Jump to content

Talk:Canis lupus dingo/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Initial Post: The referent of this article: toward a complete list of Canis lupus dingoes

The following post has been copied and pasted from the discussion page of the article [Australian Dingo]. It had been written (by me) quite a bit before the creation of this article: Chrisrus (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference between the referents of the term Canis lupus dingo on the one hand, and "Australian Dingo" on the other? In an effort to find out, I turned to the "Synonyms" list for C.l.dingo from MSW3. I googled each of these and here is my report:

  1. antarcticus Kerr, 1792 : Very confusing term. I think it was used at one time for the Falkland Island Wolf, but I think Kerr was using it for the Australian dingo, but I couldn’t find the actual article.
  2. australasiae Desmarest, 1820: Australian Dingo
  3. australiae Gray, 1826 Australian Dingo
  4. dingoides Matschie, 1915 Australian Dingo
  5. macdonnellensis Matschie, 1915 Australian Dingo?
  6. novaehollandiae Voigt, 1831 Australian Dingo?
  7. papuensis Ramsay, 1879 Paupau New Guinea Dingo. Not sure if it’s the same as the New Guinea Singing Dog, but it seems like it. It no longer seems to be the same as the New Guinea Singing dog to me.
  8. tenggerana Kohlbrugge, 1896 This was an animal that lived on Java. It was not related to the Javanese Wild Dog, which is a canid but not Canis. It was supposed to be just like the Australian Dingo, and he remarked that it was already pretty much gone as it was interbred with other domestic dogs. They must have the bones, though, because it’s been identified today as synonymous with dingo.
  9. harappensis Prashad, 1936 Here’s what I found:

"ANGRESS AND REED: DOMESTIC MAMMALS 85 A systematic description of the animal remains from Harappa in the Indus valley, collected during the seasons from 1924-25 to 1980-31. The material — dated back to the third millennium B.C. — contained skulls and other skeletal parts of dog, cattle, sheep and goat, besides fragments from the one-humped camel, the Indian pig (Sus cristatus, all parts of young animals), the domestic ass, the domesticated buffalo and an apparently domestic cat. The dog — named Canis tenggeranas harappensis — showed marked skull- affinities to the Indian wolf (Canis pallipes) and is considered the ancestor of the Indian greyhound. Cattle found were of the humped zebu (Bos indicus) and the humpless type, both regarded as descendants of B. primigenius. Sheep were identified with Oris vignei (domestic us). The goats of Harappa were regarded as derived from Capra aegagrus and their probable cradle of domestication is sought within the Indus valley."

That's pretty far away from Australia. We can call it the Indian Dingo? Could it be a sort of Missing link between the Indian Wolf and C.l.dingo, something on the way between Indian Wolf and dingo, before familiaris was found? 10.hallstromi Troughton, 1957 This is the New Guinea Singing Dog. 11.Reason dictates that there may be many more animals that may be Canis lupus dingo, but never had taxons suggested for them. I've heard about the Canaan Dog, the Carolina Dog, and the Telomian, just to name a few, which might be on the dingo side of the familiaris/dingo clade. Does this jive with your vision of the nature and scope of this article? It seem to me to be opening a can of worms for this article to be about the entire referent of the taxon Canis lupus dingo instead of just the Australian Dingo, which is the most likely target for a Wikipedia Search for "d-i-n-g-o" Chrisrus (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

At this time genetically speaking, the AU Dingo and New Guinea Singing Dog are a match, but to my knowledge there has been no definitive genetic study with others such as the Carolina Dog, Canaan, Thai Dingo etc. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A needed article

We applaud you for your efforts on Canis lupus dingo. We feel it is definitely needed as there are so many dogs out there that stem from this group. I know my terminology may not be correct, but you know what I mean. I do think there is a heirarchy here since AU Dingo and NGSD were isolated and insulated from outside influence for so long. Personally, I think NGSD and AU Dingoes should be Canis lupus dingo and all the other "dingo type dogs" should be Canis lupus familiaris, but that's just my opinion. AU Dingoes and NGSD are much more primitive because of the way they have evolved. You may have to do an article titled Canis lupus familiaris too.. It's a big debate. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the hierarchy of Mammology should really take a look at this system of organization again. Indeed, as you know, there is some sign that they might be thinking of doing so. It is important that this article clarify that these things are not written in stone. I hope that it does leave the reader with the impression that, as more and more animals are being identified as "Canis lupus dingo", it makes the taxon look less and less meaningful. To clarify what I mean, if the dog brought to the New World from Asia by Indians and Eskimos was Canis lupus dingo, does that mean all New World dogs are C.l.dingo? Think about the significance of this fact, if it can be established, for the common Chihuahua! How meaningful will Canis lupus dingo be if Chihuahuas are found to lie on the C.l.dingo side of the dingo/familiaris clade? I wouldn't mind at all if the reader of this article comes away with the impression that this taxon is looking more and more untenable, just as long as that is in fact, how those who are in a position to know are leaning. Maybe one day, this article will evolve into the history of the demise of a taxon. Chrisrus (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, have you met any more of these rare breeds? Have you ever seen a telomian, or a Greenland dog]? Why not take a look at those articles? I'm interested in how a man of your background would react to them. Chrisrus (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're ahead of your time and I know the feeling because I've been ahead of my time on several things too. It's very frustrating to have to deal with people who think they know something and in fact they know nothing. Personally, I know very little about most of the rare breeds. To me they're interesting, but I leave the fine print up to the breeders who have developed them. I think that's what I like so much about NGSD and AU Dingoes. Humans haven't bred them, altered them, changed them or shaped them. With NGSD and AU Dingoes, their environment has been their only master. If it sounds as though I'm promoting them, that is not really the case. What I'm saying are only the plain facts. AU Dingoes and NGSD are today just as they were thousands of years ago. Man hasn't completely managed to screw them up as yet. Yes, NGSD have a breed standard with United Kennel Club, but do you know how many have been registered with UKC? Like zero during the last 10 years. I view all other rare breeds as "altered by man". They have, even American Dingoes, lived near man and have been shaped by man. With the American Dingoes, they have gone "more feral" during the last hundred years than during the previous thousand, as near as I can tell. In a literal sense, all the dingo types are breeds of a sort in that they resemble one another within a specific range. Singers are a breed. Au Dinoes are a breed. Thai Dingoes are a breed. Telomians are a breed. And they're all dingo types. The differences lie within the facts and conditions regarding their existence in relation to man. And the relationship to man is what makes NGSD and Dingoes unique. They are today unchanged from ages ago. That is what makes them so special. They were shaped by nature. I believe it really takes working with them "hands on" to fully understand what I mean. Me, I like dogs. Any dog. We've raised numerous breeds. Each breed is unique. Each dog is unique but I chose Singers as my "first pick" because they exibit characteristics that strike me as quite unusual. They are a challenge everyday for their entire life. Never a dull moment and I'm quite sure folks who admire other breeds feel the same way about their breeds. It's all a matter of relevance. As for taxons, I figure some day the powers to be will figure it all out. My goal in life is to preserve what we have and hope we still have some when the powers finally make up their minds. The scientific community has done virtually nothing for Singers. Therefore, I have little, if any respect for their foolishness. If we would have depended on scientists to preserve Singing Dogs, Singers would be extinct today for certain. Universally, Singers are smarter than most of the people who study them. One last thing and I'll quit. Remember the study the man did where he tested the dogs ability to pick out treats or whatever. He considered Singing Dogs as unable to read human gestures. That is so funny. If he knew Singing Dogs he's realize the Singers were smarter than himself. They took one look at him and said, "Hey old buddy researcher, we're not interested in your silly games." An animal that can learn an agility course first time through is one smart cookie. The general public has no idea about these things regarding Singers. No idea at all. So, as far as the Canis lupus dingo article is concerned, I think it's a great idea if it makes readers realize how all these dingo dogs are related, but I think it will lack citations because most origin information is conjecture. If you can present what facts there are in existence at this time and allow the readers to make their own decisions, then you're cool. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

