Jump to content

Talk:Dire wolf/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Copy edits on Dire wolf

On behalf of the "Dire wolf pack", I thank Corinne, Assistant coordinator, Guild of Copy Editors for the recent review of this article.

Hello FunkMonk, I have a couple of loose ends to tidy up, however I assume the next step in the process is a peer review of the article as outlined at Wikipedia:Peer_review/guidelines? Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a good idea for first time nominators, it can take some time to attract reviewers, but I'll give it a look first, then others will comment as we go along. FunkMonk (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I have noticed your activities and commentary on the peer-review pages - it will be good to have you review it "as one of us" before it is nominated and you don the mantle of "one of them"! Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
This article is looking vastly improved over the past few months. Thanks to everyone who contributed, especially FunkMonk, Corinne, and most spectacularly, the indefatigable William Harris. Strebe (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Strebe. We should also thank Adam Cuerden for giving it a hard knock as part of the GA review, and those members of the "Dire wolf pack" who have tirelessly defended this article against vandalism and unconstructive edits (not to mention Game Of Thrones aficionados!) over the years, you for a special mention. We are on a journey towards getting Dire wolf up to Featured Article quality level. Dire wolf will then be at a higher standard, which means that any future edits must also be of a higher standard and this rating will attract more "defenders" to its cause. (I hope you all are not growing tired of my endless edits to this article........) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Canis dirus lupus?

Brace yourselves, Direwolf aficionados. Researchers have recently found the unthinkable in Idaho - remains of Dire wolf/Beringian wolf hybrids: http://www.sicb.org/meetings/2017/schedule/abstractdetails.php?id=1140. I assume the research paper will be released later this year. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Ouch, will we get a situation as confusing as that between woolly and Columbian mammoths? FunkMonk (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure, but I think we will need to accept that some very strange things have happened over the last 50,000 years in North America regarding big "bitey" wolves with megafaunal adaption. I have not heard of anybody extracting Dire wolf DNA; this group must have some. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
you know.. research found that lupis descends from an african hyena, 3-1m ago. it fled for humans that competed its niche, (small limb bones), as it was called the small toothed (in english i think, "small jawed") hyena. besides it is remarkable how adapted it was when we entered eurasia, and adapted to the wolf, it is funny because you always want things to have started in americas, which , concerning the date range of canus dirus is remarkably doubtful once over. get used to it, everything comes from china, tiktaalik already was a relic.31.151.163.18 (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing this information but I already have it covered - please click on this link Evolution of the wolf#Wolf-like canids. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Post FA status

Hello User:RexxS, you are probably aware of the FAC closing comments of Sarastro1 regarding "alt text", which may have resulted in your recent edit. It is not an area I am familiar with. Are there any images that you believe need further amendment, please or are we good to go? Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 12:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@William Harris: As with most articles, it could benefit from having good alt text on the images. However, when I did the check, I thought that the captions were already quite descriptive, so I wasn't too worried by the lack of alt text. You're right that it resulted in my edit to the small text – hope that made sense. The article's fine.
If you really want to put in the work to provide alt text, you'll need to re-balance what is in the caption with what is in the alt text. Let me do an example for you with File:Wolf dentition in the Ice Age.jpg in the Dire wolf #Tooth breakage section.
  1. First, you want to remove from the caption what a sighted person can already obviously see – in this case, it's obvious that the diagram is "showing functions of the teeth", so that text serves no purpose in the caption. Dentition isn't a common word, so it's probably better linked.
  2. Next, you want to ensure that a screen reader user will get the same information as a sighted person (as far as possible), so you write alt text saying what the diagram shows, something like "Cutting and cracking done by rearmost teeth; chewing by the middle teeth; seizing by the canines near the front of the mouth; and nibbling by the incisors at the front" I'm not sure if those middle teeth are molars, but you can improve that with your expertise.
  3. Finally, if you want to be really kind to visually impaired registered users, you switch image sizes from 200px to |upright=0.9, so that their default thumb size (that can be set in user Preferences) is preserved.
I've made those changes in the article. That image was a particularly easy one to do because it was simple: a skull and four labels. Other images may be similarly amenable to improvement, but some of them may not. There's no deadline, so if you feel like adding some alt text over time, give it a go. You can always ping me for an opinion if you're not sure. Thank you, by the way, for such an informative article. --RexxS (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your example and explanation, RexxS, you have made the concept easy to follow. I have discovered WP:ALTIMG and I will amend the pix to aid our visually impaired readers. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Image

Thanks FunkMonk. It would be a good addition to the article, especially with the final series of GOT coming up shortly which I expect will attract another wave of interest here. We can highlight to these visitors that real dire wolves were not the size of lions. I note that the old foe - "the cat" (Smilodon) - has one of these diagrams. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Yep, it was made by Dinoguy too. I'd make one myself, but my diagrams can't compete with those the above gents have created in the past... FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Alright, seems I might have to d it after all if it is to be ready for the big main-date... I'm thinking of using Mariomassone's illustration as basis, and then the usual Pioneer plaque guy for the human. But I am not sure about the exact scaling, what would we think the shoulder height was, William Harris? FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
FunkMonk, based on this architectural site, the male shoulder height is 1425mm. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, hehehe, I meant of the wolves! Maybe it would also be good to throw a modern wolf into the image for comparison?FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
FunkMonk, it is given in the article, DW same size as these: "The largest northern wolves today have a shoulder height not exceeding 38 in (97 cm) and a body length not exceeding 69 in (180 cm). Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, of course, for some reason I couldn't find it, but I was also somewhat busy when I looked... Will put up a version here soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Just put this together[1], very simple, but may be ok until someone makes something better. Does it look correct, William Harris? FunkMonk (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello FunkMonk, nice work. I believe that it does look correct based on video footage available online (Youtube) of people interacting with arctic wolves. People will see that they are not lion size, and Mario's thin wolf works well - there is no such thing as a well-fed wolf (apart from my "cave-wolf"). Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, here it is:[2] What source should I give for the size? FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
L. David Mech (1966). The Wolves of Isle Royale - full citation in the Reference section. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 06:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Done. The image would seem most relevant somewhere in the description section. FunkMonk (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Now in place, FunkMonk - I think it looks dramatic and useful. Regards,
Ready for the main page! The wolf in the drawing is crouching a little, so I did not put the shoulder at the absolute maximum (as this would inflate the overall size), but that can maybe be rectified at some point. FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

American Alsatian

Good article and good timing with the season premiere of Game of Thrones. There might be something added somewhere to this article that the American Alsatian dog has been developed to emulate the size and bone structure of the dire wolf. Eric Cable  !  Talk  13:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

If this was that notable, I'd imagine the breed would have an article. And that info would probably be more relevant in said article than here. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
If you are referring to the Northern Inuit Dog used in GOT then that article exists. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Game of Thrones premiere?

