dunno about pigs, goats, sheep, dom. birds, bees, etc. in that regard. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

There is some evidence that humans selected particular cats early on. There was a recent paper which discussed two main domestic cat linaeages, in Egypt and Anatolia, and how it was the Egyptian cats that became widespread in Europe, which suggests human intervention was more important than simple geographical spread. There was also an important role of ships cats in the spread, which again suggests human encouragement. (link to article) Jts1882 | talk 09:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Big expansion with the Romans. Distributed by The Felix Legion, perhaps? (joke!) William Harris • (talk) • 10:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Carolina Dog

This may be up your alley. I did a partial overhaul on it [1], but it still needs a lot of work, and its probably also needs some expert eyes. I already stripped out a bunch of WP:OR about it being an "ancient breed" and otherwise misrepresenting very tentative genetic findings. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I drop in on this dog from time to time but I do not have a watch on it, nor are any dog breeds within my strategic interest. If I think that some type of wolf or "dog" has "punched in" from the Pleistocene then I will have an interest, but I tend to leave the Holocene dogs alone. However, when absolute nonsense rears its head - such as the "Maltipoo Incident" that we were both involved with - I might get active. With the Carolina dog, I had to remove all of the "American Dingo" and "Dixie Dingo" marketing nonsense a couple of years ago, and added the heavy-DNA stuff you find late in the article, to show that it was not related to the Dingo in any way. I dropped out a number of pix that did not match the breed standard. Recently I have had to deal with one editor who entered this dog under the Subspecies of Canis Lupus as being separate to familiaris, because "it was domesticated in America by ancient indians". The question "domesticated from what?" brought only silence.

All that we can say is that SOME of these dogs mDNA is dated "Pre-Columbian" i.e. before 1400. To assume that they arrived with Paleo-Indians crossing through Beringia 12,000 years ago is theory. I will review the Brisbin research to clarify what was actually found from data and clarify what is theory. However, the rest of the article is not in my sphere of interest - I would have thought that there were more than enough editors in south-eastern USA to develop it. (I had thought the same about the Dire wolf and North American editors, but after waiting years found that it required an Australian under the guidance of a Dane to develop it from B to FA. Your fellow countrymen appear to have little interest in wolves.) William Harris • (talk) • 08:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

That was easy - Brisbin never published a "preliminary mDNA study". Text removed. I now have a watch on this article, and will "ride shotgun" with you for a while. William Harris • (talk) • 10:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you seen this? - revisited

Jeff, I missed your point above: "I saw the earlier section about "Grandmother" but was perplexed...." M. knows what I was referring to. What the research showed is that the Mexican wolf (extant) and Great Plains wolf (extinct - I have just done some work on that one) exhibit shorter legs that are more in keeping with the extinct North American Pleistocene wolves than the "newcomer" - the Holocene gray wolf. A very close match to the Beringian wolf, in fact. The Mexican wolf's mDNA is basal to all other NA wolves; that is a fact. Which raises the question, because mitochondrial DNA is passed along only the female lineage, who was these two wolves' grandmother? Especially when the indians tell that only 3 Great Plains wolves were able to bring down even the biggest bull bison. Beringian descendents? Ancestors of the Holocene gray wolf, perhaps? Plus young Erik's summary at the close of the Beringian wolf article: "For the ancient wolves of North America, instead of an extinction/replacement model indicated by other studies, this study found substantial evidence of a population bottleneck (reduction) in which the ancient wolf diversity was almost lost at the beginning of the Holocene." Why did his genetic study say "almost lost"? (Of course I have asked him; we have to wait for the next revelation! Possibly a part of Larson's wider wolf/dog origin study, as his guiding professor is an associate of the "Larson-pack".) William Harris • (talk) • 08:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Shorter-legged, dish-faced with a shorter rostrum and powerful jaws? Any dog connection there especially since the haplotype is found in ancient Asian wolves? I still don't have a clear picture but the short legs and shorter face seems very doglike. Gee- kinda like a Central Asian Shepherd (the working kind, not the breed type). I still don't have all this clear in my mind- JLTMakumbe (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Based on mDNA, we know that the sister to 65% of dogs is a cave wolf from Kessleroch cave near Thayngen in the canton of Schaffhausen, Switzerland (Thalmann 2013). Therefore, the dog is a descendant of the Pleistocene wolf and not the extant Holarctic gray wolf. The dog has shorter legs and a shorter rostrum because its ancestor did, not because of "domestication" from the Holarctic gray wolf.