1882 Lowland Dingoes

Chris, Just for your own information, I think the Lowland Singers described in the 1882 reference are actually what we call "VIllage Dogs". Village Dogs are NGSD hybrids or curs that have interbred with European farm dogs. By the 1880s there should have been a fairly large population of European domestics along the coast. These are not what we consider actual "Lowland Singers." Lowland Singers preceded these "Village Dogs" and were mostly extinct(intermingled) by the time the book was written. The giveaway is in their description. The lack of a bushy tail. NGSD have a bushy tail, not a smooth tail. Anyway, that's my take on the reference. If I were to use it personally, I would use it to explain the demise of the original and actual Lowland Singers at the hands of the European farm dogs. Eventually the entire Lowland Singer population was either hybridized or forced into the more remote highland regions. In other words, the sub group or what a person would call it, of Lowland Singers went extinct, probably by 1900 or so. I doubt that you'll find a published reference to this effect. osm20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem they were very different animals from Aus dingoes, that's what the source was talking about: how the paupauensis dingoes were different from the Aus dingoes. It spoke of them as dingoes, but spent most of the time talking about how they are not the same as the Dingoes of Australia. He was clearly biased, but he did prove the part about the smaller brains and lifestyles gives a reasonable theory as to how the two are connected, but he does seem to see them as "inferior" dingoes. MSN3 agrees that they are synonymous with C.l.dingo.
Yes, you are right, that paupauensis and NGSD seem quite different, and it's not just the tails. The paupauensis discription does not seem to match the NGSD, so do you think we can safely add that to the article? I hope it doesn't cause anyone to conflate them with NGSDs. Although the NGSD article teaches us that they have not been studied in their natural environment, evidence seems to show that NGSD are noticably intelligent animals, which would indicate that they had to live by their wits quite more than the lowland dogs. We could create more distinction in the readers mind by pointing out facts about the eco-geography of the island. Maybe we should refer to the features of the islands that makes the animals and cultures there isolated in all those pockets, separating them and causing them evolve many quite different forms by all the varied environments there. Then the reader will see it's not reasonable to assume that what was true of paupauensis was in any way extendable to NGSDs, beyond the fact that experts agree that they are both C.l.dingo. Encyclopedic words to the effect of "In New Guinea, every valley practially is like an island and dogs have been there for a long, long time..."
Yes, you are right, there is not much reason to assume that we're going to find much more out there about the NG lowland dogs. Everyone seems satisfied with the old paper's description and any curiosity there once was seems to have waned long ago. The level of detail we have seems to satisfy everyone, and if you are right as I think you are that they are extinct, there's no way to study them further. That's the problem: the story has no ending for the reader! I wish we could find is some source about what happened to them, saying whether they are, in fact, extinct, and why; whether cross-bred with non-PPNG dogs out of existence, or whatever else might have happened to them. It's hard to cite the fact that no one talks about them anymore, therefore leading us to believe that they're extinct, so I don't feel comfortable saying that they are no more. I've ordered a cheap copy of "The Dingo in Australia and in Asia" and it's supposed to be here in ten days. At that time, I'll see if I can add any more detail. If not, maybe we can find some way to state that they haven't been noticed or discussed much for centuries or some such, to flesh out the end of the story. Chrisrus (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to compare current NGSD brain size with the 1882 researcher because I think we'd find out he was measuring hybrids rather than actual pure NGSD and I would also hypothesize that the hybrid brains were smaller than Au Dingoes. NGSD are quite intelligent having the ability to reason and plan. When you couple their brain with their senses, they become smarter than most humans. They also have been known to use tools in order to carry out a plan, so the brain size thing is either a mistake or a gross oversight. Most likely, people read that guy's work and because of it decided NGSD weren't worth studying. Heck, he didn't probably even know about the Highland Singers because it wasn't until 1897 that one was shot and carried out of New Guinea. Thankfully someone did take some interest in them, at least enough interest to shoot one for study and just think, the carcass only lay dormant for another 14 years which is a Singer generation. See what I mean about the scientific community not doing anything for the Singing Dogs? As far as extinction of the Lowland Singers is concerned, there still exists two distinct leg lengths in Singers just as there still exists four black and tans, so the genes are still there for long and for shorter legs just as they are for black and tan coloration. There are also recessive genes for black and whites but we have only heard of one in the wild and two in captivity in the entire Singer history. Oh, the best one is blue-eyed-ness. All Singers have brown eyes except for one individual recorded as being named Jacob. He had one blue eye and one brown eye and we were able to trace him clear back to the original Taronga Park/San Diego pair. So you see, weren't AU Dingoes used to make the beginning Australian Shepard lines? Where do you suppose the cattle dogs got their bi-eyed-ness and their split-eyes? I wish I would have keep his remains. All we have of him are pictures of his eyes. You see, we've known for a long time that Au Dingoes and NGSD were cut from the same block of wood, but have never been able to prove it until this last Wilton etal DNA study. I know it seems I'm rattling on, but I'm hoping that by reading this stuff either you or someone else will get some ideas about ways to present some of this information. If not we'll just have to wait for a suitable reference source. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, but I just want to reiterate at this point that there is no reason to expect that what we can say about papuensis has any bearing whatsoever on what we can say about hallstromi any more than drawing conclusions about English Bulldogs based on what we know about English Cocker Spaniels simply because they are both from the same country: beyond being the same subspecies of Canis lupus, there's very little they have in common. Based on this conversation, I think that maybe we should add words that will make it clear to the reader that the geography of New Guinea is such that it isolates the people and animals from each other, so they become very different over time. Not only that, but also of the cultures and peoples. Did you know, for example, that something like, oh geez, I don't remember exactly but it was some shocking percentage like a fifth of all known languages are from New Guinea? I could look it up, but there were stats like they have more languages than all of Europe on that one island. I really don't want to leave the impression on the reader that what we know about the coastal "dingoes" should be assumed to be true about the highland dogs, which might as well have been on different continents from an evolutionary perspective. Please help me find a way to improve the article so as to protect against creating this unwarrented assumption in the minds of an innocent reader. Chrisrus (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

