Talk:Coyote/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

matings with wolves

"Coyotes have also been known, on occasion, to mate with wolves, mostly with eastern subspecies of the grey wolf such as the Great Plains Wolf, though this is less common than with dogs, due to the wolf's hostility to the coyote." [emphasis mine]

This seems to contradict at least one of the studies cited:

"...DNA evidence for eastern coyotes suggesting interbreeding and a genetic makeup of 85 to 90% coyote, perhaps 10% wolf and slightly less than 5% dog..." [emphasis mine]

This seems to suggest that matings with wolves are more common and/or more fertile than with dogs, in contradiction to the earlier statement, though perhaps sampling in a remote area vs. near a built-up area could skew the numbers one way or another in any of these studies. Heavenlyblue (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be right. Just delete everything after "...Great Plains Wolf." Chrisrus (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable removing that without a little more discussion. Does anyone know why that was included, or what the source of that idea might be? (i.e. "Coyotes have also been known, on occasion, to mate with wolves, ... though this is less common than with dogs, due to the wolf's hostility to the coyote.") Heavenlyblue (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I just checked the references and encourage you to do the same. I found nothing to support the bit about wolfdogs being anywhere near as common as coywolves, but rather the opposite. See the articles coywolf, Eastern coyote, Red wolf, and Eastern Wolf. There are untold millions of eastern coyotes alone. If you research about wolfdogs, you will see that they are quite rare in comparison. So the bit after "...Great Plains wolf..." doesn't seem to be in the citation, contradicts the citation, and seems to contradict what other articles and more importantly their sources say about the relative population sizes of coydogs and coywolves. Combine these facts and study the sentence and it seems someone just stuck that on there because he thought it was true, because maybe he knows that wolves generally kill coyotes and coyotes fear wolves, so how could they be mating? Which makes sense, but not in light of such facts as the millions of Eastern Coyotes and so on now known to exist and so few wolfdogs known to exist. So don't worry. Chrisrus (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of information in this paper: http://genome.cshlp.org/content/21/8/1294.full I'll try to make my way through it in detail when I have time. I think that the problem is not that any of the given statements are untrue per se, but that the whole picture may have to be presented in more detail, with reference especially to the region(s) sampled and the particular types of wolves and coyotes. Perhaps a chart is in order here. Heavenlyblue (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2013

"they primarily hunt in pairs." cite needed. Bxtrclrk (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Partly done:. Ideally, this behavior would be discussed and referenced in the Diet and hunting section, but it's not even mentioned there. Some rearrangement and copyediting, as well as sourcing, are needed. In the meantime, I've tagged the sentence. Rivertorch (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Look here. We would seem to have our pick of citations, as in most of these studies found them mostly alone or in pairs in the study area. Notice I didn't say "all". Chrisrus (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wording issue

"As of most recent researches," doesn't make much sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.228.164 (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, and it is unsourced, thus removed. Materialscientist (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

coyotes as pets?

I'd love to see info on the domestication of coyotes - even if it's to say it's impossible.

Also - should the movie "Coyote Ugly" be listed under the Fictional References?

youcantryreachingme 04:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)youcantryreachingme

I don't think I would list that movie under Fictional References because there isn't a coyote in the movie. And I'm sure coyotes can be kept as pets. Coyote / dog crossbreeds are very trainable as well. --Ignignot 14:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A slight clarification - there has been no domestication of the coyote, except insofar as some domestic dogs have some coyote ancestry. It's plauasible that coyotes have been occasionally kept as pets, but that is something different. A pet coyote is a tame coyote not a domestic coyote. It seems likely that the coyote could be domesticated through generations of selective breeding, although it would probably be more difficult then domesticating wolves was because coyotes don't have as much of a hierarchical social structure. And it would be probably pointless to domesticate because there isn't a role for them to fill that domestic dogs don't already fill or couldn't be bred to fill more easily. Toiyabe 15:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone simply thinks they are cute critters and spends generations breeding them for that sole purpose.

It can be argued that the role that they can play, that domestic dogs cannot perform as well, is for drug/contraband sniffing. (Perhaps even land-mine, and cancer detection too.) Wild canids are generally accepted to have a superior sense of smell, and this matters in cold temperatures. In Russia, for example, there is a program to interbreed dogs with African jackals to improve detection abilities. Tsarevna 21:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's pet coyote: http://dailycoyote.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.15.16 (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

why would you like a coyote as a pet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.231.176 (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Coyote and jackals

Transferred from my talk page:

---

Jackals

Let's just if we may stop and think about this for sec: what does "jackal" even mean?

I mean, what does it mean to say that coyotes aren't closely related to jackals when "jackal" just means "mid-sized canid" that lives the lifestyle that jackals do, regardless of lineage, relatedness, and so on?

Also, note that "coyote" is a Mexican word, originally, and that the original English word for them was "jackal", so a coyote is a jackal, too.

Don't take it from me, read the article Jackal. We could rightly say "The coyote is jackal endemic to North America"!

And coyotes are pretty closely related to the original referent of the word "jackal", Canis aureus, as Linnaeus called it, which is practically the same thing as a coyote and very different from the jackals of the Serengeti and so on. Chrisrus (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I will soon write a detailed answer, but transfer the discussion to the talk page. --KnightMove (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

---

I comply with the article jackal, according to which the term is used in a stricter sense today, usually not including the coyote, but the not-so-closely related jackals of Serengeti which Chrisrus has mentioned. However, I have made up my mind that as long as the wolf is identified as the coyote's closest relative, there is no need to say too much about jackals. I rethink the introduction once more and will wait some 24 hours for other opinions. --KnightMove (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. The word "jackal" is sometimes problematic and better avoided. However, when making that edit, be sure to be clear that not all "coyotes" are C. latrans. In the northest, the animals commonly called "coyotes" contain significant propotions of "C. lycaon" DNA, sometimes more than 50%. Chrisrus (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Interbreeding with gray wolves?

It says here that coyotes can breed with gray wolves and produce fertile offspring. Why then are they considered seprate species? I thought the term species referred to critters that couldn't produce fertile offspring--horses and jackasses can spawn mules, which are sterile, ergo the two are different species. This is apparently in contrast with the situation between coyotes and gray wolves. Seems to this layman that coyotes would constitute a "race" of wolves, not a separate species. Please ellucidate--thanks.

That's a simplistic definition of species. It's far more complicated then that. If two animal populations, such as Coyote and Grey Wolf, have significant morphological differences and do not regularly interbreed in the wild they will be considered separate species despite the fact that they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. One concept at work is that there is very little interchange of genetic information between those populations. It may be helpfull to review the Red Wolf page: "The upshot of the taxonomic debate is not simply a matter of accurate classification: although the actual patterns of evolution are complex and subtle, human classification schemes usually rely on relatively simple, hard-edged divisions, such as the concept of species, which is ill-adapted to describing the wolves of North America."

Also see the species article: "Without reproductive isolation, population differences cannot develop, and given reproductive isolation, gene flow between the populations cannot merge the differences. This is not to say that cross breeding does not take place at all, simply that it has become negligible. Generally, the hybrid individuals are less capable of successful breeding than pure-bred individuals of either species."Toiyabe 17:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I live in Prince Edward Island Canada, and supposedly we have the biggest coyotes in the world. They interbred with wolves (gray wolves i think) as they moved from the west to here, and not only are they larger but they also hunt in packs. I saw this on a documentary by David Susuki or on a special put on by National Geographic. 142.176.114.182 03:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In the Oregon desert, coyotes hunt rabbits in packs at night. You can tell by the number of animals calling back and forth along the dry washes and gullies. And you know rabbits are the prey because after the noises of the skirmish you can hear them screaming. If you have never heard a rabbit scream you would not believe the sound.

