This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DogsWikipedia:WikiProject DogsTemplate:WikiProject DogsDogs articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
This sub family does not exist according to ITIS. Also the crab-eating fox page places the genus Cerdocyon in this non-existent subfamily; then the sub family does not list the genus Cerdocyon here. looks like we need a dog taxonomist or at least someone to reconcile the Canidae information with ITIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.2.240 (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ITIS is not the source document recognized by Wikipedia Project Mammals, the source document you should be referring to is Mammal Species of the World. Regardless of what you might be able to find - or not find - on ITIS, there are now half a dozen cited works that can vouch that the subfamily exists, including the authoritative Dogs: Their Fossil Relatives and Evolutionary History by Wang and Tedford. Any credible text on the subject of Carnivores will reflect this subject as well. William Harris • talk • 21:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This page presents two charts of canids, where one uses "Fennecus" for the genus name of the mostly African segment of foxes, while the other uses "Vulpes" for those, and the text nowhere addresses this conflict. This really ought to be clarified, with at least some discussion of how the current genomics indicates which should be preferred, and just maybe if molecular information is clear, then one or the other of these division schemes should be chosen and used for both charts. 2001:56A:F0E9:9B00:B0BE:5681:6E9F:1C4 (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)JustSomeWikiReader[reply]
There are many uses of the dagger (†) but it doesn't appear to resolve to any footnote or caveat. What does it mean? This should be made clear to the reader.
Ross Fraser (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an indicator for "extinct", I would consider this a standard usage in both the literature and WP. Not sure it should or could usefully be defined on a per-article basis. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]