We think your approach is logical and we like your thinking on this. I'll try to help. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Lament for the lack of available information on Asian "dingoes"

There's so little out there about some of these "dingoes", especially the southeast Asian ones. I've got a book in the mail, but if anyone out there has any suggestions as to where to look or anything to contribute, it'd be greatly appreciated. In the end, if almost nothing turns out to be known about them, that's fine I suppose for the article or sections to be very short, but I'm just really interested to learn more. Chrisrus (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The text taking up space in the "Dingoes of Southeast Asia" section is machine translated and lifted from the Norwegian Wikipedia, where they seemed to know something about them but I can't tell for sure because nothing there was cited. I left messages there, but the "citation" I was given was pretty useless. I'm sorry, but I can't find anything else. If you know anything about these animals, please feel free to replace the text with something better. If you can help clean up the translation, please do. Chrisrus (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record; the "Asian dingo" is difficult to classify, because they are rare and difficult to access. Boran Dog is a umbrella name for three genetic variants living in the northern Thailand area of Southeastern Asia; the Thai Dog, the Phu Quoc Dog, and the Siamese Hairless Dog. Along the Phu Quoc Dog (Phu Quoc Island) there also exist dog called Cambodian Razorback (or Mekong River Ridgeback), which is a long haird primitive dog with a ridge of adverse growing hair on its back. Pictures of this rarity are available her. Tbjornstad (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

1882 Researcher

Chrisrus, One time I saw a picture of an ugly dog and it was captioned New Guinea Dingo. Come to find out, the book was written by a German in the 1890s. The dog looked nothing like a Singer so I started trying to find out how to get the book. I was finally able to find the book but then decided not to try to purchase it because in the process of all the searching I found out that the caption had been incorrectly translated. What it really said was along the lines of "a dingo like dog found in New Guinea." So you see how things can become quite confused just from mistranslating. After I read the "Dingo like dog" that someone has screwed up and was again confusing Village Dogs with Singing Dogs. Now I wonder, are you thinking there might actually have been a true "breed or landrace" of domesticated native dogs along the NG coast that bore no resemblance to Singers? I'm not talking hybrids here, rather a whole separate breed or landrace. This would have to be a breed or landrace that developed naturally prior to being watered down by European domestics. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you read this book? http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=WTboYQ_C1U4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=New+Guinea+Singing+Dog&ots=QR40H_YDwp&sig=GyqRqyoTAnHPti7b_WctAgUCLtc#v=onepage&q=New%20Guinea%20Singing%20Dog&f=false

I think I can use it in the NGSD article. Does it have any application for you? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Organization

Thank you all for your contributions to this article. A few words about the organization: There are two basic catagories, the way I see it, in terms of the way the article is organized. The first group are those that have been identified by Taxonomy. These are the ones listed as taxonomic synonyms by the new taxonomy, the ones listed there with some Latin or Greek names and then collected into this taxon. There will probably never be more of these, as any new ones proposed will not get a proposed taxon.

The second catagory are those that have since been proposed as dingoes since that time. The fellow who "discovered" the "American dingo", the researchers who promote concidering the Japanese Inu dogs, they for clear reasons are not going to be giving them a Latin or Greek name. As no such name is being suggested, taxonomy and the highest judges of mammology will not give us a ruling as to whether these ideas seem to right or wrong. It'll probably just sit there forever, with no ruling as to whether they should be concidered C.l.dingoes or not.

We need to make this clear. I'll think about it some more soon, but I thank you for any consideration you might give to this matter. Chrisrus (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of these dingo type articles either need to be originated or improved. I haven't found hardly anything on the Siamese Hairless. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Maps

Dingo range maps don't agree.

Our Map

Our map shows a blob in northeastern India and slivers of Nepal and Bangladesh. Then there is another contiguous shape that doesn’t respect national boundaries, showing southern Burma, all of Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, with bits overlapping into southern China. On the Southern side, it shows all of peninsular Malaysia, but Singapore is not included.. The rest of Malaysia on Borneo is all included, as is the Indonesian part of that island, but Brunei is shown to be outside of dingo range. All the Philippine islands are solid pink, as are the biggest of the Indonesian Islands: Sumatra, Java, and Celebes. Then there is an archipelago without dingoes stretching from Bali to Timor, and those Indonesian Islands between Celebes and the Irian Jaya part of all of Papua New Guinea. PNG is solid dingo territory. Mainland Australia is completely within C.l.dingo range, but, as we know, there are no dingoes on Tasmania. None of the Pacific Islands east of Australia and PNG have dingoes, according to our map.

But the dingo range on our map shows two distinct types of dingo range, pink, which may or may not indicate majority hybrid populations, and a darker red color for areas where pure dingoes are the majority.

I don’t know what year this map is supposed to indicate, but it shows the highlands of PNG still have a population of pure dingoes, these being the New Guinea Singing Dogs, which, we declare, are still there, in contradiction of other articles which say they either aren’t or might not be there in pure form anymore.

Australia, our map says, has pure dingo populations in four distinct areas of central Australia, two in the north and two in the South.

Pure dingoes predominate just in the north of Thailand; in the rest of the country hybrids predominate, and this dark red blob bleeds over into substantial areas of Laos. About a fifth of this pure dingo blob is in China and Burma.

Interestingly, if you blow up the resolution all the way, you’ll notice a sliver along the Nepal/India border where the majority of dingoes are still purebred.

That's all. There's no more dingo range in the rest of the world.