Uniquerman (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I have read coywolves are descended from red wolves (US)/eastern wolves (Canada). Their DNA is ~10% domestic dog (sometimes), ~30-50% eastern/red wolf, ~30-50% coyote. There is no contribution whatsoever from grey wolf genes who split from the canid tree much earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.8.81.16 (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

While grey wolves and coyotes are different species, they are still capable of hybridizing with each other because the two are still very closely related. The two share a common ancestry being the Canis lepophagus but evolved a continent apart. The grey wolves evolved from a population of Canis lepophagus that migrated to Eurasia from North America while the coyotes evolved from the ones that stayed in North America during the times when the Berring bridge was still intact between Alaska and Eurasia. Having been separated from each other, the two species became more distinct from each other. During the times before the grey wolves returned, coyotes were quite successful as expanding their range all over the continent including a small Pre-Columbian era population that managed to migrate into the east and separated itself from the western populations. However, the grey wolves did migrate back to North America around the same time when humans made their way here and when the wolves began spreading there populations on the North American continent, they also had many encounters with the coyotes whom are basically their distinct cousins. Despite the fact that these two species do not normally interbreed, in areas where the grey wolves have diminished as a result of human impacts, such as in the eastern Canada to the Atlantic regions, the coyotes tend to occupy former grey wolf territories and the remnant grey wolves who have troubles finding a mate of their own species often begin to seek potential mates in the coyotes whom are still closely related to them. In this case, the Pre-Columbian coyote population in the east actually became extinct both as a result of hybridization with the grey wolves thus giving rise to the eastern wolf populations and also suffering from possible human impacts although the Coywolves from these interbreeding have in recent years backcrossed with the grey wolves in some areas and some have also backcrossed with the western coyotes which resulted with the rise of the Eastern coyotes. Though this crossing happens more between male wolves as the she-wolves are less likely to see potential mates in male coyotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.74.54 (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hybridization: Red Wolf

This article contends that the red wolf is actually a coyote-grey wolf hybrid, citing a 2011 (I think) study. The Red wolf article denies that, citing a later study. The two articles need to be reconciled by somebody who can interpret the literature. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary detail in caption

I recently deleted text from image captions relating to the locations where the images were taken. An editor has reverted these and asked to take it here. I fail to see why the locations of these images are included in the captions. It does not add anything to an understanding of the animal. The fact the animal is in that location is usually covered by a section of text on "Distribution" or similar. If the location is considered necessary to show there is something noteable that is not included in another image, then the entire article could descend into a gallery of images of "Animal A in location X", "Animal A in location Y" and "Animal A in location Z". Potentially, all the images could show the animal performing the same behaviour and the only different information is the location - how bizzare that would be! Furthermore, in some cases, adding the location, such as Yosemite National Park, could be seen as advertising. How do we know the editor is not a member of staff of the park with a vested intrest.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with deletion. If there's nothing notable about the location it should be left out (especially if it's the lead image). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm seriously hoping your last point was said in jest... Coyotes and grey wolves live in diverse habitats and interact with varieties of different prey and competitors. A wolf living in North America is not going to live in the same environment, interact with the same animals or even have the same phenotype as a wolf living in India. It is important to show why these differences are apparent. Furthermore, you have not adressed the fact that adding location information is standard practice in zoology books and web resources. Why has wikipedia (suddenly) become exempt? Mariomassone (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You have completely proved my point! As someone who knows very little about canines, how does adding "Yosemite park" help me to understand these important differences. If these different ecological niches are noteworthy, yes the information should be included, perhaps even in the caption, but simply stating where an image is taken does not help the reader understand this. If the phenotype is different, how is it different? Again, simply giving the location does not help. Oh.... and I jest not.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. Looking at Britannica, none of the pictures in their coyote, wolf, or gray wolf articles have locations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Very well then.Mariomassone (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Why such parsimony? I like to know where a photograph was taken. Does it do any harm to put that in the captions? If we must cut all but the most essential information, why have a caption that reads, "Mearns' coyote (C. l. mearnsi) pups playing"? They're obviously pups, and they're obviously playing. Why not cut the caption to "Mearns' coyote (C. l. mearnsi)"? Or, for that matter, just "Coyote"? Why indeed have a caption at all, since the subject of the photograph is obviously the subject of the article? Is strict minimalism Wikipedia policy? I think there's something to be said for a certain amiability of style, as long as it doesn't interfere with accuracy. Wikipedia should be not only informative but also a pleasure to read; and a little unnecessary information, as long as it's accurate, relevant, and not boring, can be pleasant. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well I think the last sentence just about sums it up....it is so damn boring reading about the same animal but in different loacations! Especially when this is misleading that it implies the location is in some way important to understanding the animal and potential geographic differences. Your other concerns are also valid. If they are obviously pups, and they are obviously playing, this can be stated in the caption, but why the location? What does this add? I personally like photography and would like to see what camera lens, exposure, shutter speed, etc. it used. But, I am sure ths would bore the pants off many readers, but this is just as logical to include as the location. There is also scope for images not having a caption at all. In removing the location from captions, I have become very aware that many images in many articles are redundant - one image is very similar to another, only the location is different. I have resisted the temptation to delete these images. Please remember, the onus is on the editor to indicate why information in Wikipedia should be included.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Much of the detail about a given photo should be on he photo's page, not an article, Unless there is a particularly special reason to include location, leave it out; a "List of animals in foo"' locations is not useful. Captions need to support content. Montanabw^(talk)

How about the captions at Herd? Some of those give locations, and I think they add useful information. By the arguments I'm hearing here, it would seem that not just the captions but the photos themselves should be deleted, since all they show is groups of animals, which the text already tells us a herd is. Why have illustrations at all, unless they show something that the text can't efficiently convey, such as molecular structure or the layout of an electrical circuit? My answer: people like them—they enrich the reader's experience. That's sufficient for me, but not, I would think, for people advocating parsimony.

I sense a kind of Wikipuritanism at work here. You may sing in public worship, but only from the Psalms, and only in unison and without accompaniment. Do we really need pictures of Edward Everett, or are they a needless frivolity? Is it important to know what he looked like, or shouldn't we stick to what he did in life? Granting the "usefulness" of illustrations, do we really need to know when the pictures of him were made, who made them, and whether they're paintings, engravings, or daguerreotypes? I say all of those things are worth telling the reader, and, even if they're not essential, it does no harm to include them in a caption.

Of course there are other considerations that need to be weighed as well. A caption should be of reasonable length, and relevant to the illustration. It should not duplicate the text or contain matter that would be better included in the text. Still, there's no need for strict minimalism. Discursive captions like, "Wildebeest at the Ngorongoro Crater; an example of a herd in the wild;" and "George Peter Alexander Healy's 1851 painting of Calhoun, with a rare smile; on exhibit at City Hall in Charleston, South Carolina;" explain what the picture is, and why it should matter to the reader. It's a matter of judgment, whether or not some of that information belongs on the illustration's page, rather than in the caption; and if I had written those captions I might have judged differently; but, assuming accuracy, I see no harm in leaving them as they are.

The argument, that the onus is on the editor to justify including information on Wikipedia, can be used to rationalize virtually any deletion. The "notability" standard is highly subjective, after all. Why have an article about every little train station in the UK, including ones that haven't existed for decades? Why have articles about beauty-pageant winners? Why have articles about athletes? Why have articles on every species of moth? Why have Wikipedia at all? I don't think anybody can justify it in objective terms, and the human race did just fine without it for millenia. Ultimately it all comes down to subjective judgment, and, within reasonable limits of accuracy, good English, and encyclopedic decorum, our tolerance for other editors' judgment should be fairly high. It's not as if space were strictly limited on the Web. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

For the most part (perhaps the full part), I have agreed with DrChrissy removing locations from captions. I think brevity is appropriate for captions. More information, and a fuller picture (pun intended) of what's going on can be had from reading the text or by going to the picture's page. That all said, I think this discussion is devolving into a general policy discussion and not a discussion about how to best serve the coyote article. I urge y'all to find an appropriate policy discussion page and hash things out there. Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The point that images should be deleted if they simply show another herd in a different location is a good one. I have deleted some images bacuase of this, but I have left others in if the information is pertinent. For example, I have just been editing the Beaver article. There are two images of skeletons in there. The second one originally had a caption indicating it was from a museum. I have removed the location information and now we have two images both with the caption "A beaver skeleton". Clearly, one of them is redundant. Further down the Beaver article there is a section on urban beavers and their re-population. I made this into a multi image and put the location in the title - the location is clearly of relevance. I just wonder how editors would react if I started inserting multiple images of "Animal A in zoo X", "Animal A in zoo Y" and "Animal A in zoo Z". Clearly, 2 are redundant but which is the more "interesting" one if the only difference is location? To my mind, one of the images will be better than the others, but it is these qualities that make the image more interesting and informative, not the zoo it is in.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I posted the above as part of an edit conflict. A couple of other editors on other pages are also discussing this issue and I agree with UtherSRG that a more general policy discussion is required off the Coyote Talk page. How do we go about this?__DrChrissy (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy might be a good place to start. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I have opened the discussion here [1].__DrChrissy (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's just the same players over there. (I kind of hate the drama boards). I'm going to dive in here and just boldly do what I think would be required of the images if this article were to be submitted for GA. Feel free to revert anything I do, but look at my choices and reasoning here. I've got somewhere close to 40 GA and FA-class articles that I admit to working on "substantially", and helped on more, plus have done reviews on others. So I have some idea of how this is supposed to work. Montanabw^(talk) 18:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Eastern coyote vs regular coyote pop in New England, hunting vocalizations