I am not sure we can say that it is an Asian haplotype. The Mammoth steppe stretched from Spain to the Yukon - from that point of view there was no Asia nor North America. The ancestor that provided the haplotype for both the Beringian wolves and the wolves recently found in remote China could have originated from anywhere across it. Because of the Mammoth steppe, I am not completely convinced that the dog originated in Eurasia - the researchers who cannot find the ancestral dog's remains in Eurasia might be "barking up the wrong tree". William Harris • (talk) • 00:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification- as usual you help me see it. I was kinda thinkin' that the short legs and different skull characteristics definitely came from an ancestor (not from domestication as possibly the curved tail did) and I got long ago that the dog comes from an ancestor NOT the Holoarctic gray wolf of today. Amazing to me all these different wolves in the long ago... they are more easily seen (by me) when I watch Central Asian Shepherds or dingoes or village dogs. Interesting also- if not Eurasia- America? Makumbe (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Possibly Beringia - a bit of Eurasia and a bit of North America. That dogs went from Eurasia to North America is an assumption made by researchers based on people moving that way. There was nothing to stop some people going from Beringia westwards back into Eurasia. I believe that we will find the Holarctic gray wolf to be a Beringian wolf mutation - one that we have not found yet. Her sister the dog therefore could have come from the same lineage. This is just my conjecture but the current theories appear to fail us. William Harris • (talk) • 03:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Rancho La Brea - possible dirus/lupus hybrids

Hello @Mariomassone:, I think you will find my latest section here interesting: Evolution of the wolf#dirus/lupus hybrids William Harris • (talk) • 10:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC) @William Harris: Very interesting! On a side note, I'm redoing the present/past green/red distribution map you edited, but with administrative divisions, so that it will be easier to pinpoint the locations of expanding wolf populations Mariomassone (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Palaeo-art

@FunkMonk: @Mariomassone: - you might enjoy this one here here. I like the way they have added a "vest" of extra-thick fur to the cave wolf. Prosit! William Harris • (talk) • 11:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, perhaps the Beringian wolf should have been shown similarly? FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

We may never know what they looked like unless one should come out of the ice - similar to the mammoth - at some time. It is logical that an "ice age" wolf would have extra fur, however today's cold-climate arctic wolf does not show a vest, but it does possess extra-thick fur. William Harris • (talk) • 04:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, talking of animals coming out of the ice, you just reminded me of this[2] atrocity... Such a mockery of an amazing specimen. FunkMonk (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I guess it helps generate some funding for further research. You get a cute Palaeo-rhino and a cute Yakut scientist giving it a cuddle for a size comparison. Who would have thought that a mammal that lived on the mammoth steppe was not the same colour as the African rhino? - I just love the media. William Harris • (talk) • 09:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hehe, such optimism! Yeah, that picture is the only good thing to come out of it. Wonder what they'll do with those cave lion cubs... FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: @Mariomassone: You both might like to see an artist's recreation of the dire wolf in Figure 1 here. The page before, page 183, is revealing - wolves number 3 and number 4 appear to be dirus/lupus hybrids or Beringian variants that went far south. William Harris • (talk) • 10:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I only get blank pages, sadly... FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Somehow, they manage to show different pages for different ISP addresses. You might like to try going directly to Google Books, looking a version up there, and trying your luck with pages 183-184.

I see it now, that's quite a skinny wolf! FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

New range map

Hi, here's the new range map with subnational borders. Feel free to make it consistent with your latest edit of the other one. On another note, is the huge hole in Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan actually backed up by sources? Mariomassone (talk) 07:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The map will facilitate hours of fun for editors to keep updating as lupus expands! There is a west and central Europe map dated 2012 available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/media.htm - not sure if I should upload it and add it to the wolf range article.

There is nothing regarding the Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan "hole" - I have searched Google Scholar, Google Books, and a general internet scan. From what I gathered, back in the ("good old") days of the USSR there was a huge wheat belt that covered this area and much more with no wolves within it. The size of the belt has reduced since then, and the wolf range has expanded as the belt has contracted. I think we should assume that there are no wolves in this region today unless we have some evidence otherwise. William Harris • (talk) • 08:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@William Harris: Some guy on Commons is taking issue with my subdivisional maps and is reverting the ones I modified, as well as replacing the one I made from scratch with an outdated map with no subnational borders. I predict an edit war unless given some support by a third party. Any help would be appreciated. Mariomassone (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Mario, I think the best strategy would be to write a brief note on Talk:Gray wolf that you have created a new map with national borders so that editors can update regions within national borders as the wolf expands, and ask if any editor has an objection to it. I will then support it. I do not expect any objections on that page, however if there are we can cross that bridge if we come to it. Therefore, any further discussion with the other party on Commons will then be done with the support of the gray wolf pack - "For the strength of the pack is the wolf, the the strength of the wolf is the pack" - Rudyard Kipling. Cheers, William Harris • (talk) • 11:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I note that you have a similar issue with the chanco map as well. William Harris • (talk) • 09:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mariomassone: The editor mentioned appears to have created a Commons account just to amend the wolf distribution maps, and has now departed. This matter appears to be concluded, however please keep me posted if there is another incident as I do not spend much time on Commons. William Harris • (talk) • 11:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

New Pleistocene african wolf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320877394_canis_othmani Mariomassone (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, I have included it under Canis#African migration. Trying to piece together the dispersion of Canis (and spin-off relatives) across the holarctic in the Middle-Late Pleistocene is not getting any easier - painted dogs in Spain does not help us either! https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256408327_The_Latest_European_Painted_Dog William Harris • (talk) • 10:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

[1] Encyclopedia of Bible Animals by Peter France, published by Harpercollins (November 1986), ISBN 0-7099-3737-7

[1]