I know Wikipedia will do things like having Canada as the featured article on Canada Day, but it would seem a little unprofessional if Wikipedia picked featured articles based on the airdates of TV shows. My question is: is it a coincidence that the dire wolf article is featured the day after the Game of Thrones season premiere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:302:D1E2:7310:94BA:2F76:2399:6D06 (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

See:[3] But note there is no mention of the series in the article. For your information, Wikipedia TFAs routinely coincide with release dates of popular media (mainly anniversaries, though), but this one is probably less "blatant" than most. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I await your explanation as to why you consider this as "unprofessional". Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"local genetic populations were replaced by others within the same species or by others within the same genus"

Yes, that is true of both dire wolves and Beringian wolves. However, it is not true of the megafauna in general. That is, ground sloths disappeared entirely, proboscids of the Americas disappeared entirely, equids of the Americas disappeared entirely, etc. When we are talking about the North American megafaunal extinction in general, we can't claim that competition with related species was a factor. That sort of competition is going on all the time and doesn't explain a unique extinction event. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The statement is applicable to dire wolves and Beringian wolves, and that is why I chose to reinstitute the comment. However the source - Cooper 2015 - was referring to megafauna in general. Rather than attempt to explain the extinction, we need to outline what was noticed. You are correct that there was no replacement for the North American horses, camels, lions and elephants. However, I understand that deer, moose, muskox, puma, and the Pleistocene coyote in addition to the two wolves were replaced by modern forms. We need to maintain our NPOV and not be deleting relevant material from cited sources because we personally disagree with them. William Harris • (talk) • 09:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
On a side note, the humans did not come to North America and hunt alone, they brought someone else along side them - woof! I do not believe that the extent of "local genetic populations were replaced by others within the same species" has been fully realized by the paleontologists yet, but I will leave that theme for the evolutionary biologists to further develop. William Harris • (talk) • 04:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to mention that, in both Dire wolf and Beringian wolf, I modified this sentence. I added "from" before the first "within" and changed the second "within" to "of" to avoid the repetition of the word "within". Feel free to change it back or further modify it.  – Corinne (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Corinne, the amendment reads much better. William Harris • (talk) • 09:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Dire wolf visitors

Hello members of the "Ice Age wolf pack". Yesterday (Monday), the Dire wolf article appeared as Today's Featured Article to coincide with the release of Game of Thrones Season Seven, which will see the return of the "fantasy" direwolves. The strategy was to draw upon the interest generated by GOT to satisfy readers with a featured article. Dire wolf averages 2,000 visitors each day. Yesterday, it peaked at 94,000 visitors, followed by Tuesday 31,000 then Wednesday 16,000 then Thursday 9,000 then 4,200 on Friday, which totals 154,000 visitors. However, it now has a growing competitor. Also yesterday, north of the ice sheets, the Beringian wolf gained Good Article status. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It was also a good way to show the average GOT fan that the real dire wolves were not the size of a lion, bear, or whatever they are in the series. And I'm looking forward to hearing about those dire/Beringian crosses, hybrid vigour? FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
We await JM's report. There have been a number of specimens found in the past that the paleontologists have argued over. These were originally classified as lupus but later this classification was challenged because they fell within the size-range of dirus - perhaps all of the researchers were correct! William Harris • (talk) • 09:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Nymeria spike

Dire wolf visitor numbers have been around 4,000 per day for 3 days. On the 24th, the fantasy dire wolf Nymeria made an appearance on GOT - visitors leapt to 15,200. I assume they were searching for how large a direwolf really was. Well done to our resident artist Funkmonk for providing the graphic under the "Description" section of the article, and to our palaeoartist Mario Massone for providing the original dire wolf sketch used in it. William Harris • (talk) • 10:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest: most recent or youngest?