I've read both pages, and I'm confused as to the predominance (or vice versa) of the "Eastern Coyote" over the coyote, if there is one. I live in Vermont, and I've been listening to coyotes all my life. But now I find myself wondering whether I'm hearing real coyotes, or these "Eastern Coyote" coy-wolfs. How predominant are the coy-wolfs, or are they a minority (in New England, specifically). Do they share habitats, and how closely? Do they associate socially, and if so, how does the interaction differ from normal coyote-coyote interactions? Seems like these are important topics to mention in at least one of the articles. Basically, have Eastern Coyotes largely replaced, or merely suplimented the coyote population in New England? And what are the specific numbers.

Next, I read the section on "vocalizations", and it doesn't seem to match up well with the little I know about it. I know coyotes mostly by their very eerie, un-natural seeming calls, which it doesn't seem to mention at all, at least not in language that does it justice. Also, whenever I hear coyotes, it's usually late at night, and suddenly a whole group of them will let loose in the distance, yipping and howling and raising the hair on our neck. I'd always been told that was the call they made after taking down a kill, such as a deer. I have no idea if that's true, but it doesn't seem to match what it says on here. It doesn't mention anything about a call made after a kill, but it doesn't mention any group vocalizations specifically at all. They must be doing SOMETHING, so what am I hearing? Their "greeting call"? The text seems to imply a vocalization made by a few members when they meet, but this usually sounds like a whole pack raising their snouts and "howling at the moon" (in their interesting way) for several minutes. Where does that fit in with the description given? And given the lack of correlation, am I actually hearing coy-wolfs following more "wolf-like" behavior, while I always assumed it was just coyotes? It seems like it ought to say somewhere on one of the two pages..45Colt 11:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

To (sorta) answer the first question: they didn't replace "regular" coyotes, as coyotes originally, as far as we can tell, were found only to points south and west, such as the Great Plains and southwest states (though just where the eastern border of their territory was is unclear). What the eastern coyote seems to have replaced in the northeast are the eastern wolf, whose range used to extend further south into Virginia and further west to Ohio or so.

It's been largely extirpated so it's found only in eastern Canada now (where it's genome shows strong coyote introgression, too, so acting as the other side of the wolf genetic contribution to the eastern coyote). In short, as urban development, disease from domestic dogs and outright hunting put pressures on the eastern wolf, coyotes wandered into the area, and being more adaptable around people, became widespread. The remnant wolf population would mate with coyotes (unable to find any of their own species), and the hybrid offspring (which would be somewhat rare because of the small overlap between the reproductive cycles) would in turn mate with either a full wolf (resulting in some coyote genetics in the wolf population) or with a full coyote (resulting in coyotes with some wolf genes, like the ones in the northeast.) There is debate as to whether the eastern wolf is a separate species or a smaller subspecies of Canis lupus, but that doesn't really affect the answer to your first question.

Sadly, I can't really answer the second question. All the coyotes I've heard here in Jersey sound like typical coyotes, which seem pretty well described. Maybe it's just the ones near you. oknazevad (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I seem to recall that they use the group vocalizations to rally the pack and psyche each other up before a hunt. I'll poke around for a citation. Chrisrus (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Coyote. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wolf.org/wolves/news/iwmag/2012/winter/iw2012_coyotewolves.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://biostor.org/reference/82977.text
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canids.org/canidnews/7/Coyote_kills_harp_seal.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ebd.csic.es/cani/public_html/Oecologia_00.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/sections/news/focus_in_depth/article_508026.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Canis lupus latrans?

Given the recent taxonomic unification of dogs and wolves (even dingos) in a single species:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus

It's surprising that the coyote has been left to its own separate species. Are there any genetic studies demonstrating a uniqueness belonging to the coyote? Kortoso (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The study that determined the dog and wolf were genetically the same also looked at all other dog-like species including the coyote, and found that coyotes were genetically distinct enough from wolves/dogs to classify as a separate species. Mediatech492 (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

All species of genus Canis apart from the side-striped/blackbacked jackal branch are close enough to interbreed and sp closer than most species of one genus, because species of a genus normally cannot interbreed so easily. Chrisrus (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thx for clr. Maybe this can make its way into the article someday? :) Kortoso (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There's still not very much here about coyote genetics. Seeing as the vaunted difference between C. latrans and C. lupus is that of size (but we see much more difference between wolves and dogs, now both in C. lupus). There's got to be a more distinct difference between lupus and latrans, and that's probably genetic. Kortoso (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coyote. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://animalrangeextension.montana.edu/articles/wildlife/wolf_depredation.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coyote. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/naldc/download.xhtml?id=27917

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Coywolf controversy

@Oknazevad: About the reverts in the lead about red wolves being coywolves: I was told to see the talk page for red wolf to discuss when I read "More recent studies have tended to support the theory that the red wolf is the originating species for both of the other species rather than a hybrid of the two which is now the generally held view. There are still those on both sides of this controversy and research is ongoing". So no one's absolutely certain what the red wolf really is yet, but until then the former theory is valid (it's a canid species in its own right Canis rufus). Anyways, it's not entirely all that relevant to this article and it's only briefly mentioned in the body of the article; it does not belong in the lead.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The section with the latest developments is, appropriately enough, at Talk:Red wolf#Latest. The editors involved in the discussion there, including Mariomassone, who made the change in the date in the lead here, are pretty convinced by the new study (yes, that includes me). Maybe the best solution is to remove a specific date from the lead here as well. oknazevad (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I've moved it to the body of the article, I just don't think it belongs in the lead. Now, is the divergence date consensus or just a new theory?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Divergence point

@Mariomassone: did wolves and coyotes diverge 50,000 years (late pleistocene) ago or 6,000–117,000 years ago (mid pleistocene to late holocene)? You said 50,000 before I reverted that and then you said 6,000–117,000 after the revert   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, must have got the erroneous date from an article rather than the journal itself. Mariomassone (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mariomassone: so it's 6,000–117,000 years ago?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, read the source. Mariomassone (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, since I believe there are some tricky taxonomic issues involved, I'll ping William Harris, who is our resident canid expert. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• First observation, that table list of species is awfully long, couldn't it be collapsed like the "Local and indigenous names for Canis lantrans" list?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 

• I'm not sure a black and white sketch is the best choice for an image in the description section, rather have a close up photo of a head or similar, which isn't present in the article already.

I've got two options: File:Coyote closeup.jpg (head-on) and File:Coyote portrait.jpg (profile)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd say the second one; you have no photos of a normal coyote head in profile, plus it is a featured image. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• "Melanistic coyote" mention in the caption why it is relevant to the hybridization section.

It briefly talks about the origin of the melanistic mutation   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I mean, could it be added to the caption? The the text says melanism may be due to hybridization with dogs, this could be mentioned in the caption. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Many of the images uploaded by Mariomassone (here and elsewhere) are problematic because they don't have a link to their original sources in their file descriptions. Not much the nominator can do about this, but Mariomassone needs to make it a habit to include the original links, otherwise it is impossible to check for copyright issues.

I might be able to find them. Which images were uploaded by Mariomassone?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The ones in the subspecies table and those in the cladogram. But yeah, would be nice if Mariomassone would take this into consideration henceforward (and retroactively). FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

the ones in the cladogram are from the Biodiversity Heritage Library, and all their images are in the public domain. The ones on the subspecies table are from the book The Clever Coyote which was published in part by the U.S. fish and wildlife service, so I think that means the images are in the public domain, but following that logic means the book itself is in the public domain (which it's not), so I'm not entirely sure about that one.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are mosy likely free, but the issue is that if their licences are to be verified during for example a FAC, there should be links to where each picture is taken from in their file descriptions. Mariomassone is adding a lot of such pictures with no source links to many articles, which will become problematic as the articles are further scrutinised. FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Noted   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• There surely miust be synonyms to list in the taxobox?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Also, I'd expect there to be a long and convoluted taxonomic history, which does not need to be explained in detail, but at least mentioned, if true.

