Talk:Eastern coyote

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 January 2022 and 4 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Babamachine (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Aquainator, JonStark22.

Attacks

Can the Taylor Mitchell incident be included on this page?

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2020 and 11 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hans8728. Peer reviewers: Lilywestphal1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: Article moved. Problem solved.(non-admin closure) —  AjaxSmack  21:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

---

I don't like the inverted commas in the title, not good practice, I suggest moving it to the version without commas. PatGallacher (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

Eastern "coyote" → ? – Inverted commas/quotation marks are not normally used in titles. Article was at Canis latrans "var." until a few days ago[1] and was created earlier this year as tweed wolf.[2] —  AjaxSmack  02:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Also note the overlap with coywolf—both eastern coyote and Eastern Coyote currently redirect there. 02:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not really a coyote. The same problem with tweed wolf. It's not really a wolf, either. It is a coywolf, but not all coywolves are Eastern Coyotes. So this, look here: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1656/045.017.0202, is the solution that Way, Rutledge, Wheeldon, and White decided on, to call it the Eastern "coyote" in recognition of the fact that it's not really a coyote, but that's what people call it. I wouldn't be surprised if you moved it somewhere else, but if you think about it, they are probably right, eastern "coyote" is the best thing to call them. I've always liked "Canis supus", Google that, you'll see in context as a kind of a joke, but not really. It's a problem. Chrisrus (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As the creator of the article, I only called it Canis latrans var. was because of the redirect conflict with Eastern coyote. Had that not been an issue, I would have indeed called it Eastern coyote (sans commas). Even though it is not a "true" coyote, the name has largely stuck among biologists and zoologists, hence why I think "Eastern coyote" sans commas should be adopted.Mariomassone (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right, that is a problem. The Eastern coyote redirect points to the subsection in coywolf so it can't be moved. Anyway I'm sorry you all don't agree, but Mario is right that eastern coyote should redirect here. Chrisrus (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I also support just plain "Eastern coyote" per WP:COMMONNAME, otherwise we run into similar problems with several other animal species e.g. the South American gray fox, which is not a true fox. PatGallacher (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

We all seem to agree that this page be moved to Eastern coyote. As the person who moved it to Eastern "coyote", I ask that it not be moved back to Canis latrans "var.":

• The creator of this article, Mario, wanted it to be called Eastern coyote in the first place, but was blocked by the redirect to the subsection of the article Coywolf, namely Coywolf#Eastern_coyotes.
• Moving it back to Canis latrans "var." would not satisfy the creator of the move request's main objection, namely, the quotation marks/"inverted commas" (it also has a set of quotation marks.
• As the creator, as I recall, of the redirect Coywolf#Eastern_coyotes, I only created that redirect because this article didn't exist at that time.
• If it's necessary/helpful for the above move request to specify that we want it moved to Eastern coyote, let us know who should do that, if I or anybody can or only the original move requester should rightly do that. Chrisrus (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move fail

Hey, something went wrong. This talk page is now at Talk:Eastern coyote, but the article itself is at Eastern "coyote". That's the same thing that happened the other times. Chrisrus (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Gallery

Should the gallery include a side-by-side comparison with the skulls of wolves and coyotes?

I ask because I recently saw "Meet the Coywolf" on TV ([3]) and there is one scene in which an expert lays out the three skulls side-by-side and points out the differences, and I found it very helpful. So then I was reading this article and thought of that from the show and thought to myself, hey, it's be great if this article could do something like that as well; the reader would really benefit. Chrisrus (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Go on commons, and you'll find one.Mariomassone (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I found this: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Canis_latrans_skulls It is excellent. It needs clear labeling if it is to be useful. It shouldn't use numbers to label the file. It should use taxon or a comprehensible filing name. What do these numbers mean? Chrisrus (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A possible move to New England canid or tweed wolf?