The lede states that "The latest dire wolf remains have been dated to 9,440 years ago.". Does this mean that the most recently discovered remains were dated to 9,440 years ago (but there might be younger ones discovered earlier); or that the remains of the most recently deceased animal have been dated to 9,440 years ago (but others discovered since were older)? It's ambiguous, and an edit I made to replace "latest" with "youngest" was reverted without discussion. Different wording is required so I and others know what this sentence means. Bazza (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The lead should provide an overview of what is in the text. You altered the lead, and I changed it to reflect what was in the text. In future, you are advised to change both. You might have consulted a good dictionary to answer your own question. Youngest - was the remains that of a dire wolf puppy? My dictionary tells me that latest means "the most recent or newest e.g. the latest unemployment figures, the latest craze/fashion/trend, her latest novel, Have you heard the latest news?" We don't speak of "have you heard the youngest news". Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
No need to be quite so abrupt, nor patronising. In future, you are advised to assume good faith. I read the text, was unclear about it's meaning, and went to the trouble of raising this as an issue. My dictionary tells me that latest means "of most recent date", so we seem agreed on that, but my question still stands: does the text mean that the most recently discovered remains were dated to 9,440 years ago (but there might be younger ones discovered earlier); or that the remains of the most recently deceased animal (which may or may not have been younger than others when it died) have been dated to 9,440 years ago (but others discovered since were older)? I did check the end of the article to see if there was a clear indication of what the lede text means, but I'm still none-the-wiser, especially in light of "Dire wolf remains have been radiocarbon dated to 8,200 YBP from Whitewater Draw in Arizona". Bazza (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I am abrupt and that is my nature. I was being factual, however I was not being patronizing. I never assume anything. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
There is no ambiguity except by allowing the most literal, nonsensical interpretation. The age of the remains found by the most recent dig has no significance and no permanence. I support the text as it is now. Is anyone actually confused about this? That said, the discrepancy between the 9,440 and 8,200 YBP needs to be better explained, even if it's to say that the younger is controversial. Strebe (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello Strebe, the last paragraph remains an issue and I would be pleased to hear from User:WolfmanSF on this matter. We have two expert secondary sources for the 9,440 YBP figure and I believe that should stay. Although I originally placed it, I think we should remove the 2,040 YBP specimen - see my comment under the Dire Wolf Visitors section below. We can have specimens of big lupus being confused with dirus. The Whitewater Draw specimen radiocarbon dated to 8,200 YBP remains our challenge. I originally had it listed as the lastest remains, however Wolfman pointed out a reference relating to the inaccuracies of radiocarbon dating on bone carbonate. My issue with this is although the radiocarbon dating was done in 1960, there were a number of specimens in the Whitewater Draw sediment that were dated back to 8,200 YBP, including wood. Therefore, the dating of the specimen at 8,200 YBP should be accurate because both the specimen and other specimens in the sediment were dated to this time, including non-bone carbonate. Despite this reference existing since 1960, the other two secondary sources written later did not include it. However, we now have the Brannick/Meachan/O'keefe 2015 reference - 3 recognized experts - who cite it. Has anyone any ideas about a way forward? William Harris • (talk) • 09:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Strebe So I am nonsensical? That's a bit rude, especially as I pointed out the discrepancy now being looked at. Yes, I am actually confused by this. I don't know what "latest" refers to: the logical interpretation is that it means the latest remains uncovered were dated to 9,440 YBP, although there may be younger ones uncovered previously. Is this the case, or is this trying to say that "the youngest remains uncovered so far have been dated to 9,440 YBP"? (You have used the word "younger" above.) I don't know what you mean by "The age of the remains found by the most recent dig has no significance and no permanence." Bazza (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Some history. After the Dire wolf's Good Article review, it was placed into the hands of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. The Guild changed what was once there to read "latest". The article then went through the Featured Article review and "latest" remained. If you have an issue, then you may refer it to User:Corinne who will explain its usage to you. William Harris • (talk) • 12:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Strange. You wrote "latest" at the end of May last year, and it was still that when User:Corinne started work in March this year. This Wikipedia article contains one ambiguous word in the lede, and an ambiguous fact alongside it. I originally read the article lede because its blurb on the Main Page looked interesting and informative and unusual, but I stumbled on the last line because I could read it in two ways. Wikipedia's way of working is to be bold so I was. I wish I hadn't been. There is an uncomfortable air verging on article ownership here and, after being reverted, lectured and treated with disdain, I feel like I'm unwelcome because I've dared to point out, let alone try to fix, some bad wording. It's the worst for quite a while. Bazza (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Bazza I'm sorry you feel unwelcome. I assure you that neither William Harris nor Strebe hold feelings of ownership over this article. Try to put yourself in their shoes, though; they – particularly William Harris – worked for months, collaborating with other editors, on this article to get it to GA, then FA, status. They might be reluctant to see their hard work changed without discussion. But let's put that aside for now. Since I copy-edited the article months ago, I don't remember coming across, or thinking about, that particular word then. I just re-read the lede, the particular sentence in question, quoted at the beginning of this section – "The latest dire wolf remains have been dated to 9,440 years ago." – and the related sentence later in the article, as well as your original comment, above, to see if I could find the ambiguity you saw. When I read, "The latest dire wolf remains have been dated to 9,440 years ago", I think it is pretty clear that it means "the most recently found remains have been dated to 9,440 years ago", or "the most recently discovered remains have been dated to 9,440 years ago". The only way to make it clearer would be to use one of those two phrases – "the most recently found dire wolf remains" or "the most recently discovered dire wolf remains". I am a bit puzzled by your attempt to explain how the sentence is ambiguous:
Does this mean that the most recently discovered remains were dated to 9,440 years ago (but there might be younger ones discovered earlier); or that the remains of the most recently deceased animal have been dated to 9,440 years ago (but others discovered since were older)?
I'm not a scientist, so I'm approaching this just as an average WP reader. I pretty much understand the first half of your question, but the second half doesn't make sense to me. How would anyone know when, or where, "the most recently deceased animal" was? In the first part of your question, when you say "younger ones", do you mean younger in age when the animal died, or lived in more recent times? I hope you mean "lived in more recent times". I think I understand what you find confusing: does "latest dire wolf remains" mean "most recently discovered dire wolf remains" or "the remains of a dire wolf that lived in the most recent time" (youngest?), or, to say that another way, "the remains of the most modern dire wolf"? I think that, if the authors of the article meant "the remains of the most modern dire wolf", they would have said that. Since they didn't, I think it has to mean "the most recently discovered dire wolf remains". The sentence later in the article, in the second paragraph in Dire wolf#Extinction:
  • Terminal dates for the dire wolf include 9,440 YBP at Brynjulfson Cave, Boone County, Missouri, 9,860 YBP at Rancho La Brea, California, and 10,690 YBP at La Mirada, California.
I'm not sure what "terminal dates" means, but since this paragraph is about when the dire wolf went extinct, and mentions radiocarbon dating, I have to assume that these are the ages (determined from "ancient DNA and radiocarbon data") of the remains of the dire wolves when they went extinct in those three different locations. Since the sentence in the lede is supposed to summarize the expanded material later in the article, the sentence in the lede, "The latest dire wolf remains have been dated to 9,440 years ago", which surely refers to this sentence in the Extinction paragraph, must mean the most modern remains, or the remains of the animal that was alive at the latest date in that area before the species went extinct. So, since I thought before that it meant "the most recently discovered dire wolf remains", then it appears Bazza has a point. "Latest" is ambiguous. Bazza, the best way to succeed on WP is not to complain unless absolutely necessary, develop a somewhat tough skin, keep your cool, stay friendly, work to persuade by logic, reasoning, examples, evidence in sources, etc., and be persistent. William Harris and Strebe, if I've made a complete mess of this, I'm sorry. Just see me as an average WP reader. If I'm confused, then others might be, too.  – Corinne (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC) – Corinne (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@User:Corinne Thanks for taking the trouble to comment on this. I am glad that someone else became as confused as I. I appreciate that lots of time has been put in by a small number of editors on what has become a fine Featured Article — viewing the page's history yesterday showed very well how much effort has been involved. I read WP more than contribute, but will correct spellings, grammar or obvious inconsistencies or ambiguities if time permits. My original edit was along these lines, although, like you, I did not feel particularly well-versed in the subject to try again after the first reversion: hence my original question which has prompted a rather long debate. Perhaps I should have rephrased it along the lines of asking if the lede could include a simple statement to answer the question which seems to always accompany information about extinct species: "roughly, is it thought that this animal became extinct?"; the text hopefully avoiding too much technical-speak such as that you mentioned above. I appreciate that finer points of palaeontology will not permit such a simple approach in the main body of the article (as rightly shown in the later sections), but "became extinct between", with whatever extra "±", "not precisely agreed", or "probably" is required would be fine. (Postscript: I have just looked at the article and see that User:Strebe has done just that: kudos and thanks.) Bazza (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