No infoto add here? FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the Taxonomy section is long and complicated now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• No conservation info under "Relationships with humans"? Has there for example been times where coyotes were more vulnerable than now, etc?

not that I'm aware of   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• You should state in-text what the cladogram is based on. And the citation should be moved out of the cladogram, and into the preceding text.

I just added a caption   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Subspecies are generally redirected to the species articles (unless there is enough distinct information about them to warrant separate articles, which there rarely is), and I don't see why we need tiny stubs for Northern coyote, Mountain coyote, and California Valley coyote.

If you feel the need to propose six PRODs, go right ahead   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with deletion. It is simply redirection/merging, mere routine with such subspecies stubs (was recently done on impala before it went to FAC). If those were long-standing, well-developed articles, there would be an issue, but they are just recently created, one paragraph stubs, with little to no information that is not found in this article, and little chance they will have anything but duplicate info. FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Go right ahead. I think the only information that would be added here is the additional common names of each subspecies   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Selflinks from those redirected names should now be removed from this article.

I think I got all the selflinks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• "and red or fulvous" Explain in parenthesis.

the colors?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the page says " dull reddish-yellow, brownish-yellow or tawny", so whatever if right here should be explained. Per, "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so."[2] "Fulvous" is a very uncommon term. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• "Body length ranges on average from 1 to 1.5 m (3 ft 3 in to 4 ft 11 in)" and "The largest coyote on record... measured 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in)" Seems it wasn't longer than average then, only heavier?

there was a 3 missing there, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'd expect some info on the dentition. How does it differ from that of other canids?

added a sentence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• You are inconsistent in whether you use common names or scientific names in the captions. You could use both, with the latter in parenthesis.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• "The coyote was first scientifically described by Thomas Say in September 1819 on the site of Lewis and Clark's Council Bluff" Seems the name was only published in 1823? Should be mentioned.

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• You should explain what the species name "latrans" means.

it's explained in the Vocalizations section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Info on taxonomic names should always be explained in the taxonomy section first. If you want to refer to it again in the vocalisation section, you can just say something like "Its loudness and range of vocalizations was the asis of its scientific name" or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• You should introduce the various people mentioned in the article (occupation, perhaps nationality).

that's what wikilinking is for   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

As long as you don't state these things consistently. But if you do it some places and some places not, you should make it the same. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I added their occupations   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• "Wang and Tedford proposed" Full names, date.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• "Nowak found" As above.

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• "having a more slender skull and skeleton than in the modern coyote." The "in" seems redundant.

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• "Modern variety arose 1,000 years after" Variety of what?

coyotes?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but you don't mention the name in that paragraph, should be for clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done marking so I don't forget

 Done it seems someone already did this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• "ochraceous tones" Explain.

wikilinked   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

As above, better to be clear in-text. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done marking so I don't forget   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• You should attribute all the claims made under fossil record to their authors (only done in the first paragraph of the section), since they seem to conflict with the DNA evidence to some extend.

C. S. Johnson is also the name of a steel company so I can't find his first name

Fine if it is just initials there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Are we sure all those subspecies listed in the long table are considered valid today? The source used is from 1897!

yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Based on which recent source? You should supplement those claims with a more recent source. A century is a lot of time to make taxonomic changes, and there are practically no collection of subspecies of any animal that has been stable for that long, so I very much doubt it is the case here. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

added ref from 2003 (which also said 19 subspecies)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello FunkMonk and Dunkleosteus77. It is a pleasure to read your approach and cooperation on this undertaking, I assume it has something to do with reviewing the Coyote article. I am not sure about being referred to as "our resident canid expert" but I do have an interest in Late Pleistocene wolves and DNA research. In my opinion, the recent findings by Professor Vonholdt in July should not alter the taxonomic status of the Coyote at this stage. The wolf-coyote link does not appear to have been "launched to the media" just yet, her focus to the scientific media was on the Red and Eastern wolves being introgressed/hybrid specimens, and I am expecting another paper to help clarify this subject in the not too distant future (Bob Wayne is the lead coordinator on this series). For the Coyote article, when it comes to the Red and Eastern wolves, you might consider a simple link to those two articles rather than covering them here. Regards and keep up the good work! (Yes Dunkleosteus, I have cloned your signature block, please regard it as "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"!)  William Harris |talk  10:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your observations. Yes, this is about improving the article for "good article" status, so feel free to point anything you would want to add or change in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have amended the cladogram to include Koepfli 2015. It is much neater, however it highlights the "Canis dilemma" - the Dhole and the African Wild Dog are from different species, however based on mDNA they are closer to the coyote than are the two African jackals that are members of genus Canis. (Our issue at present is that mDNA tells us one thing and nDNA another.)

I would suggest giving the Red and Eastern wolves less profile here; these have their own articles and the subject of what they are, or should be classified as, remains unresolved at present. (If the Red wolf is a case of ancient introgression and what we are seeing is evolutionary adaption to a changed environment, there is an argument that it should be classified as a different species. Having recently read some past Great Lakes wolf research, the researchers give just a hint that its ancestral Gray wolf was a smaller, specialized ecomorph that had adapted to predating on white-tailed deer in the Great Lakes region - its unique signature has not been found in gray wolf populations today, but it lives on in some Eastern wolves. Due to human impact and loss of mates, this smaller, unique gray wolf later crossed with Coyotes and then backcrossed with larger grays - what is hiding there underneath the fur should probably not be easily dismissed as "just another wolf hybrid".) Regards,  William Harris |talk  21:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Given that I was invited, I could not resist and now the Evolution section has been rebuilt. Regards,  William Harris |talk  11:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks good! One thing that puzzled me in the sentence "In 2016, a whole-genome DNA study suggested, based on the assumptions made", the part after the comma seems a bit redundant? "Suggestions" and "assumptions" seem interchangeable here?

The study suggested, or we could change that to proposed. The assumptions were made on 3 variables within the study. Please feel free to alter my wording for a better flow on any of this - I tend to be abrupt in my treatment of these matters. Regards, William

Taxonomy and Evolution - I am not convinced that the section Etymology and the section History sit comfortably under here.  William Harris |talk  10:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Could you say something to the last few points before I continue, Dunkleosteus77? So they don't get lost in the process. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

FunkMonk, Dunkleosteus77 hasn't edited on Wikipedia since September 12 (those last edits were to this page). You may need to decide whether it make sense to continue the review given the extended absence. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll wait. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late. I'll try to get to those last points today   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I think I got all of them   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Cool, I'll continue the review before long. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• "In captivity, F1 hybrids" Add "first generation" or such in parenthesis.

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• "but generally retain the coyote's adult sable coat color, dark neonatal coat color, bushy tail with an active supracaudal gland, and white facial mask." If these features are distinct for coyotes, why are they not mentioned under description? Also, some of the uncommon terms need explanations.

moved   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• "Hybrid play behavior includes the coyote "hip-slam" Likewise, why is this not mentioned in the behaviour section, if it is somehow a distinguishing feature?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• I think the hybridization section is way too detailed and is given undue weight compared to the other sections that are specifically about this animal only (it is almost the longest section). I'd say cut it by at least half. It goes way off topic, we already have the coydog, Coywolf and eastern coyote articled for this stuff.

reduced   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• "combined with extensive backcrossed with parent gray wolf populations." I guess you mean backcrossing?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• "coyote pups begin seriously fighting prior to engaging in play behavior." What is meant by seriously?

as opposed to play fights (clarified)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• "Like wolves, coyotes use a den (usually the deserted holes of other species) when gestating and rearing young" Some of this info is repeated form the prior section?

you mean where it says "Coyote pups are born in dens, hollow trees, or under ledges..."?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• "Coyotes catch mouse-like rodents by pouncing," Seems a bit weird. Mouse sized? I'm sure it catches mice as well?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• "border on apparent friendship" I think "friendship" should be in quotation marks here, seems too anthropomorphic.

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• "walk around 5–16 km per day" Needs conversion.

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• "travel at least 0.8 km" Likewise.