According to our map, anyway. Let’s compare that with some others. Chrisrus (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Another map in the commons

There's another map in the Commons, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dingo, at the bottom, it's captioned "dingo distribution after Corbett 2006", made by Inugami-bargho. The note says it's taken from a book which in German is called "Wild Dogs" Wilde Hunde, Udo Gansloßer, Claudio Sillere-Zubiri, Filander Verlag 2006, ISBN-10 3-930831-63-5, page 323. It tells us that the only places dingoes are proven to exist (as of 2006) is central mainland Australia. There are none on australian islands, but all of Thailand has proven dingoes. the rest of the map, coastal Australia and everywhere else in southeast Asia as far as the map reaches, might be in dingo range, but it has been demonstrated.

Corbett's Book 1995

If we could back up from the map Inu provided, how far would the blue range go? On page 16 of Corbett's 1995 book The Dingo in Australia and Asia, there is another map. It shows "extinct pure dingoes" range absolutely everywhere on the map of the world, except a swath across the top of the world, labeled "dogs in polar areas". This area where dingoes never lived includes all of Scandinavia, northern Russia and Siberia, and about a third to a half of Canada, with an arcing line running from the northwest to the southeast. Below this, according to this map, is a shaded area where dingoes used to live labeled "extinct pure dingoes".

Within this area are blobs of solid black, showing where "extant pure dingoes" can be found, at least as of the mid-90s. It shows some things we might expect, and some that may surprise. Pure dingoes can be found all throughout Australia, the southeast Asian archipelagos, and just about all of southern Asia. All of the Indochinese peninsula, just about all of China and Mongolia, Japan, Korea, and those parts of Russia that border these countries. Pakistan and the other -stan countries are mostly solid black, as is Iran, Iraq, eastern Turkey, and the entire Arabian peninsula, although it doesn't quite reach the Mediterranean. This blob extends a long, pretty think swath extending from the entire African coast of the Red Sea apparently has pure dingoes, although it doesn't extend out onto the Horn of Africa.

But that's not all. Madagascar, originally settled from Indochina, not the mainland, is also solid black. And there's a black blob in the Congo/Zaire area of Africa where pure dingoes live, or lived in 1995. It looks like Basenji territory to me.

And there's one more. There's a blob of black in the area where Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia all meet. This is the Carolina dog, accepted by no less an authority than Laurie Corbett, arguably one of the biggest names in cynology and less arguably in what I hope you forgive me if I call “dingoolgy” (Neologism coined on this day by me, I claim first usage of this word for Wikipedia!); no less an authority than Corbett accepts the Carolina Dog as a pure Dingo based on the research as it stood more than 15 years ago. Chrisrus (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Does this about the Carolina Dog surprise you? A person would have to be stone blind not to see the dingo in CDs. BTW, I read someplace that wiki has taxons as Clf instead of Cld. That's not a surprise since there are like five ways to classify all these dingo types and no one can agree on any of them. ISIS records have Singing Dogs as Canis lupus Hallsromi. I'm settling, in my own mind, on Cld for all the dingo types and forget the controversy. The only thing that bothers me is that the NGSD and AU Dingo stand alone out there in this never never land as two examples of totally unaltered by man breeds and actually get no credit for it. There should be some way to separate them from all the other "dingo types". osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are many more dingoes, it seems, than many recognize. I'm very interested in the "five ways" you refer to, please elaborate. We need, right up front, if we can, define the referent, especially as it differs from familiaris. Chrisrus (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

My meaning is that there are just several ways to mix up the words familiaris, dingo, canis lupus, Hallstomi, and even to the point of doubling up some of these words. It's really rather foolish looking. "A whole lot of todo about nothing." I suppose that NGSD should be Canis lupus Hallstromi dingo and AU Dingo should be Canis lupus dingo and all the rest of the dingo types that have been associated with humans should be Canis lupus dingo familiaris. Then when you get to domestic dogs which would come under NGSD and AUD they would be Canis lupus familiaris with no dingo in there at all. Makes sense to me, but hey, I'm just a lay person who doesn't even have one Phd behind his name. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither do I have such a degree. But the people in the sources do. The objective reality the taxonomic terms are trying to get at the Cladistics, the way the branches and twigs of the tree of life split (and, in the case of the Eastern Coyote and Red Wolf, re-merge. Taxonomy is important, however, and the main referent of this article is the taxon, not the animal per se. Chrisrus (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Direct lift from Norwegian Wikipedia

Dingo ( Canis lupus dingo ) is a common name for several ancient semi wild dogs, which might more properly be called urhunder. This type of dogs is called too often pariah dog (backpacker dogs), but not all pariah dogs can be classified according to the scientific name Canis lupus dingo.

Not yet an article??

Wondering why Canis lupus dingo won't pull up as a wiki article? Also, when a person enlarges the map(not good), one sees the word pinky instead of the word pink. That word pinky looks rather wrong. osm2079.228.144.32 (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Taxon

Chrisrus, You might want to look at this: http://zipcodezoo.com/Animals/C/Canis_lupus_dingo/ osm2079.228.144.32 (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The Thai/Southest Asian Dingo, According to Corbett

Here I will try to present the information available about the Thai dingo in the book, "The Dingo in Australia and Asia by laurie Corbett. I got a used copy off the Internet, very cheap. 79.228.144.32 (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture

Between pages 104 and 105 are a series of color photos, called "Plates"; Plate One, Plate Two, etc. to Plate 21. The vast majority are about the Australian Dingo, as is the majority of the book. Plate four is captioned "Part of a pack of 5 members, these dingoes are hunting small burrowing crabs along a beach in southern Thailand. This red-ginger varient is very common in Thailand. The red-ginger varient is fairly common in Thailand (26% of 'ginger' dingoes) but less common in Australia." When I look at the picture it looks exactly like any Australian Dingo at first, other than the color. The one in the background looks quite the same and has no "red" coloration, but is still much darker than the Aus. dingo from this article. Their fur might be a bit woolier than you might expect from a dingo. That's it for pictures of the Thai dingo for this book. There is a picture of a Sulawesi Asian dingo, but no more from Thailand. I can't say I'm not disappointed, especially because one reason I bought this book was to see Thai dingoes, but it's a great picture. To me, it erases any doubt there might have been (I can't find any modern person who disagrees that Thai Dingoes aren't really as Canis lupus dingo as the Australian Dingo, something I can't say about any other animal) that The Thai Dingo exists. It looks like two wild dingoes from a pack of five, surviving on their wits as wild animals in Thailand, just like a picture you might expect from Australia. 79.228.144.32 (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Information

Referencing information

Chrisrus, Can an editor use a photo without permission if the editor references the photo, as: "The photo on the left is an image of the Thai Dingo Image provided by _________." and then do a regular reference entry in the reference section???? osm2079.228.144.32 (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Referent