"Geologically youngest" might have been an easy fix for the wording issue. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand that "the most recently found remains" and "[Dire wolf] remains having the most recent geological ages" are two different things, so I completely understand Strebe's edit. However, I really think that many average Wikipedia readers might scratch their head upon reading
Dire wolf remains having the most recent geological ages...
I'm wondering if you would consider adding, after "ages", a brief explanation in simpler terms for this phrase – in parentheses, a pair of commas (after "that is,..."), or within a pair of en-dashes (after "that is,..."). Something like: "that is, the geologically youngest remains ever found". I think that would make sense to most readers. It would look like this:
Dire wolf remains having the most recent geological ages – that is, the geologically youngest remains ever found – are dated 9,440 YBP at Brynjulfson Cave, Boone County, Missouri,[1][2] 9,860 YBP at Rancho La Brea, California, and 10,690 YBP at La Mirada, California.
If you really want to avoid the word "youngest", we could use "the most recent remains ever found", either in addition to, or instead of "Dire wolf remains having the most recent geological ages".
 – Corinne (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't object to “youngest geological ages”; that’s synonymous with “most recent geological ages”. I don't understand how a reader might be confused by “most recent”, but then I don’t understand how the original verbiage that sparked this thread was confusing, either. :-\ Strebe (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not the "most recent" phrase, it's the other part, "having the...geological ages", that I think might puzzle some readers.  – Corinne (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference kurten1980 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference anderson1984 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Terminal dates and time of extinction

We should be careful about equating a terminal date with a time of extinction, for several reasons. There's a distinct possibility that the most recent reported date for a given species is wrong (as we have already concluded for the 2,040 YBP date). Also, in any given locality, fossils of a given species may be quite rare, and thus the possibility exists that the species in question survived in the area for a period after the geologically youngest valid fossil date. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. Is there replacement wording that you could suggest rather than using terminal date? Else, we may have to define it in the text. We need to keep away from using the word "recent" in this section, which is used to describe the Holocene. William Harris • (talk) • 09:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Strebe, I think that you have nailed it now. William Harris • (talk) • 08:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
On a slightly different matter, the Whitewater Draw 8,200 YBP deposit also revealed camel, horse and Columbian mammoth at the same location, and if this is correct then this area might be the last fragment of their habitat and kind. I have tried to find an accepted extinction date for the Columbian mammoth but the popular wisdom is that it occurred at the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary 12,000 years ago. I have not found on what basis that is said. Are you aware of any sources that are based on some scientific measurement? My interest is this: the last Beringian wolf dates 7,600 YBP and so does sediments revealing horse and steppe mammoth in central Alaska. Both the predator and its prey were possibly alive at this time. Something similar may be true for the dire wolf. William Harris • (talk) • 09:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
We have Columbian mammoth dated at 10,700 YBP at the latest (Fiedel, S. 2009), which is cotemperal with the dire wolf 10,690 YBP at La Mirada, California. Given that the Holocene commenced 11,700 YBP, these are well into the Holocene, as was the Beringian wolf and the steppe mammoth. William Harris • (talk) • 05:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Species vs population of organisms

Adaptation specifically uses the term “population of organisms” rather than “species“. I presume this is because speciation is often a consequence of adaptation. “Population of organisms” is more correct. Really, I’m not comfortable with the whole sentence: Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a species becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats. This implies that organisms “start out” maladapted and then become more and more comfortable in their habitat. That’s not the case unless they’ve recently invaded new territory. Normally adaptation is a response to change. Strebe (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