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• There are many occurrences of words being linked only second time they are mentioned, though it should be the first. Too many for me to list here.

that's probably because a lot of the sections have been shuffled around. I got a couple (I'm not sure how to check exactly how many there are)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Seems the Communication section should come after the behaviour section rather than after ecology? It is behaviour after all.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• The text immediately under "Relationships with humans" and "In folklore and mythology" both deal with folklore, and some of the info is even repeated entirely, so why are they separate?

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems you also removed some text that wasn't repeated (the "cowardly" part), which should probably be reinstated, because it is also mentioned in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

readded   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• It seems to me from reading the article that most, if not all, of these hybrid populations have come into existence relatively recently, due to human actions? Or are some hybrid populations older than that?

none that I'm aware of   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• You don't mention if there have been any fatalities resulting from attacks? I think I remember a hiker being killed by coyotes a few years back, at least? Oh, seems she even has an article: Taylor Mitchell

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• "According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service USDA report, "All sheep and lamb inventory in the United States on July 1, 2005, totaled 7.80 million head, 2% above July 1, 2004. Breeding sheep inventory at 4.66 million head on July 1, 2005 was 2% above July 1, 2004."[135]" This very long, complicated quote doesn't seem particularly relevant here. You can state the exact number or just leave it out.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• "Coyote predation can usually be distinguished from dog or coydog predation because coyotes partially consume their victims." In contrast to what? Dogs or coydogs eat everything?

seems this is outdated info. Removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• "Coyote kills can be distinguished from wolf kills by less damage to the underlying tissues in the former." This sentence seems it would be long next to the one quoted above. Now they're at each end of a paragraph.

what?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

"Be long": "belong". But doens't matter now, sicne you re4moved the sentence about "partially consume their victims". FunkMonk (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• No word on conservation status? Extinct subpopulations, etc.?

nope   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• "being roughly the North American equivalent to the Old World golden jackal, though it is larger and more predatory." Only mentioned in intro.

any idea where to fit that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be about its ecological niche, so somewhere under ecology or behavior. FunkMonk (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

added to Diet section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• "It is listed as "least concern" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), due to its wide distribution and abundance throughout North America" Likewise.

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• There is no physical description in the intro. Even when much less important aspects (like folklore) are repeated word for word from the article body.

added sentence on physical description and reduced third paragraph on folklore. Some sections are given more weight in the lead than others simply because of their size (and the Description section is the shortest section in the article)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• There is too much specific detail in the intro, as above, repeated word for word form the article body.

I think I fixed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Looks great, I'd probably add to the intro that it is smaller than the wolf, but will the article pass now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

Could you put in the evilutionary chain please and a time line with a geo-pattern?

Signed only for archive purposes -   William Harris |talk  09:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sources Needed:

Re: The Chicago Quizno's incident, and of the wholly subjective assertion that Chicago-style pizza is an abomination.

Signed only for archive purposes -   William Harris |talk  09:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

History of documentation - earliest description

The coyote is described at some length in the Eleventh volume of the Florentine Codex from 1590 - it is described by its Nahuatl name, which had not yet been hispanicized as coyote, but the description is clear and quite interesting. Here are some sources for this description

• animals of Spain p. 25
• Gimmel, M. (2008). An Ecocritical Evaluation of Book XI of the Florentine Codex. In Early Modern Ecostudies (pp. 167-180). Palgrave Macmillan US.]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Basic fact missing

How many coyotes are there? It doesn't say.

Is there a WP:RS population estimate as would go on List of carnivorans by population?

This seems a missing basic fact. Surely a WP:RS for this exists.

Does anyone know how many coyotes there are?

Specifically, is there a WP:RS population estimate such as might be used on List of carnivorans by population.

A very vague estimate would do fine.

Notice the low and high range of the estimates on List of carnivorans by population. The high and low estimates are often very far apart. We expect a wide the low and high ends to be very far apart, but they've got to give us something.

If we could quote an expert saying "More than a thousand and less than a billion", that'd constitute progress.

It'd be better than what we have now, which is nothing at all.

If such an estimate doesn't exist, maybe we could tell experts that Wikipedia is waiting for this. Chrisrus (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I was just passing through and noticed the open "Rus-ogram". You are asking the wrong people, Chris. The figure is 7 million according to Bob Wayne and Carles Vila (the evolutionary biology "wolf-masters") writing in Mech and Boitani Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation 2010 page 230 found here Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 12:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

American jackal?

I understand that the widely-respected Marc Berkoff listed the coyote with an "also known as" name of the "American jackal" in one publication, but I must ask my North American cousins if this use is wide enough to warrant a bold inclusion in the first sentence of the article? If I were to walk into a bar anywhere in the US and start asking about the "American jackal", I wonder how many people would understand what I was asking about? William Harris • (talk) • 10:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, the article states the finding of "a coyote-like specimen in strata dated to 1 Mya", and yet the article's taxobox shows 0.7m years - on what basis are we saying 0.7m years? William Harris • (talk) • 11:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

To answer the first one, I don't think the term is anything remotely resembling common. It's one of those nicknames used by zoologists to create an analogy, something they think should have been the common name had naming been more systematic (and Eurocentric, but I digress). It's use in a handful of journal articles where it's mentioned in passing doesn't deserve lead mention as a common synonym, in my opinion.

As for the second question, I'd guess it is the difference between "coyote" and "coyote-like", the latter being an evolutionary ancestor that isn't quite yet the modern animal. Without more detail about the fossils, I can't really say wether the differences are actually significant enough to make the distinction, or wether they are just the result of the relatively malleable nature of canis genomes. oknazevad (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks O. A common name should be a common name - thanks for dealing with it. We have Wang & Tedford supporting a coyote fossil at 1 million years (plus a wolf at 800,000 years so the fossil sequence appears to be correct). Unless we have a reference supporting the 0.7m figure in the taxobox then I think we should be changing that to 1m. (We have chatted elsewhere about the extant coyote lineage being genetically only 50,000 years old; I have just found the same thing with the extant jackal being only 36,000 years old. Something very strange has happened in the world of Canis, even without including that wild-card called "the dog"!) William Harris • (talk) • 09:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed - found a reference for the 700k date. William Harris • (talk) • 11:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. Canis is an interesting genus because the species are so closely related and they all have fairly malleable genomes, making classification difficult, and clear dividing lines between species and their evolutionary predecessors almost impossible to determine. Makes our work here more difficult. oknazevad (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

When I search for "American Jackal" in Google Scholar, I get lots of hits.

The term "common name" doesn't always mean that the name is literally common. Chrisrus (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone isn't saying it isn't used, just that it's not used as a common name, but as an analogy. You'd get hits in Google scholar, but looking at the papers more closely one would see that they're used in passing, and that the entire rest of the paper would call it a coyote, just as one would in everyday speech, unless it was using the binomial C. latrans. This in contrast to puma/cougar/mountain lion, where all are widely used. "American jackal" is still mentioned in the lead, but doesn't appear as a boldface synonym, as it's too rare and specialized (that is, used by canid scholars and enthusiasts) to merit it.

Speaking of other names, what ever happened to including the name "prairie wolf"? That name might not be used much anymore, but was used in the writing of the Lewis & Clark expedition. oknazevad (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please check again because it's not clear to me that that is the case. Take for example http://www.jstor.org/stable/4058819?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Chrisrus (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to be clear the example was

The North American Jackal: Canis Frustror; Observations by the Committee S. W. Woodhouse Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Vol. 5 (1850 - 1851), pp. 144-148 Published by: Academy of Natural Sciences Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4058819 Page Count: 5

That reference is over 160 years old. And doesn't use the current binomial name. Clearly it's not really relevant to the modern understanding of the common name of the species.

Also, please do not split my responses like that. I didn't make it a separate topic because I do not think it warrants one, being part of the the discussion of listing common names. Also, the split left part of my comment unsigned. oknazevad (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please don't remove a secondary name because it's old.

Being old is not a good reason to remove a name from an article.

When a name is no longer in common use, just make it secondary and the new one primary.

Being old and out of use is a reason to move a name to a secondary spot, not to remove it entirely from an article. Chrisrus (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok fine. Please don't change subjects in a section. Instead, create a new section or subsection.

This includes points of order like this one. Chrisrus (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

No one removed "American jackal" from the article. It's still there, in the lead even. It just isn't shown as a boldface synonym.