Chrisrus, You keep using the word "referent". Exactly what is a referent and what is it in this article/ BTW, there is no doubt in my mind that Cld is definitely being accepted for "dingo types" in all the literature I'm reading that is current. It looks as though Clf is being replaced by Cld. I find it interesting that dingo types are described as "Spitz-Like" when Spitz like dogs should be described as "dingo-like" since dingoes predate Spitz by several thousand years. I have often resorted to describing a Singing Dog as a smaller version of an Australian Dingo. Also, btw, Singers are not pack animals so when there is reference to Singers and their "pack" it just means the author is uninformed. Singers probably run/ran in pairs with the female being dominant, though smaller in stature than the male. Singers are super quick. Breaking up a Singer fight without doing harm to yourself can be a real challenge because there are teeth flying everywhere and Singers can be quite stubborn. Extreme caution has to be taken when combining multiple Singers in one enclosure. Extreme caution!! Adolescent pups will generally tolerate each other up to 7-8 months old and in some cases males have been known to live together for a very extended period of time especially if the females are removed early prior to their first heat. This is the first part of August so Singers will be coming into heat soon in North America. Our Singers will be awake and vocal all night long from now until breeding season is over. With 14 all singing during the night it becomes quite a beautiful chorus. Anyway, please explain this "referent" thing to me. osm2079.228.144.32 (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Canis lupus dingo

Editors, Several of my colleages and I must go on record as having to protest the lumping of AU Dingo and New Guinea Singing Dog into the Canis lupus dingo classification. No proof exists that shows any domestification of these two breeds. Due to their isolation from civilized mans' contact, they have existed for thousands of years as "commensal" dogs rather than "feral". The latest dna sampling show AU Dingo and NGSD are very, very, closely related. Wording of the articles AU Dingo and NGSD should be worded so that these facts are clearly reflected in the text. osm2079.228.144.32 (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Canis lupus dingo

Editors, Having read and reread the first paragraph of this article many, many times, several colleages and myslf can't help but marvel at the unique use of scientific doubletalk. Why are AU Dingoes and New Guinea Singing Dogs lumped into the same classification as "feral" dogs? There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that NGSD and AUD were ever domesticated in any way by anyone, yet they share the same classification with feral dogs in this article. Are there any references that dispute these purely hypotheical statements?? A clear explanation of this scientific oversight needs to be included in this text. osm2079.228.144.32 (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC) osm2079.228.144.32 (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Change in appearance

Could someone please explain to us how living as a commensal state would change the physical appearance of wolves and make them over into dingoes? This is really bugginh some of us. osm2079.228.144.32 (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Oklahoma Dingoes

Editors, Yesterday a friend of mine and I drove down into Oklahoma to look at two AU Dingoes. There were six recently imported into the United States and we wanted to compare them to New Guinea Singing Dogs. I took some still photos and video of them. The video doesn't have sound and is a bit snowy, but the animals in them are very interesting and I really think that sound would have taken away from them anyway. I wondered whether some of you who edit these Dingo articles might be interested in them? I would be glad to post them to wiki media if you'd like to take a look. osm2079.228.144.32 (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomy

I noticed that in the first paragraph it states AUD & NGSD as well as Thai Dingo and others are listed as C.l.d. Where are these others besides UAD and NGD listed? I haven't been able to find them? In MSW3??? Please advise. osm2079.228.144.32 (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Newest research

The section on origin probably needs to be revised to include the newest DNA research findings. This is one link. There are many references to the research that are available. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-dingo-earlier-route.html osm2079.228.144.32 (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Siamese Boran Hairless

Paul012 is right. I couldn't find evidence on Google Scholar - I searched for various combinations of the words "Boran" "Hairless dog" and "Siamese" and I couldn't confirm any WP:RS to confirm we haven't been hoaxed about that animal. I am truely sorry if I posted it, but I can only say that I took that entire section from with the help of the Norwegian Wikipedia, so that is where that particular claim to fact came from if you want to do a forensic investigation. Please, if it does turn out that the Boran Siamese Hairless Dog is not a hoax, then feel free to re-add it, with good citation, of course, but now two of us have tried to varify that info and failed so I deleted it. Now I want to have a look and that part again about varients of the Thai dog. Chrisrus (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be plenty of anecdotal sources though. This old forum thread from bangkaew.com is quite interesting, though it of course doesn't count as a reliable source. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Canis Dingo

New research suggests that Canis Dingo is not a sub species of Wolf or dog but is its own Species known as "Canis Dingo" as Reported by Dr Mathew Crowther from the University of Sydney’s School of Biological Sciences.

I have linked the Journal entry and news reports to back that up.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jzo.12134/abstract http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/dog-gone-scientists-confirm-the-dingo-is-a-unique-species-20140328-35onp.html http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-dingo-really-is-a-distinctly-australian-animal-and-not-a-dog-or-wolf-scientists-2014-3

If this is indeed the case, the page should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.136.201 (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Geez that's a tough one, because all of these citations use this taxon and the whole nature of the article and the referent that it's about based on this taxon. Now, what are they going to do with all these canids classified as C.l. dingo, the New Guinea singing dog, the telomian, etc., that are not Australian Dingoes? Did they think about that? This taxon cover quite a bit more than just the Australian dingo, but those citations don't say anything about anything except the Australian Dingo. What do you suggest? Chrisrus (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I have not done the update, The Australian Dingo is now Canis Dingo, but I have no idea about the subspecies. I do not have access to the Journal entry to see if they talked about the others, but ah the fun of Science. ABRS is reporting it now as Canis Dingo, maybe we mirror the Dingo page and add an alternative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.125.194 (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
If the Australian Dingo is Canis dingo, that would mean that the New Guinea singing dog and so on would be subspecies, as in Canis dingo halstromi, I suppose. We would need a citation for that, though. Laurie Corbet, who you may know if you read much about Dingoes because he's one of the main experts on the topic, divides the Australian dingo into three taxa that he personally uses in his work, and a fourth for the Thai dingo, which he classifies as a dingo in terms of its anatomy, but which is not really a wild animal. It's just an ordinary street dog, for the most part, but I've seen pictures of some living as confined, owned dogs, and then there are the actual breeds in Thailand which are supposed to be bred from Thai dogs, and the Telomian which is a village dog that lives with people in Malaysia, and so on. Actually, I don't see non-Australian mammalogists agreeing with this; it'll open up a can of worms.It has to be descended from dogs/wolves, it didn't just appear out of nowhere. It's pretty clear reading this that all these people are just talking about the Aus. dingo and that's it, they don't care about all these non-Australian "dingoes". They need to think of the ramifications beyond Australia if they want the world to go along with this. Plus, some of these claims in the popular press that you showed me are a bit odd. For example, the part about the Aus. Dingo not being descended from dogs, or wolves. What's that about? What is it descended from, then? Chrisrus (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 19 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