So, which of you two looked up the reference to see what the expert's definition was? Also, explain to me how only a species adapts, when we have a subspecies which has adapted to the local region only and could perish elsewhere? Try an experiment: paste what was originally written into the search box for Adaptation and see what you get. Now ramp it up and paste it into Google and press find, and see what you get. William Harris • (talk) • 08:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry; I don't understand any of what you wrote, including your search instructions. Nobody claimed species could not adapt. And sorry, but I ·have· read what experts write about adaptation, including the arguments amongst themselves about what it means. There is no single, universally accepted definition in biology. The issue here, as brought to our attention by the IP editor who got summarily reverted, is that an organism (ambiguously, an individual) is not normally the subject of adaptation. It is a population of an organism that adapts. If we say a species adapts, we risk excluding hybridization, excluding speciation, and even excluding subspecies. It makes it sound as if the entire species goes and changes itself. Strebe (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Let me make it easier: which of you two looked at what was said by Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1968). "On Some Fundamental Concepts of Darwinian Biology". In Dobzhansky, Theodosius; Hecht, Max K.; Steere, William C. Evolutionary Biology. 2. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. pp. 1–34. because that is the reference you are both using to support your proposals. William Harris • (talk) • 10:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not able to coax Google into providing a direct excerpt from Dobzhansky; most results are Wikipedia clones and parrots. Referring to, for example, this, it's clear Dobzhansky means population of organisms, not "species", and not an individual organism. Referring to, for example, the references here, it looks like the original verbiage is probably "organism" (from "Adaption of the human population to the environment: Current knowledge, clues from Czech cytogenetic and “omics” biomonitoring studies and possible mechanisms"), but other references on the same results explicitly talk in plural and about populations. My point is that "organism" in this (lack of) context is ambiguous. Dobzhansky's readers were unlikely to misinterpret his words. His readers are not this article's readers. We are obliged to preserve meaning, not to plagiarize verbatim. There is plenty of support for "population"; if you insist that requires a different reference, that's easy. I don't think it's necessary. Strebe (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
So it appears neither of you read the original reference first before placing in your own WP:OR, but are willing to use him as your reference. Adaptation occurs through genetic mutation. Does genetic mutation occur to (1) an entire species, (2) an entire population, or (3) in an individual organism (a mutation) which then gives rise to a population or a species? (This may help: Mitochondrial Eve) William Harris • (talk) • 20:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Mutations arise in individual organisms - but this is a random process that is not adaptation. Mutations are the raw material on which adaptation acts, at the level of populations within a species, or species as a whole. Whether this definition is even needed in this article is debatable. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Enter "the genetic basis of adaptation" into Google Scholar and see the results. As interesting as your personal conjecture is, where is the reference to support what currently appears in the article? I am about to delete the Theodosius Dobzhansky reference and replace it with a "citation required" template. William Harris • (talk) • 04:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I suggest we sidestep this strangely contentious subject by deleting the definition entirely. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Disagree. There are now 3 credible secondary sources supporting the original text. I could provide more but do not want to be in breach of WP:OVERCITE. It is the same definition given in the text body of the Adaptation article, so it is in keeping with Wikipedia. It is a simple, non-complicated definition and in my opinion it belongs in the section titled "Adaptation". William Harris • (talk) • 07:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
POSTSCRIPT: This matter should never have been raised at Dire wolf. The definition used here is also clearly stated at Adaptation#What adaptation is. Your differing and dissenting views should have been raised at Talk:Adaptation with references to support your claims. If you both could have convinced Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology that their definition is incorrect or in need of some amendment then I would have been guided by that. You did not choose that path. William Harris • (talk) • 20:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I haven’t the faintest sympathy for this complaint. Strebe (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I have to question if you understand what you've read. In the sentence, "Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats", "an organism" is a rather sloppy reference to a species or population, not an individual. Otherwise, the statement is absurd; an individual does not evolve; evolutionary processes take place over many generations. Is that not clear? WolfmanSF (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Please take your Group selection theory views over to the Adaptation article and discuss it with its keepers. William Harris • (talk) • 07:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Nothing in my post has anything to do with group selection. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
User:WolfmanSF, he’s not promoting a Lamarckian view, as far as I can conjecture, just like you’re not promoting group selection. Admittedly, it’s hard to figure out what he’s talking about when he doesn’t clarify and also mixes in mistaken, imperious pronouncements. I doubt we disagree on the selection mechanism in play: An individual acquires a trait (although, generally not by mutation, despite William Harris’s imperious pronouncement)†, and that trait improves the individual’s fitness. The immediate dispute is over whether Dobzhansky and those who copied his definition (which is overcited, since they’re just copies of Dobzhansky) intend “organism” to mean an individual, or whether it generically means the species’ members that carries the trait.
The article on Adaptation does not support William Harris’s view of the definition. While it never states that the definition of “adaptation” only applies across spans of times and populations, on the other hand, it persistently discusses adaptation in terms of populations and nowhere as a process peculiar to an individual:
  • Lede: In biology, adaptation has three related meanings. Firstly it is the dynamic evolutionary process that fits organisms to their environment, enhancing their evolutionary fitness. Secondly, it is a state reached by the population during that process. Thirdly, it is a phenotypic or adaptive trait, with a functional role in each individual organism, that is maintained and has been evolved by natural selection.
  • A large diversity of genome DNAs in a species is the basis for adaptation and differentiation. A large population is needed to carry sufficient diversity.
  • Genetic change occurs in a population when natural selection and mutations act on its genetic variability.[44] The first pathways of enzyme-based metabolism may have been parts of purine nucleotide metabolism, with previous metabolic pathways being part of the ancient RNA world. By this means, the population adapts genetically to its circumstances.
  • It follows that the process of adaptation is never finally complete. Over time, it may happen that the environment changes little, and the species comes to fit its surroundings better and better. On the other hand, it may happen that changes in the environment occur relatively rapidly, and then the species becomes less and less well adapted. Seen like this, adaptation is a genetic tracking process, which goes on all the time to some extent, but especially when the population cannot or does not move to another, less hostile area. Given enough genetic change, as well as specific demographic conditions, an adaptation may be enough to bring a population back from the brink of extinction…
And so on. As William Harris avers, the article does state Dobzhansky’s definition. However, it doesn’t explain it or build on it, which is no help to us when what Dobzhansky meant is at issue here. Hence, I don’t sympathize with William Harris’s complaint about where this dispute ought to have been aired. The problem is not in the Adaptation article, where adaptation is explored extensively. It’s here, where a particular, disputed definition is all there is.
Meanwhile, William Harris holds steadfastly to the Dobzhansky phrase. Here, as cited by William Harris in the article, we find no less than four definitions for adaptation, one of which is Dobzhansky’s, and the remainder of which William Harris declined to mention. What criteria determined which definition ought to have been used in the article?
  • Adaptation (Biological): The morphological anatomical, physiological, biochemical and behavioral characteristics of the animal which promote welfare and favour survival in a specific environment. [Note this is a trait, not a process.]
  • Adaptation (Genetic): The heritable animal characteristic alterations which favour survival of a population in a particular environment. This may involve evolutionary changes over many generations (selected by nature) or acquiring specific genetic properties (selection by man). [Note this describes a trait and a process.]
  • Adaptation (Physiological): The capacity and process of adjustment of the animal to itself, to other living material and to its external physical environment. [Note this is a process.]
  • Adaptation: Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats.
Some other credible definitions (of adaptation as a process, not as a resultant trait)
Of course, it’s no surprise a definition is hard. Witness the angst biologists and philosophers express over the problem:
  • From Dobzhansky himself: Adaptedness and adaptation are among the fundamental biological concepts for which no precise definitions can yet be given. If "to define is to offer a fiat," we have no fiat ready to offer.
  • From Richard B. Mazess: “Adaptation” has several meanings which have often been confused, including relations, processes, states, and intrinsic properties.
  • From Michael T. Ghiselin: Perhaps no term in the biological and social sciences has such varied, vague, and equivocal meanings as ADAPTATION. Part of this difficulty has been one of nomenclature and definition.
Given the several definitions one finds for the term, and given the debate between experts over what adaptation even means, insisting on some particular interpretation of some particular definition seems counterproductive. I prefer the solution of removing a definition entirely and letting the reader go explore to the linked article on Adaptation, if they need to. Plenty of words in the article aren’t defined and don’t need to be, so the argument that we define everything doesn’t hold. Similar examples left undefined are "species", "evolution", “paleoecology”, “taxonomy”.
I don’t personally care what Dobzhansky meant by “organism”. If it makes sense within the field of evolutionary biology to use William Harris’s interpretation, cool. Don’t care. My concern is that casual readers will misunderstand. When you mix the words “evolutionary process” with “individuals”, you risk misinterpretation by those who don’t understand evolution well. Dobzhansky’s definition is easily construed to mean that evolution pressured an (individual) organism over the course of its life such that the organism developed a trait that helps it survive better (than… it would have otherwise? than the other organisms around it?)—and then, of course, passed that trait along to its offspring.

Strebe (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

†From Dobzhansky himself:

Consider how profoundly different must be the evolutionary situation in a microorganism which multiplies chiefly or exclusively asexually, and in a Mendelian population of a higher organism, such as a mammal or a bird [or a dire wolf]. In the microorganism, tremendous masses of individuals can be produced quickly when the environment is propitious; the process of adaptation may rely on the occurrence of mutants, since a mutant, however rarely it arises, can rapidly displace the less well adapted parental form. In higher organisms an individual is of greater account. However, a Mendelian population is an adaptively far more plastic system than an asexual array, and gene recombination becomes much more important and effective than mutation.