Please don't separate a comment from its signature. That makes it difficult for other editors to follow who said what. That, as much as anything, is what I object to. oknazevad (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The phylotree

I was just passing through when I noticed this rather amusing little revert: "Coyote and gray wolf are EQUALLY close related to their COMMON ancestor." If that were the case, then the dog, wolf and coyote would be occupying three equal branches at the same level on the phylogenetic tree with the Golden wolf being basal to them - that is not what the tree is showing us. The tree is showing us that the coyote is genetically basal compared with the wolf/dog clade. If we are going to have wording - which is probably unnecessary as I believe that the phylotree depicted in the article says everything of importance - then I would suggest that it should simply say: "Compared with the gray wolf and dog, the coyote is phylogenetically basal. That avoids elaboration that may be interpreted as misleading. Furthermore, I would not put it in the lead paragraphs because, as the editor has rightly stated, it does not make much sense floating out by itself. The editor possibly did not even notice a connection between the deleted statement in the lead and the phylogenetic tree that appears further in the article - he may not have read that far. It should at least appear in the body first, with some context.

(Given that two separate and large-scale research studies based the phylotree on 15 kilobytes of exon and intron sequence data taken from the cell nucleus, we can assume they probably have it right.) William Harris • (talk) • 10:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree on both counts, I'm just going to ping KnightMove, the original editor, in case he/she isn't watching. Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 16:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The only side-point I'd make is that the lead is supposed to summarize the article, so a line about relative phylogenity, considering there is a large section on it, does belong in the lead as a summary of the section. But it certainly can be better phrased and better integrated with the surrounding text. oknazevad (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Wasechun tashunka Thanks for the ping. Currently I lack the time for a long answer, I'll hopefully find it in ~24+ hours. --KnightMove (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@William Harris: Thanks for starting this discussion, which will hopefully initialize improvements of the article. You avoid many of the misunderstandings of the former statement in the article - however I'm afraid, not all of them. I was well aware of the cladogram and the hypotheses concerning the ancestry of wolf & coyote. But to address two points by now (this is not a complete list):

• There is no consensus yet to regard dogs (and dingos) as species in their own right, rather than as domesticated subspecies of the wolf. Even if you do, it is common knowledge that "dogs were domesticated from wolves". This might be a little inaccurate as the direct (extinct) ancestor of dog is distinct from the modern wolf, still it is clear that the wolf is, by far, the closest relative of the dog. This renders the statement "Compared with the gray wolf and dog, the coyote is phylogenetically basal." a tautology without additional information.

Hello KnightMove, thanks for chatting. My understanding is the other way around - lupus and familiaris and dingo were once considered separate species, until Wozencraft in MSW3 2005 regarded them as lupus - that is what is not agreed and is still debated. (Curiously, there have been a suite of articles on dog divergence recently by internationally famous evolutionary biologists referring to Canis familiaris - something is happening in their field that we have not been made aware of yet.) Regardless of our personal views on taxonomy, there are 3 canines called a gray wolf and a dog and a coyote. That is what was sequenced, regardless of what the taxonomists refer to them as. In the article's phylotree, these 3 are depicted as they were in the cited Lindblad-Toh 2005, so we run with it. I will update the phylotree shortly with divergence timings. William Harris • (talk) • 08:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The classification of dog as Canis lupus familiaris has been used much earlier, here as an example a German book from 1958, about African domestic animals.

Perhaps, but that classification was not widely accepted at that time.

Another basic problem: A clade might be called "basal" within a certain larger clade to express that most other known groups within the clade are more closely related to each other than to this basal group. "Orang-Utans are the basal genus of great apes." - ok, now we know that Gorillas, Chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other than to Orang-Utans. That's meaningful.

But in our case? Now we know that there is a clade with wolf+dog+coyote, which are more closely related to each other than to other species. Ok. How is this clade called? Is its existence common knowledge?

I am not aware of it having a name nor that it is common knowledge. Nonetheless, it exists.

Is it really helpful for the reader to state the Coyote to be basal in this clade?

That is what one or two editors here thought and that was why it was included; I did not.

What about the larger clade including the African golden wolf? Are we going to state that this species is basal in its clade?

In the article on the African golden wolf, it would not be out of place. In one article cited with the Phylotree diagram - Werhahn 2017 - they actually state that compared to the Holarctic gray wolf... "More basal is a distinct lineage which has been described as Himalayan wolf and the recently described African (golden) wolf". So it is not unheard of in the world of Canis evolutionary biology.

As is the Golden jackal, as is the Ethiopian wolf...?

In an article on those species, it would not be out of place.

Is it useful to mention the respective basal species for any clade within Canis including the wolf? I don't think so. --KnightMove (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

That is a personal viewpoint, and one that might not be shared by other editors on this page. As always, do you have a reference to support your point of view?

The burden of proof with references lies with those who want to add the "basal" to the article. Just a personal interpretation of the cladogram is not enough. --KnightMove (talk) 07:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Not regarding the first point: Would you add to the article mammals the accurate statement that they are the basal clade of amniotes, compared to other clades like testudines? --KnightMove (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Shall we shift the conversation about improving another article (mammals) to one of our talk pages, please, and leave the "coyote-pack" to its deliberations? William Harris • (talk) • 08:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

My point was to give an example that mentioning a clade to be "basal" is not help- or meaningful in any each case, even if it's totally correct in regards of the cladogram. --KnightMove (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

KnightMove, My apologies, I misunderstood the purpose of your statement. I completely agree with you regarding these clades and their interpretation. However, your example is based on a clade of species using cladistics, whereas what I have in mind is based on the DNA sequencing of compared specimens, which gives it a lineage. That there is such a thing called a basal lineage is beyond dispute and a search of Google Scholar using this search term will provide you with a large number of references supporting this. The Phylogenetic tree generated from DNA sequences not only represents the evolutionary relationship between the specimens, but also the timing of their divergence (descent) from a common ancestor provided by the Molecular clock associated with a sequence, in our case the coyote from the wolf/dog lineage proposed at 1.1 million years ago. You have asked "Is it really helpful for the reader to state the Coyote to be basal in this clade?" If there were no phylotree, I would say yes as it helps define the relationship of the sequences being studied in both specimens. Given that there is a phylotree in the article, I would say no, and we both agree on that. If it were to be written that "Compared with the gray wolf and dog, the coyote is a basal lineage" along with the phylotree, then something else needs to be added, else as you say, it states the obvious. William Harris • (talk) • 06:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, the suggestion in your opening post was "phylogenetically basal", which refers to the phylotree. I don't exactly see in what way your reference to basal lineage - "a genetic lineage that connects a variant allele (type) possessed by a more common ancestor that evolves into two descendant variants possessed by a branch ancestor" might be helpful. Here again the splitting of a branch into two branches without ranking them are part of the concept, not regarding one branch as the "basal" and the other as "advanced" (?). --KnightMove (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

It is helpful because that is what the phylotree in the article is based on; this particular phylotree is based on DNA sequences, not cladistics. Each canid depicted is a basal lineage compared to the sequences of the ones above it. William Harris • (talk) • 08:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

"this particular phylotree is based on DNA sequences, not cladistics" - this is not a contradiction at all. Things do not have a single cause only. This is a cladogram, unmistakenly such as with added information on the splits that have occurred, based on DNA sequences - as any cladogram is based on some scientific evidence. --KnightMove (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

A cladogram is limited. With a cladogram you can turn the clades on their nodes and it makes no difference. This is a phylogenetic tree generated from DNA sequences that includes the species PLUS times of divergence PLUS the degree of change with time - you cannot tinker with the arrangement in any way. Wikipedia recognizes the difference between these two by providing readers with two separate articles. William Harris • (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no watch on this page, I only visit occasionally as part of my anti-vandalism activities across genus Canis. You have made your point clearly, thankyou. I have made my point, with a recent expert reference supporting it. Now it is for the editors who watch over this page to decide what they want to do. William Harris • (talk) • 09:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)It

I think it's important to remember that when we describe a species as "more basal", which is commonly synonymed with "more closely related to a predecessor", we're stating that one species shows greater genetic andnmorphological similarity to the predecessor than the other. Both species are equally descendent from the predecessor species, and are the same number of generations removed, but one just resembles the predecessor more. That's what "more basal" means here, less change. oknazevad (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to throw one opinion into the mix, having read your discussion above and reviewed the article, I believe that the phylogenetic tree (and accompanying text) adequately describes the species' relationship to other canids. In light of that, I don't think it's necessary to put the sentence back into the lead, however, were it to be placed back in there, I would agree with the suggestion made in WH's first paragraph, above. Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 20:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

"the African wild dog usually lies outside the entire dhole/Canis complex, although in some cases the side-striped jackal lies even more basal." - Molecular Systematics Of The Canidae - R.K. Wayne (i.e. in the words of the EB "wolfmaster" himself.) William Harris • (talk) • 21:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

oknazevad: "... "more basal", which is commonly synonymed with "more closely related to a predecessor" ..." - where have you got that from? Cladistics orders "closely related" by the criterion of the most recent common ancestor. This is a measure how closely extant species are related to each other and does not include a measure of how closely they are related to this ancestor as such.