Canis lupus dingo → Dingo – This article describes dingoes overall, while the dingo article only describes Australian dingoes, therefore, the "dingo" article should be renamed Australian dingo and this "dingo." Editor abcdef (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

When someone searches for "d-i-n-g-o" shouldn't we first direct them to the Australian dingo? Because it's highly likely that they want to learn about them, not all the dogs that are group with them by mamologists. People aren't as interested in these other "dingos", to use the term loosely, as they in the original referent of that word. Chrisrus (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

MSW3's entry on this taxon

Please note the comment section of [http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/taxon_browser.cfm?msw_id=11387&CFID=35384701&CFTOKEN=2b893bb6bda03d5e-7D3B41ED-C9A9-7B4B-982CE3B9D432138B&jsessionid=d8305e0cebb20a9e0ed00146579695a55387 of Mammal Species of the World's page about this taxon.

Please note that the comment section say "Domestic Dog" in brackets.

Please note that the same is true of Canis lupus familiaris. i See here.

There is further explanation in the comments section of the Canis lupus page, here.

It says "Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate--artificial variants created by domestication and selective breeding (Vilá et al., 1999; Wayne and Ostrander, 1999; Savolainen et al., 2002). Although this may stretch the subspecies concept, it retains the correct allocation of synonyms."

The domestic dog is one subspecies, with C.l. dingo only a provisionally separate subspecies; the proviso being that we allow that both are "Domestic dog". So they mark both taxa as "domestic dog" in an unranked name between subspecies and species which is also subspecies. They're sorry, this is odd, but what can they do, you know. As you know, dingoes are dogs, too. It's only taxonomy, not a hard science. Chrisrus (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I noted that too but made no comment about it. I am not even clear as to what "Domestic Dog" in brackets is supposed to be trying to communicate to us, so I propose we just ignore it. I have just posted the Lineage section, and genetically the dingo is a Clade A domestic dog. Now for the two big questions - "What is a Clade A domestic dog?" followed by "What is a domestic dog?". After Duleba 2015 confirming Pang 2009 with 6 monophyletic clades within the one "subspecies" currently labelled C. l. familiaris - 3 of which are clear wolf-domestic dog hybrids post-domestication - we are possibly witnessing the emergence of a super-species that might subsume all of the grey wolf subspecies into just another one of its many clades. It would appear that we have never been familiar with familiaris, and there never was something simply called "the dog". Regards, William Harris • talk • 02:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not ambiguous. In MSW3's taxonomy, to label a specimen either "C.l. familiaris" or "C. l. dingo" is simultaneously label it as the subspecies "Domestic Dog". Of course this stretches the subspecies concept, but oh well whatever this is just taxonomy, not a hard science, so they made a judgement call. MSW3 adds that one could legitimately look at their taxonomy here and say "Hey! Since when is that allowed?" But it also notes that on the other hand doing it this way allocates the dingo synonyms and the familiaris synonyms correctly.
That the English word "dog" should correspond to more than one taxon is no surprise. The article dog is incorrect to say that it refers to only the one taxon and not the other. At least not if it's going to cite MSW3, which clearly states that not only familiaris specimens but also dingo specimens belong to the "Domestic Dog" subspecies of Canis lupus.
We mustn't just ignore what sources actually say in favor of a simplified version because it's too complicated or problematic for us. Chrisrus (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't get me started on the Dog page and what is covered under that term; I have fairly well given up on that article and do not have a "Watch" in place on it. Regarding your comment: In MSW3's taxonomy, to label a specimen either "C.l. familiaris" or "C. l. dingo" is simultaneously label it as the subspecies "Domestic Dog". Where does it describe that, or is it your interpretation? I have been to MSW1-3 on this matter and remain not well-enlightened. Regards, William
We aren't citing MSW3 accurately.
The C.l. familiaris page says "domestic dog" enclosed in single brackets, like this:
"[domestic dog]"
The C.l.dingo page says the same.
"[domestic dog]"
The Canis lupus page explains:
"Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate--artificial variants created by domestication and selective breeding (Vilá et al., 1999; Wayne and Ostrander, 1999; Savolainen et al., 2002). Although this may stretch the subspecies concept, it retains the correct allocation of synonyms."
It would be accurate to say that, in MSW3 taxonomy, Canis lupus includes the "[domestic dog]" subspecies, which in turn includes the familiaris subspecies and C.l. dingo subspecies, while admitting this is unorthodox.
--
This is because subspecies of subspecies are "subspecies" in this taxonomy. There is no such thing as "sub-subspecies", so they just call them "subspecies" as well. They are one step lower than the basement, so there's no other way than to just call them "subspecies". If there were a sub-subspecies taxon, MSW3 wouldn't have this problem.
See Also: Species problem. Chrisrus (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The reason I ask is because the two links to the subspecies that you have listed above are on the Smithsonian database, but there is no "drill-down" in MSW3, which simply prints a list of the subspecies names on page 576. Therefore, the "Domestic Dog" in brackets appears to be a Smithsonian database-only comment and so I chose to ignore it. Regards, William Harris • talk • 19:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
It is not a "Smithsonian database-only comment".
Here is the page for Canis lupus dingo as housed at the biology department at bucknell.edu.
It says "[domestic dog]"
Here is the Bucknell page for Canis lupus familiaris.
It says the same thing: "[domestic dog]"
Here is the Bucknell-housed page for Canis lupus.
It says:
"Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate--artificial variants created by domestication and selective breeding (Vilá et al., 1999; Wayne and Ostrander, 1999; Savolainen et al., 2002). Although this may stretch the subspecies concept, it retains the correct allocation of synonyms."
That is exactly what the Smithsonian page says.
Therefore, we can't rightly ignore these things on the grounds that it is a "Smithsonian-only comment". Chrisrus (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I have no issue with "Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate--artificial variants created by domestication and selective breeding (Vilá et al., 1999; Wayne and Ostrander, 1999; Savolainen et al., 2002). Although this may stretch the subspecies concept, it retains the correct allocation of synonyms." as that is also what MSW3 says. I only have an issue with "[domestic dog]" - Bucknell and Smithsonian databases said that, MSW3 did not. Regards, William Harris • talk • 04:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
If MSW3 (Smithsonian) and MSW3 (Bucknell) on the one hand, and something called "MSW3" on the other hand, are different in that way, then what is the referent of the latter term? Chrisrus (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Touche! Wozencraft should have written "Includes familiaris..." After all, MSW never uses the term "gray wolf", so it should not have used the term "domestic dog". Inconsistencies abound in there, Chris. However, I now see your point - the paragraph alludes to the dingo being a domestic dog. However, it could be read in two ways and I would be uncomfortable depending on it to launch a foray onto the Dog page. That will come later, when the time is right. Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Re: "it could be read two ways" What is the other? It doesn't seem ambiguous. Chrisrus (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
As the dingo previously fell under C.l. familiaris, it could be read "Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies. The dingo is provisionally separate." The joining of the two using the word "with" for brevity. Not necessarily implying the dingo falls under the banner of domestic dog. Regards, William Harris • talk • 11:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Chris, I have referred to MSW3 and I apologise for misleading you. The bottom of p576-577 states "Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies..." etc. However, the upper 3/4 of p576 is one huge paragraph titled SYNONYMS listing all of the C.l. subspecies and synonyms. It states "...........dingo Meyer, 1793 [domestic dog]; antarticus...........familiaris Linnaeus, 1758 [domestic dog]; aegyptus................" Let me know if there needs to be some 'predation' on the Dog page. William Harris • talk • 08:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Who's in the zoo........