For what it's worth, I don't believe a definition is necessary in that paragraph. The sentence could be removed and the link placed on the mention of the word in the second sentence, so as to direct any reader who wants to learn more to that article. The term "Adaptation", in a biological context, is as ambiguous as it is in common use (and more or less all of the definitions provided above are rewordings of the one idea), and clean-cut definitions are only valid when you focus on a particular process of evolution. I don't think that the use of organism, population of organisms or species in this case is as critical from a semantic point of view as it has been made out to be, as it is clear from the context of the paragraph what mechanism of evolution is implied, and therefore the level at which the change occurs. Wasechun tashunkaHOWLTRACK 18:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
That makes three of us in favor of removal of the definition. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Given that three respected members of the "Dire wolf pack" are in favour of removal, I acquiesce. William Harris • (talk) • 09:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dire wolf. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Heads up on extreme taxonomic revision

Advance interview on upcoming paper, available on Youtube (Dire Wolves DNA Secrets ~ with ANGELA PERRI) Mariomassone (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Link to video here:[4] Haven't had time to listen yet, what does it conclude? FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
DNA discussion starts at around 19:30 and concludes that dire wolves are even more basal on the Canina phylogenetic tree than the African jackals are. Mariomassone (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Will probably need revised artistic reconstructions as a result, showing them as something more exotic looking than just a bulky timber wolf. Mariomassone (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and sounds like Aenocyon will be resurrected! FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
And now we're here, Mariomassone, I have been thinking whether you could work some Photoshop magic to get rid of that annoying power outlet under the spine of the skeleton in the taxobox image[5]? It's a bit tricky, because there's both grain and gradation in the background colour... FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Done, though it's a bit rough. Might revisit it later, but my specialty is more removing backgrounds. Mariomassone (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Looks good, yeah, the faint square can probably be clone stamped out. Or maybe the content aware deletion ting can help... FunkMonk (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Just noticed they use a lot of images from this article in the video for dramatic effect, pretty cool! William Harris might want to have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello lads, thanks for the call. I await the release of the peer-reviewed study - an advanced copy is not sitting on BioaXiv, I have checked. The Youtube video exhibited some fine Massone-pix branching from a Harris-phylotree, taken from Wikipedia. The timing of the split of genus "Aenocyon" from genus Canis sounds controversial, so I will wait and see what mutation rate Perri used for their study. We also have the issue that taxonomic classification is based on phenotype and not genotype, and we have the mighty Wang & Tedford classifying C. ambrusteri as the sister clade to C. lupus, with C. dirus being a more recent brach from C. ambrusteri. There will need to be a taxonomic review based primarily on phenotype but influenced by the new genotype information.

There are a number of evolutionary biologists who are pushing to get the 2 African jackals split into their own genus Lupulella because they sit outside of Cuon and Lycaon and are a bit different, however palaeontologists may one day go the other way and simply reclassify the whole group as genus Canis because they all bear similarities and can all interbreed. Although there is no evidence of interbreeding between the dire wolf and the modern gray wolf, there is evidence of interbreeding between the dire wolf and the Beringian wolf, leading to hybrids (J. Meachan unpublished here - the last I heard she was trying to extract DNA from the dire wolves and the hybrids found in the same area, let us see if she is included in this coming article). William Harristalk 09:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

See also: Evolution of the wolf § dirus–lupus hybrids
Genotype information, when available, trumps phenotype information. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Good luck with that position. William Harristalk 21:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Just letting everyone know I've started sketching a new reconstruction based on the new phylogeny (a bit premature, I know). There's just one thing: is it just me, or do dire wolves have more caudal vertebrae than gray wolves do? In some mounted skeletons, the tail seems to extend to the Achilles tendon (see here and here). In life, with the extra length given by flesh and fur, wouldn't this have given it an almost dhole or African jackal-like appearance? Mariomassone (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I concur with your finding! William Harristalk 09:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Dire wolves in China

A late Pleistocene fossil from Northeastern China is the first record of the dire wolf (Carnivora: Canis dirus) in Eurasia Mariomassone (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Just keeps surprising! I wonder if a jaw is sufficient for the identification? FunkMonk (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Mario. There appears to me to be two theories. (1) Because the Beringian wolf#Range and its prey the steppe bison have been recorded in mid-latitude North America, we know that a corridor existed between the two major Cordilleran ice sheets allowing them to do so. There is nothing stopping the dire wolf from using the same corridor and making its way across Beringia into Eurasia. (2) More likely, the cranio-facial adaptability of the genus Canis and convergent evolution. Because the megafaunal prey was similar at that time, a form of Canis adapted to its local environment both in North America and separately in Eurasia. Its numbers were low because it had to compete with the hyena and the megafaunal wolf, which I assume existed in very large packs.
Also of interest - Craniofacial morphology and feeding behavior in Canis dirus, the extinct Pleistocene dire wolf - I still believe that the dire wolf is Canis lupus dirus. William Harris (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

New genetic study - new genus?

Looks like there’s a new genetic study out:

--Kjoonlee 17:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It was discussed two sections above:[6] But I guess this is the final, published paper, William Harris and Mariomassone would be interested. The "new" genus is rather an old one resurrected from synonymy with Canis. FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Mauricio Anton's colour pattern for the dire wolves in the accompanying Scientific America article[7] is strikingly similar to Mario's here.[8] What was the basis? FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I just wanted to avoid the cliché'd timber wolf colour palette and based it on coyotes. Nice to know I wasn't the only one to think of that. Mariomassone (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Here is a relevant quote from a ScienceMag article:

That could also mean a reimagining of what dire wolves looked like. Artists—and Game of Thrones creators—have often depicted the predators as large timber wolves: bulky, gray, and ferocious. But Perri says living in the warmer latitudes of North America may have given them traits more common to canids and other animals in these climates, such as red fur, a bushy tail, and more rounded ears. As such, she says, dire wolves may have resembled “a giant, reddish coyote.”

Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed this illustration[9] on Commons (better crop here[10]), anything we want to use? FunkMonk (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Quote about the artist: "Erwin S. Christman, a paleo-artist and sculptor, died Nov. 27, 1921, at the young age of 36. Christman was one of the finest dinosaur artists who ever lived, although his reputation is greatly overshadowed by that of his contemporary, Charles Knight."
I believe that it would be a good fit under the "Extinction" section. William Harris (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
That was the spot I thought of too, I'll clean it up later! And Christman sorely needs a Wikipedia article... FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, I went looking for his article to link it to; sadly there was none. William Harris (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The article needs a new phylo tree. I propose one with three branches, one with Aenocyon, the other bifurcating into Canis and Lupulella, and Cerdocyonina as an outgroup. Mariomassone (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Rather than "a new phlo tree", perhaps an additional one based on this limited genomic study. The morphological evidence is very impressive from Wang & Tedford for those who have read the analysis, and they tell us who the ancestor was and its timing - Canis armbrusteri. We must keep in mind that the oldest dire wolf fossil is only 125k years old, with fossils showing an evolution from C. armbrusteri into C. dirus. I believe that both should be included - the current morpho-phylo and a new geno-phylo. The DNA analysis does not tell us who the ancestor was - as always, these tools only give us insights and not the full answer.