You (and others) imply that a species is the less related to an ancestor, the more often it has split from other clades. Of course, regarding the cladogram from a purely mathematical point of view as a tree in graph theory, this is meaningful. But it doesn't work out here, as our information about the "full" tree with all branches is incomplete, and will most likely remain incomplete forerver. This way, you will get different orders how "closely related" a species is to an ancestor, depending on which selection of species you add to a cladogram (most commonly either extant groups, or those of which we have fossil evidence).

The same applies to "greater genetic and morphological similarity to the predecessor". Where do you conclude that from? Basal (phylogenetics) gives the great apes as an example, in which orangutans are the basal genus. This means gorillas chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other, than each of them to orangutans. Does it also mean that the most recent common ancestor of all great apes is more similar to orangutans than to all of gorillas, chimpanzees, and human? Maybe, maybe not, that's speculative and not part of calling them "basal".

As already mentioned: In a cladogram of Amniotes including all of their extant, classical taxa, it's mammals that have a basal position. Does this mean that mammals are more closely related than modern reptiles+birds to their most recent common ancestor? Is a 'generic mammal' more similar to this ancestor than a 'generic lizard'? I doubt it.

So, the entire topic of describing the coyote as "basal" in any way seems to be puzzled with misunderstandings of the concept. --KnightMove (talk) 07:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The cladogram of Amniotes is depicting, based on the 300 characteristics compared in Laurin & Reisz (1995), that the mammals are a basal clade and not that an extant human is closer to the common ancestor than an extant turtle. Nonetheless, the mammal clade - based on Laurin & Reisz (1995) Figure 9 - shows a lineage predating all of the other clades at 300m years ago. We can infer from that cladogram that the mammals are the oldest lineage, especially when the time factor has also been included in the original cladogram. We may be able to compare characteristics across the clades and make inferences about what characteristics were possessed by the common ancestor, but that is all. William Harris • (talk) • 22:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

And what exactly are we able to do in case of the coyote and the wolf-coyote ancestor? --KnightMove (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

As above. If a coyote shares a sequence with a wolf (and a dog) then we can infer that the coyote/wolf ancestor also shared that sequence. Further, if all of the specimens on the depicted tree in the article share the same sequence, then we can infer that the ancestor of the Caninae also possessed that sequence. Assume that the section of DNA we are looking at is the gene giving rise to coarse fur; if they all exhibit it then we can assume that the Caninae ancestor also had coarse fur. William Harris • (talk) • 20:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid we're not going anywhere here concerning reasons to call the coyote basal in any way.

We concur that the diagram in discussion is a phylogenetic tree. Calling any species "basal" in terms to others there is based on the circumstance that apart from the side-striped+black-backed jackal, the species split "solitarily" from the others (of course, if we included extinct species, this would look different again). But as long as dog and wolf are regarded as con-specific (this might be controversial, but either article does at the moment), there is but one split between two species in the end - between the wolf and the coyote. This a 1:1 stalemate in regards of species diversity and makes it unjustified to call any of them "basal". If we once have consensus that wolf, dog, dingo and/or himalayan wolf are species in their own right, and all subspecies of coyote will remain such without being upgraded, maybe it will be somewhat justified to call the coyote "basal". Then still their hybrids would have to be considered... --KnightMove (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

That the term "basal lineage" exists is beyond dispute as demonstrated by a search in Google Scholar. Now I will ask you a question for a change. The phylogenetic tree has been generated with two major studies supporting it (and with one study explicitly stating that the golden jackal is basal to the golden wolf, plus there are 6 studies stating that the Himalayan wolf is a basal lineage compared with the gray wolf which conflicts with your position). The tree was generated by comparing a segment of DNA and finding a similar pattern in each specimen. All of those specimens had a similar pattern - that is how the phylogenetic tree is generated based on a segment of DNA. Why is it that (most of) the specimens are shown in a cascading pattern? William Harris • (talk) • 11:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The term "basal lineage" you have linked me to in Lineage (genetic) "is a genetic lineage that connects a variant allele (type) possessed by a more common ancestor that evolves into two descendant variants possessed by a branch ancestor" - i. e. it means a past lineage that is gone after branching. This does not include calling one of the developing branches "more basal" than the other. Anyway I hope we concur that the coyote is a species of animal and not a genetic sequence in a specific locus.

As to your question: The pattern is cascading because evolution made the Canis species a) split and b) survive in the way it did for a number of known and unknown reasons. If either the black-backed jackal or the side-striped jackal were gone extinct in prehistoric times, the pattern would be entirely cascading (at least by scientific knowledge represented by that study). If the extinct Canis species like the dire wolf would have survived until today (and their genes were available), the pattern would look however differently, but would certainly contain many sub-branches to many branches. --KnightMove (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Coyote, I do not agree with your. For me, a "coyote" is defined by a specific genetic sequence and not by what it appears to look like (phenotype). A Himalayan wolf looks like a gray wolf but it is not. A golden wolf looks like a golden jackal but it is not.

What do you mean by "a past lineage that is gone"? How can you map on a phylotree a lineage that "is gone" - especially when we have mapped extant specimens?

Additionally, how might you explain this assessment: "Most of the historic GL wolves (haplotypes GL8, GL5, GL1, GL6, GL2) occupied the most basal branches in the coyote clade; only two possessed more derived haplotypes (haplotypes GL4, GL10)." here We now have basal branches within just the coyotes, or is it that the likes of Wayne, Leonard and Kobblemuller are misinformed on canine evolutionary biology? William Harris • (talk) • 21:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has said that a species is defined by phenotype only.

The assessment you quote does not state "the coyote is basic to the wolf" at all, on the contrary it's incompatible with your claim. When wolves (from the Great Lakes region) belong to the most basal branches in the coyote clade (which is defined by mitochondrial DNA only) - how can the coyote in total be called basal to the wolf, as these GL wolves seem to be "more basal" than the 'average' coyote?

Further it should be noted that mtDNA and Y-Chromosomial DNA are the parts of DNA that are inherited by female-only lines and male-only lines, respectively, and together form only a minor fraction of DNA. Obviously, a species is defined by the other parts of its DNA, too.

To finalize it: Statements in Wikipedia need sources. Find the claim of the coyote being basal to the wolf stated in reliable sources, then it may be legit to add it to the article. Otherwise it's certainly not, no matter what we might discuss here. --KnightMove (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi KnightMove, I agree with the requirement for a reliable source, I just wanted to mention that in this most recent edit a reference was added for that statement - (Zhang, 2010). The actual statement from that paper is:

The latest diverged are animals of genus Canis. Canis latrans is the most basal member of this genus [...] The sister species of Canis lupus lupus and Canis lupus chanco diverged from other species within the Canidae most recently.

Hope this helps. Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 21:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Well... this is an entirely different proposal about the relationships in Canis than given here in the article following the 2005 paper "Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog", on which the discussion so far was based on. If this assertion from the 2010 paper holds true, than indeed the Coyote may legally be called basal in the genus Canis. But then the article would have to be reworked in this regard - and this should only be done if these newer hypotheses can be regarded as new consensus.

However I doubt this to be the case, as the 2015 paper proving the species state of the African golden wolf confirmed the coyote being close to the wolf. Apart from this new detail (the African golden wolf), the 2005 and 2015 papers are in accord. If still the 2010 paper turned out to be right, we needed to change a lot...