Hello All, regarding the section titled "Other dingoes", can anybody provide a good reason why it should not be deleted? There is no evidence supporting the proposal that any of these breeds of dogs are dingoes, and where there is a citation provided there has been misinterpretation as to what the research is telling us. Regards, William Harris • talk • 03:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Now actioned. (Sorry Chris, but your garden had become overgrown and in need of pruning. Now we can focus on the two - and only two - C.l. dingo variants. The number of page visits here has tripled above average over the past few days, so I have started something!) Regards, William Harris • talk • 11:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Current Taxonomy

We seem to be using Taxonomy of Australian Mammals now as our authority for current taxonomy, not MSW3 anymore. Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The Taxonomy section has not shifted from citing MSW3, Chris. TAM supports MSW3 and you may note under the Taxonomic challenge section that TAM provides criticism of their argument (i.e. in favor of MSW3). I will further underscore this and relocate the Taxonomic challenge section into a subsection of Taxonomy, so as to avoid any misunderstanding of my wording. TAM’s value is in its currency (2015), it specifically (pun intended!) relates to this part of the world, and it provides further comment from a credible source - it is a citation that provides an additional point of view, just like any other citation. Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
So we're going with TAM, as MSW3 is no longer current. Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect. The citation for classification remains Wozencraft in MSW3, as is reflected in the Taxonomy section and in the Taxobox under Subspecies. TAM appears in the Taxonomy section because it provided a citation for Canis antarticus suppressed by Opinion 451 of the ICZN (1957A:331). There are other citations that support the Opinion Number including MSW3, however TAM provided the date of the decision and the Case Number, so it is more informative. Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Topic shift

I need your opinion on something. Oskarsson in the article page is available for public access via http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1730/967 His DNA results are published in Figure 2, which shows that A29 - "the ancestral dingo signature" as he puts it - was found in only 1% of South East Asian dogs in his study with the arrow pointing at Thailand. This calls into question the uncited distribution map in the Dingo article taxabox. You have mentioned in the past that you are a fan of Laurie Corbett (who sadly passed last year), however the genetic evidence does not support the morphological evidence. Your thoughts please? Regards, William • talk • 09:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Saying that one has a copy of http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTrmkIVJq3ExeKjsoiPE_MrZHR7MQ02-Vg5XUmz9Am0GjXvsoxP ; describing its author, background, and methods; and summarizing it on Wikipedia does not imply fandom.
To answer your question, I'd say that, based on that, that source seem to contradict this one. Chrisrus (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

New Guinea Singing Dog not included in ToAM definition of dingo

First, the lead presently states that New Guinea Singing dog is included in Canis lupus dingo.

However, The Taxonomy of Australian Mammals states "These names have not been included within dingo here because ...... hallstromi is considered another primitive breed."

ToAM does not include the New Guinea singing dog in dingo, as MSW3 does.

Second, it's not clear that, in the above quote, "dingo" refers to Canis lupus dingo, rather than Canis dingo.

If not because of ToAM, why do we include the NGSD, but not tenggerana and so on? Chrisrus (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Now I see your original point. These others have always been listed under the section called Taxonomic synonyms. TAM did not include the NGSD within their scope of the dingo because the text relates to Australian mammals only, so I think we are safe to assume Canis dingo with hallstromi considered as another primitive breed (clearly, as the genetic research available to the editors shows sisterhood). The 2 in the lead are there because the others, to the best of my knowledge, no longer exist. If you have something further on them, please include it with citation. The TAM comments are simply criticisms of Wozencraft's decision, in the same way the JC-B's criticism of the familiaris decision is on the dog page; these were controversial decisions to begin with and the result is W's compromise - readers need to be aware that these were not unanimously agreed to by taxonomists and researchers, and that it is OK to question them. I am happy to remove these if you wish, it is not important to me, but the part that says 'Associated with the dingo by Wozencraft in 2005" is historically accurate. Regards, William Harris • talk • 22:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC) PS: I still seek your opinion at the end of the section above.
Which of these citations has the same taxonomy as this article? Chrisrus (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Which citations are you refer to? William Harris • talk • 02:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The ones this article cites. Chrisrus (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I really don't follow your meaning. TAM appears to be causing you perturbation so I will remove it in parts. It is not important - there are far more important things to develop in this article. Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Please set aside all emotion. Which of these sources says that Canis lupus dingo includes the Australian Dingo, the NGSD, and no others? Chrisrus (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Now I see you point. (Please be aware that you and I view the world differently, Chris, and use language differently. I am always focused on a bigger objective, small hurdles are not important and I prefer to just move on, and emotion has little to do with it and I had no emotional connection to what I deleted. NB: I regard you are my Quality Assurance auditor!) Regardless of TAM, taxon-wise we must follow MW3 as the base because that is what our Wikipedia colleagues in North America will demand. (You already know my view on that from elsewhere - it is only a matter of time before NCBI/Genbank remove the warranty that it is not a taxonomy authority, then the genie is out of the bottle.) Under Woz's C.l. listing, MW3 does not name things by common name, apart from where it says the dog is under C.l. and the dingo provisionally separate. It is silent on the wording "NGSD" but it lists hallstromi, which I understand to be the NGSD. Therefore, the dingo and NGSD are in the opening sentence because these are the only two taxons listed under cld that are still in existence.
TAM is good for further elaboration on what MSW3 did not elaborate on, such as the dingo includes: Canis dingo, antarticus [suppressed], Canis australasiae, Canis australiae, Canis dingoides, Canis macdonnellensis, Canis novaehollandiae. As an Australian, I know these names from local locations or ancient names for this land; overseas users would not. It is still within MW3, but provides elaboration. (NB: I treat these article developments as a work of art, like a work in progress, I add something, look at it from another way a few days later, then change it again. It takes a while until it is complete.) William Harris • talk • 21:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes we must use our judgement, but mostly we try to just summarize what's in the sources. Chrisrus (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The Taxonomy of Australian Mammals abandons dingo

We need summaries of [1] Page 288.