There is no harm in comparing and contrasting sources; that is actually a requirement ofA WP:NPOV - "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." William Harris (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

We can have two cladograms showing different scenarios, like in Lythronax. FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Apart from arguing that Angela owes Mario for the direwolf graphic that he contributed to Wikipedia in her study, I would be arguing that the two be kept separate. The current morpho-tree relates to morphology under the section "Evolution" where the references are all talking Canis, and the new geno-tree relates to the section "DNA analysis".
Now for the "mammoth" in the room. The lede sentence already offers two genii. Note that this new study was signed off by both Wayne and Larson - nobody is going to rebut this work. What do we want the taxobox to say - Canis or Aenocyon? If it is to be Aenocyon then I can make that happen behind the taxobox scenes. However, this should be a separate item for editors to this article to vote on. William Harris (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
If all authorities in the field agree with the new classification, I guess that's the consensus we'll have to follow? FunkMonk (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
These are 49 evolutionary biologists, many of them internationally famous, with Blaire Van Valkenburgh as a leading paleontologist - not to mention a key provider of references used in this article. William Harris (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that Armbruster's wolf is thought to be ancestral to Canis dirus, should that also be changed? Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Only if it is by the sources, we can't really make that decision. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
That was fast. Canis genus article still mentions dire wolves though. Would those mentions need to be edited too? --Kjoonlee 17:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Let us see how the proposal below is accepted, as per WP:CONACHIEVE. Else, all of these recent changes to Aenocyon will be reverted. It needs to play out over several days to give editors time to see and consider it. William Harris (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Dire wolf size - statement in text re similarity to Yukon wolf & Northwestern wolf contradicted by facts in those articles

In the third paragraph of the Introductory section, it says "The dire wolf was about the same size as the largest modern gray wolves (Canis lupus), which are the Yukon wolf and the northwestern wolf. C. d. guildayi weighed on average 60 kilograms (132 lb) and C. d. dirus was on average 68 kg (150 lb). "

So, the average size of dire wolves is around 60-68 kg (132-150 lbs)

The article on the Yukon wolf says its size is "an average male weight of 43 kilograms (95 lb) and for females 37 kilograms (82 lb). Individual weights can vary from 21 kilograms (46 lb) to 55 kilograms (121 lb)"

So, 82 (or 46) - 121 lbs compared to 132-150 lbs are "about the same size"?

The article on the Northwestern wolf says "Northwestern wolves are one of the largest subspecies of wolves. In British Columbia, Canada, five adult females averaged 42.5 kg (94 lb) and ten adult males averaged 51.1 kg (113 lb), with a weight range for all adults of 38.6 to 61.4 kg (85 to 135 lb). In Yellowstone National Park, adult females were reported to average 41 kg (90 lb) and adult males averaged reportedly 50 kg (110 lb), with a mean adult body mass in winter of 43.4 kg (96 lb)."

So, 85 - 135 lbs compared to 132-150 lbs are "about the same size"? Ileanadu (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
They are about the same size but the dire wolf has more weight. In exactly the same way as a greyhound and a labrador are "about the same size" but different weights. Look up the meaning of the words "size" and "weight" in the English Oxford Dictionary if you are still unsure of those words meanings. William Harristalk 09:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

In comparative zoology, "size" with no other qualification generally refers to weight. Ileandau raised a valid point. If they are not alike in weight but alike in some other metric, say, height, then I think the text should clearly state that. eg. "the dire wolf was similar in height to the largest modern wolves but was more heavily built."Jamaican college grad (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Article consolidation

I support Strebe's statement and this would be a wise approach. These evolutionary biologists are chasing phylogenetic ghosts through statistical models based on short lengths of genomic material. There are a number of assumptions built into the findings, the statistical model, and even the DNA extraction process used. (I have read through the weighty 70 pages of supplementary notes, and so I appreciate what is going on "under the hood".) Nonetheless, 49 researchers - including at least 5 professors - have signed off on this study to provide us with what we know today. However, this could change tomorrow.

This study's key finding is based on a divergence time of 5.7 million years - if this timing is incorrect then the whole study holds no value. That timing is based on the mutation rate used by the team, which I could not find listed. There are 2 mutation rates used by the most recent canine DNA analyses - they differ by a factor of x2 (which is why you can read about the dog being domesticated around 16,000 and 32,000 years ago, depending on the study). There exists the possibility that the 5.7 million years old branch might shortly be rebutted by another team to bring the timing back to 2.75 million years, and so we are back firmly in genus Canis territory once again.

Additionally, the new study does not accord with the noted palaeontologist Richard H. Tedford but more recently the Phylogeny of the Caninae (Carnivora): Combining morphology, behaviour, genes and fossils (Zrzavy 2018) which found, among other things, that dirus and armbrusteri sat as a sister to lupus, and with chihliensis (extinct, from China) at the head of the Canis clade being the oldest specimen (similar to Tedford, with what is believed to be dire wolf remains recently found in China, so it is not clear if they arose in North America or China.) The oldest dirus fossil is only 125k years old, there is no DNA study to tell who the ancestor was, but morphological evidence does.

So we proceed with Aenocyon, but we proceed with caution.

Issues regarding the article

I regard the "Taxonomy" section of the dire wolf article as a bit of a mess post-study, and I list some issues for decision or discussion:

  • There should be no taxonomic debate in the lede of the article - the average visitor does not want to read about it (no matter how excited some editors are over a new study's finding), and it should be kept to the body or the article because it is debated. The current wording is fine: "Two subspecies are recognized: Aenocyon dirus guildayi and Aenocyon dirus dirus."
  • The small intro to the "Evolution" section should state that there are two points of view on origin, one based on morphology, and one based on DNA which is very new.
  • In the "Taxonomy" section and under "Evolution", the "Morphology" subsection to be renamed "Morphological evidence"
  • In the "Taxonomy" section, the "DNA analysis" section be renamed "DNA evidence" and becomes a subsection of Evolution, therefore a sister to the topic "Morphological evidence".
  • There should be no mention of the recent DNA study about Aenocyon in the "Morphological evidence" section; this section should remain badged Canis because that is what the historical, cited sources say and it is a competing point of view - not to mention the current widely-accepted view.
  • Additionally, there should be no change of taxonomic classification for Canis armbrusteri nor Canis edwardii - both in this dire wolf article and in their main articles. The study's musing on this matter might make life easier for the researchers (the lineage connection between these taxa is based on morphology - they cannot have it both ways and accept the morphological evidence when it suits them), but there is no proposal for reclassification and no evidence to support a reclassification to Aenocyon because there has been no sequencing of these other two taxa.
I think I agree with all of this. I’m not sure what you are proposing as an explanation for the competing classification in Morphology. I think we need something to avoid confusion. Strebe (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