On that occasion it should be noted that the original cladogram from the 2005 paper did *not* use the cascading pattern we have in the article. This proves that "bottom" and "top" is an arbitrary choice at any split occurring, and that this is not hinting to any species being "basal" in any way. --KnightMove (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Wasechun tashunka: As there is no easy way for me to get the original source: Please can you clarify which Canis species are actually dealt with in the paper, and where the position of the Coyote in the phylotree is? Maybe Zhang's wording was just unfortunate. --KnightMove (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Gladly, however, I will place it in a collapsible box so as not to clog up the page.

Summary of Zhang, 2010: "The complete mitochondrial genome of dhole Cuon alpinus..."

Zhang analyses the genetics of the Dhole (Cuon alpinus), and discusses its relationship to seven other canid species from three genera: Coyote (Canis latrans), Tibetan Wolf (Canis lupus laniger), domestic Dog (Canis lupus familiaris), Mongolian Wolf (Canis lupus chanco) and Eurasian Wolf (Canis lupus lupus), as well as the Raccoon Dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) and Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) (with the Brown Bear, Ursus arctos, as a control). The methodology: "The 12S rRNA gene, 16S rRNA gene and 12 heavy-strand encoded protein-coding genes sequences were analyzed as a concatenated data set for phylogenetic analysis. Phylogenetic trees were inferred by using maximum parsimony (MP), maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian (BI) inference methods... The best fitted substitution model for the concatenated data set selected by ModelTest out of AIC consideration is the Hasegawa (1985) model." The full context to the quote given above is: The latest diverged are animals of genus Canis. Canis latrans is the most basal member of this genus. Canis lupus laniger is the first divergent member within wolves and domestic dogs. The divarication of domestic dogs after that of the Canis lupus laniger is firmly supported by topologies of MP tree, ML tree and Bayesian tree. The sister species of Canis lupus lupus and Canis lupus chanco diverged from other species within the Canidae most recently. On dating of the divergence of species: By using the average nucleotide substitution rates of seven pairs of closely related mammalian species with assumed divergence times in 2.5–6.0 million years as the molecular clock, the times after divergence between dhole and other canid animals as well as between domestic dog and three subspecies of wolves were evaluated based on nucleotide substitutions in tRNA genes, 12S rRNA genes and 16S rRNA genes. As shown in Table 2, the evaluated times after divergence were about 10.34–12.93 million years before present (MYBP) between Cuon and Vulpes, 10.55–12.97 MYBP between Cuon and Nyctereutes, and 5.22–7.06 MYBP between Cuon and Canis (Canis latrans). The evaluated times before divergence between Canis lupus familiaris and three subspecies of wolves, Canis lupus lupus, Canis lupus chanco and Canis lupus laniger were about 0.26–0.40 MYBP, 0.15–0.69 MYBP and 1.56–1.92 MYBP, respectively. There are two phylotrees presented in the paper, as follows: Phylogenetic analysis using MP and ML methods. Ursus arctos Cuon alpinus Canis latrans Canis lupus laniger Canis lupus familiaris Canis lupus chanco Canis lupus lupus Nyctereutes procyonoides Vulpes vulpes 50% majority role consensus tree from BI. Ursus arctos Cuon alpinus Canis latrans Canis lupus laniger Canis lupus familiaris Canis lupus chanco Canis lupus lupus Nyctereutes procyonoides Vulpes vulpes

Regards, Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 19:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm still in the process of "letting sink in" and come back soon. --KnightMove (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

'UK English' pronunciation

The article currently gives UK: /kɔɪˈjoʊteɪ, kɔɪˈjoʊt/ as pronunciations.

I can't find a source for ultimate stress on the 2 syllable version, e.g. ky-OHT, and the only place I can find the (optional) medial /j/ and the final -/ei/ is wiktionary, which also does not provide a source. Oxford gives /ˈkɔɪəʊt/, /kɔɪˈəʊti/, which would be rendered in wikipedia as /ˈkɔɪoʊt, kɔɪˈoʊti/. I've removed these as unsourced moogsi^(blah) 22:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that was supposed to say three syllables in the eastern US, two in the west, not US vs. UK. Chrisrus (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If you say anything but "kaw YO tee", you're wrong ;) --Kar98 (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

range map

in Alaska, the range of the Coyote is generally south of the Yukon River. Few occurrences of Coyote have been reported north of the River. Additionlly the western edge of the range is generally marked as the Alaska Range. The map should not be solid green to the north and west coasts of Alaska. The species is found on the Kenai Peninsula, in the Matanuska and Susitna River areas and in the Copper River valley area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.35.102.27 (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Northeastern Coyotes have also reportedly been found in the Philadelphia area including parks inside the city.

https://www.phillymag.com/news/2018/04/25/coyotes-caught-northeast-philly/ Zmis (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Range map also shows none in FL and eastern seaboard, where there are probably a million.

Coyotes in Nova Scotia

I don't know how to edit the map in this article but it ought to include Nova Scotia, which has Eastern coyotes (I heard a pack unmistakably while camping once.) The government has a Q&A page about coyotes in NS: https://novascotia.ca/natr/wildlife/nuisance/coyotes-faq.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.64.202 (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

How long were they around?

Sorry if this might be off topic, but how long were coyotes around? The dire wolf study said they moved into North America during the late Pleistocene. However, it says here that they existed here since the middle Pleistocene. There is some conflicting data here. Unless coyotes were in Eurasia, to which there is no source to back that up. 2001:1970:48AA:8100:7964:64D7:D44E:7071 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You are not off-topic. DNA inference indicates that coyotes may have entered North America from Eurasia. There are Pleistocene wolf fossils in northern Siberia which, going back in age, reveal more coyote DNA in their mix! However, there is no coyote fossil evidence found in Eurasia to support this proposition. Other DNA studies indicate that the North American wolf clade and the coyote split from a common ancestor only 50,000 years ago, location unknown but assumed to be North America. Yet another says that the entire modern wolf clade only came into being 25,000 years ago and originated in Beringia. These DNA studies differ depending on the specimens and the technology being used. Given what we know today, all that we can say is that there is fossil evidence of a canid in North America dating back to the middle Pleistocene that matches the morphology of a modern coyote. Once scientists can extract DNA from one of these ancient canid fossils then we will know whether they are coyotes or not. William Harris (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Subspecies articles to be merged into the main article

The list of subspecies shows links to the Plains coyote, Mearns coyote, and the Northeastern coyote. These articles have been around for quite some time, are still very small in size, and there is not enough referencing to meet WP:GNG. Therefore, I suggest that the relevant information be merged into the "Subspecies" section of the Coyote article and these three be made into redirects. William Harris (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• As per standard handling of subspecies with little additional material and low chances of substantial expansion, yes, these should be merged. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Now actioned, with the Eastern coyote maintaining its own article. This is appropriate given that canine's taxonomic debate, article size, and the number of WP:RELIABLE sources contributed. William Harris (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The coyote was sighted in eastern Panama (across the Panama Canal from their home range) for the first time in 2013.

This sentence before the table of contents section would need a reference. Gimly24 (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Predation Method

I call into question the way it states Coyotes hunt large prey (at the moment, it is listed as from the front). I question it primarily because all video and documentation i could find of coyote predation dictates that, they always prefer to attack from the behind, tearing open leg muscles to cripple and slow the prey until it falls, before gorging. From what I can see, they only approach the front to stop the deer from advancing, not to actually inflict any damage. For those whom added or believe what the article currently says, may you provide me with sources? if not, I'll change it to stating "from behind" rather than from the front in a bit. I'll also provide my own sources, as below. Unfortunately I cant find too many as of the moment, however I'll post more when i find them. Additionally, if somebody has actual academic proof (I currently cannot access nor find any), please provide it as well.

https://www.deeranddeerhunting.com/content/articles/coyote-kills-buck-on-camera#:~:text=When%20attacking%20adult%20deer%2C%20a,deer%20while%20it's%20still%20alive.

The above Article itself may be dubious, however all the photos indicate that the Coyotes attack from the rear.

https://www.facebook.com/GrowingDeer/videos/coyotes-take-buck-down/365242564488326/ WL Enthusiast (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Antifragility

I am working on describing antifragile species. The coyote is definitely one of the species I would call antifragile. Antifragile species benefit from shocks; they thrive and grow when exposed to volatility, randomness, disorder and stressors and love adventure, risk and uncertainty. AspiringAntifragilista (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)