It seems unambiguous. It says specimens labeled dingo and all it's synonyms be included in C.l. familiaris, and that "dingo", along with its synonyms, no longer used as a taxa going forward.

This book just came out recently. Have experts adopted this practice? Chrisrus (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

See under Heading 26 above, we might stay with MSW3 for the reason that I gave there. I am no expert, nor know what they do. Feel free to do so - I will not oppose your suggestion and you can give it a shot - but I question its longevity once the sun comes up on the other side of the Pacific. (My opinion: the dingo falls under the a2 sub-haplogroup of clade A of the domestic dog - how much longer this sub-haplogroup remains under the domestic dog and is not split out as a separate subspecies of C.l. remains to be seen. If it is, it might even be called C.l.d. You may have guessed by now which other dogs are also the "children of chanco" and also fall under a2 - not genetically the dingo nor NGSD sisters and genetically not close enough to be referred to as dingos, but similar in appearance and genetically second-cousins. And the bigger picture: sub-haplogroups a3-5 are also dog/wolf hybrids, ancestor yet to be identified. If it should be chanco, given that Clade A forms a monophylletic clade including 70% of dogs, C.l.d. takes on great importance - this is why I am now on "your" page, positioning its watchers and readers for what might come soon. Then, TAM would be incorrect, instead of dingo falling under familiaris, most of familiaris would fall under "dingo". Corbett's Fig 1.5 on p16, which looks completely "off the planet", may prove partially correct in the long-run.) William Harris • talk • 21:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to ask if anyone knew if other experts have been starting to follow the new ToAM lead here. Chrisrus (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Move suggestion

This article should cover not just Canis lupus dingo, but also Canis dingo, and any others, (Canis familiaris dingo, taxonomic synonym, invalid taxon).

The referent of this article should be changed from the trinomial name to the taxon.

I.e.: It should be moved to the ''dingo'' (taxon).

It should be re-written in such a way as to say that, while dingo has always referred to the Australian dingo, in some other references it has at times also included certain other, other non-Australian animals; while others consider it invalid. And then go on to explain. Chrisrus (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It's "your" article Chris, from my point of view you can move it where-ever you like and develop it however you like. For my part, I will continue redeveloping the lineage section covering the genetic ancestors, the genetic sister, and the related cousins that I will rework into just the one section. When I am done, I will remove it from my watch list and move on; what happens here after that is up to the keepers and watchers over this page - it will no longer be my concern. I had no interest here until the very recent release of Greig (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138536) and Dwyer (http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AM15011). The chanco link I have known about since Freedman almost 2 years ago, yet it was never reflected here - this topic is long overdue for refreshment. William Harris • talk • 20:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
PS: Your comment "It should be re-written in such a way as to say that, while dingo has always referred to the Australian dingo, in some other references it has at times also included certain other, other non-Australian animals; while others consider it invalid. And then go on to explain." That is not what I have witnessed on the Dingo page. What I see on the dingo page is a monument to Corbett and Crowther, no disagreement, and a "gasp by gasp" account of Savolainen (which is publicly available for download should any reader be interested) without summary nor connection and this is what passes for "genetic status", at least it was its status over a decade ago. It appears that path has already been trod, however you will need to explain to others why a taxon that was listed by Woz as a synonym under C.l.d. has its own article.
A genuine alternate proposal might be that I, or a friendly admino, undo my edits on this page back to what was originally here before I meddled, then I create my own article on the migration of a2 out of East Asia, down the SE Asian archipelago, into Australia and out into the Pacific Islands and NZ. There is plenty of research material, and I could ditch some of the current thinking that holds sway on the dingo-related pages - if the dingo arrived in Australia 10,000 years ago as the mDNA outer band suggests, then the dingo reached Australia from New Guinea across the Sahul shelf on foot, it was connected to Australia and was not submerged until 8,500 YBP and there was no need for ANY human involvement. (My interest is in the ancestral population and where it expanded to, and not in Canis dingo.) Regards, William Harris • talk • 23:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Corbett

Given what we now know listed under Lineage, and that the y-DNA haplotypes H6 and H8 are exhibited by the Thai Ridgeback, and H1 for the Phuqoc Dog (note: H1 is a European signature, this dog has been bred recently) so there is no match to the dingo's H60 (derived from H5), how did Corbett get it so wrong? Well, largely he didn't. Let us start from first principles - nobody alive today has seen a dog! What we are looking at is a dog/wolf hybrid or dog/wolf introgression from multiple wolf populations (Freedman 2014) but Corbett did not know that back in 1985 and 1995. When Corbett did his morph measures, he was actually comparing the skulls of a dog (dog with C.l.lupus introgressed - from Europe) with a Japanese dog (dog/Japanese wolf hybrid - Pang, Duleba), and a dingo (dog/C.l. chanco hybrid - Pang, Deluba, Freedman) and thai dogs. Let me suggest that the thai dogs were actually dog/C.l. chanco hybrids from another population of chanco crossed later (yet to be confirmed but links to the yDNA "second wave" conclusion of Sacks). The morph skull signature of dog/chanco is still there in the dingo and thai dogs but the mDNA-yDNA haplotypes are different, so the genetic relationship is more distant but still cluster in East Asia. The Japanese wolf was a distant "cousin" of chanco. The result was the morph chart published by Corbett in 1995 showing the groupings: wolf, dingo, thai dog, japanese dog, dog. It was demonstrating dog/wolf crossings from multiple wolf populations, as Vila was about to find genetically in his 1997 study. William Harris • talk • 22:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Work completed

Hello Chris, as I had mentioned above, I treat an article development as a work of art - it takes a number of iterations before it is complete. I have now completed what I set out to achieve on the C.l.d. and NGSD pages, and shortly you will become aware of my failed attempt to amend the Dingo page and help form something better. I have not included the stunning thing that the researchers found in the dingo genome because these pages are not ready for that yet; indeed, the dingo page is not ready to move from 2004. I have a copy of my contribution to this page and will now be moving on from the dingo-related pages as of today, with no WATCH in place. I leave this page in the care of its editors and watchers. Regards, William • talk • 06:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canis_lupus_dingo/Archive_1&oldid=1136590291"