William Harris (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the DNA study also part of the wider debate about the geographic origin of the animal, whether it originated in the old or new world? So perhaps the "two sides" can also be framed like that, since the Canis affiliation is linked to an old world origin. FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
The place of origin theory is based on the proposition that there was no admixture detected between dire wolves and modern wolves & coyotes in North America. (My concern here is that the study did not compare dire wolf sequences with those of the Beringian wolf - the extinct North American Late Pleistocene grey wolf. Additionally, we know that there is no admixture going on between those wolves today that follow the herds and those that stay in their own territory, and these are the same species. That is the result of behaviour, not genetics.)
It is a novel approach Funkmonk, let us see what others think. William Harris (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I have just updated a South American section. The South American Canis gezi - the proposed ancestor of C. nehringi that has been made synonymous with the dire wolf - has now been reclassified out of Canis and into the broader subtribe Cerdocyonina but without a genus. Cerdocyonina is a completely different subtribe than the one Canis sits under. In the nuclear DNA analysis of Perri 2021, the dire wolf sat between the remote African jackals (genus Lupulella) and two extant members of Cerdocyonina. One could propose that the dire wolf did not mix with any of the other wolf-like canines because it belongs under Cerdocyonina, as now does its possible ancestor the more ancient gezi - a South American origin might possibly be back in play. William Harris (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello Strebe, I propose that we provide a short overview in the "Evolution" section stating that there are two points of view on origin, one based on morphology and the ancestral lineage originating in Eurasia, and one based on DNA with the ancestral lineage originating in the Americas which is very new. In either case, the dire wolf itself evolved in the Americas regardless of where the ancestral lineage came from. Everything to do with the DNA finding will be moved out of Morphological evidence section and under the DNA evidence section. This will allow the readers to be informed on the current state between the two competing theories. William Harris (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Article now re-developed as outlined above. William Harris (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Point for discussion. Under "Morphological evidence", the diagram shows the "Dire wolf divergence based on morphology" depicting Canis dirus and its subspecies. Should this be changed to Aenocyon dirus? William Harris (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Probably best to use the terminology of the cited study. Elsewhere, maybe it's best to just avoid using the binomials where possible? For example in the footer of that cladogram. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Good approach; done! Be aware that there will be "drive-by editors" who will change Canis to Aenocyon in the diagram. Technically, that would be incorrect but I am not concerned by it. The diagram shows the dire wolf emerging from genus Canis, which is the key message from morphology. Plus our gene-splicing friends did not address the finding of what is morphologically dire wolf remains in China, which confounds their theory of geographic isolation. William Harris (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Future complication

In the dire wolf article, Canis nehringi is regarded as being the dire wolf by two recent taxonomic works (Prevosti 2010, Zrzavy 2018). This implies that the new genus name will not be Aenocyon (1918) because other genus names which have been applied previously to nehringi will have name priority. These are, in priority order: Palaecyon Nehring (1885), Dinocyops Ameghino (1902), and Stereocyon Mercerat (1917). (Note that Perri 2021 did not explicitly state that the dire wolf should now be renamed genus Aenocyon, but it was implied.) This is one of the reasons why it is best to wait and see what the palaeontologist community - which is knowledgeable in such namings - has to say on the matter. However, that was never going to happen, with this article in particular, here on Wikipedia. William Harris (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, that seems complicated for sure, but I wonder if the authors of the new study don't take that into account? Perhaps a future paper will a~address the Chinese taxon, and perhaps come with a new conclusion? FunkMonk (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I saved the little gem above for once I had finished work on this article - it was never a simple matter of changing C. dirus to A. dirus as some rushed in to do. The authors of the new study are largely all evolutionary biologists - geneticists - and whichever student they tasked to do the background research may not have done a completely thorough job (this has happened before in another major DNA study that I am aware of). At some stage, taxonomists need to do a review but it should probably wait until there has been an attempt to sequence the Chinese fossil, in addition to C. nehringi from Argentina if possible, just to confirm who is related to whom. It could result in good-bye Aenocyon dirus and hello Palaeocyon dirus - the species name dirus (1857) has priority over nehringi (1902). At least the article name will not change, it will still be called Dire wolf. William Harris (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, we're in luck by using a common name here, unlike in many other palaeontology articles. But yeah, that's also another argument for trying to use the common name instead of binomials where possible in the article. It'll save us the future work. FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Nice work on the phylotree Mario, that is much easier to follow and is in balance with the morphology tree. Now the other interesting one to come out of this study that was signed off by 50 evolutionary biologists: in the Supplementary information they refer to the domestic dog as Canis familiaris and the dingo as Canis familiaris dingo - the shape of things to come. William Harris (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:CRYSTAL we should be using the terminology as it is used currently, we can't predict where taxonomic discussions in the future will go. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Canis edwardii

Well folks, the risk that we discussed above has happened - Canis edwardii has been moved to Aenocyon edwardii. There was no evidence in the DNA study that C. edwardii warrants being renamed A. edwardii, nor did the researchers recommend it. William Harris (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Agh, done by the usual suspect, with no source... FunkMonk (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
It is my assessment that the article was amended by an IP out of Argentina who made the changes from C. edwardii to A. edwardii. Then the mover came along later and made a WP:AGF move based on what they had read. I have asked the mover on their Talk page to move it back. Once the move is actioned we can revert to how the article was before the IP got to it. I have left a message for the IP should they ever return to Wikipedia. William Harris (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
My b Ddum5347 (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Don't take it too hard; someone set another up to make the move - if it was not you then eventually it would have been someone else. (I even doubt that the IP was located in Argentina, but used a VPN to come through an IP in Argentina.) The mover has put the page back and removed the IP's edits. Both Armbruster's wolf and Canis edwardii are now listed on the WP:DOGS recent edits patrol list, so I and my colleagues now have watch over them. This matter is now rectified, thanks. William Harris (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Human hunting

Humans hunted the wolves along with the invasion of the grey wolf form Asia caused the diet wolf to go extinct as well as climate change and extinction of other animals mammoths sloths horses camels etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B072:F425:5521:5DF1:F937:28B3 (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dire_wolf/Archive_2&oldid=1178550660"