The move discussion earlier made the comment that these animals are not really "coyotes" or wolves is the strictest sense. However the term coyote seems to be the most narrowly defined of the three options as only pure Canis latrans. New England canid is the most accurate common name but is also not really natural to speech. Tweed wolf seems like a nice existing compromise between the two. An article under that title had even been created before this one on the same animal. The animals behave in many ways like the timber wolves they hybridized with and show sexual dimorphism similar to them. Wolf has been applied to animals that are decidedly not Canis lupis numerous times such as the thylacine. Other Canis species refereed to as wolves include the red wolf, witch also hybridizes with coyotes, and the Ethiopian wolf, neither of which are listed as Canis lupis subspecies. Does anyone else agree with the idea this article should be under tweed wolf primarily? Weebro55 (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, you're right: it's not truly a coyote, but it's mostly a coyote. Clearly "eastern coyote" is the most common term, but you're right it's problematic so in problematic cases we can look at other terms. "New England Canid" seems more WP:PRECISE, but is it? They also live in middle Atlantic states and maritime provinces, for example. Why not revisit this solution arrived at by these experts and published here: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1656/045.017.0202. Way, Rutledge, Wheeldon, and White decided to call it the Eastern "coyote" in quotes, please click that link and see. That is very good because readers understand that we're calling it a coyote but it may not exactly be one, but that's what people call it. If you think about it, they are probably right, eastern "coyote" is the best thing to call them. There may be no good answer. Chrisrus (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The use of eastern coyote is definitely more common than the other two, however I'd argue simply "coyote" is the most common term as many people aren't even aware of the distinction. However wikipedia doesn't necessarily need to use the most commonly used term as the tile if it is potentially ambiguous when there is a natural disambiguation for the term. Tweed wolf is certainly less used, but still natural to speech. Those that are familiar or become familiar with the name will know immediately what animal is being discussed and can make comparisons to the timber wolf and true coyote much simpler to write. This is no means an attempt to discourage the use of eastern coyote, simple a means to make talking about it potentially less confusing to a curious reader. Weebro55 (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Canis oriens suggested new name for 'eastern coyote'

Have a look: https://theconversation.com/why-the-eastern-coyote-should-be-a-separate-species-the-coywolf-59214

Interesting perspective, but hardly definitive. Especially when the author falls pretty clearly on the "splitting" side of the debate regarding Canid taxonomy and speciazation. Note how, not only does he list lycaon as a separate species from and not a subspecies of lupus, which is a position that is not settled, he also lists dogs as Canis familiaris, not Canis lupus familiaris, as is the accepted convention. That alone makes me question the author's perspective; he clearly has a bias towards spitting species. It's an opinion piece anyway, not really a scientific paper. Honestly, the header here is overblown and the sort of thing I'd expect to see at a clickbait site. oknazevad (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Meta-analysis regarding Canis oriens: http://canids.org/CBC/19/Northeastern_coyote_taxonomy.pdf

I have had access to the meta-analysis regarding Canis oriens for a while, so I finally decided to create a Wiki account for the sole purpose of submitting it here. Please let me know what you think and if this makes it any more credible to create an article/page for. I would also like to correct you regarding Canis familiaris and Canis lupus familiaris which are both accepted latin binomials. Not only that, but new genetic evidence supports dogs being monophyletic with gray wolves (one main reason they retain the trinomial is for a rank of domestication rather than subspecies, and also for legal reasons). Ramenfox (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Any research or analysis regarding the eastern coyote must be published elsewhere first. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and compiles pre-existing info. The meta-analysis has to be published elsewhere first and then a summary can be added here. oknazevad (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This article should say that this name has been suggested, but is controversial. It should cite both the reasoning for an against.

Canis oriens should link here in case someone searches for it. It maybe should link to the taxonomy section where the term should appear. Chrisrus (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I have created a Taxonomy and Evolution chapter. It includes Way 2016 (Canis oriens), which is an excellent summary of what we know at present and is publicly available to readers, and given Rufus and Lycaon it is not an unreasonable proposition (despite the controversy with all 3). This article now has a complex relationship to Coywolf, as MM has already pointed out at Talk:Redwolf due to the more recent findings and now the latest impact of VonHoldt 2016 (coyote is a wolf is a dog....). One thing you can be certain of, there will be no quick resolution. Regards,  William Harris |talk  22:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The article coywolf should be about all coywolves:

• The three coywolf hybrid species
• Artificially created coywolves
• Naturally created coywolves that occur from time to time but are not one of the three hybrid species.

We have three different coywolf species: rufus, lycaon, and oriens.

From what I can tell based on my understanding of the sources, at the moment, it looks like the general consensus is:

3 coywolf species: the red wolf, the eastern wolf and the eastern coyote. All hybrid species.

Of course, not every coywolf is one of these.

The article coywolf has known from its inception about those artificially created and that they can occur in the wild where wolf and coyote ranges overlap.

A few years ago, for example, as I recall, there was a mangy strange canid that got attention in Texas because people were uploading pictures of it and claiming it was a chupacabra or something.

But experts tested the body and determined that it was a coywolf, a mix of the Texas coyote and a Mexican wolf.

There was never any indication that that one coywolf was a member of any coywolf species.

In addition to being about its original referent, the article coywolf needs to cover the hybrid species, too. And keep them all organized and separate. Chrisrus (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

A good plan, however although we may informally call them all coywolves on Wikipedia, there are 3 publications referring to just the northeastern coyote as the coywolf (but note that all 3 are by Way!). Regarding the 3 "species" (or however it should play out) on the Coywolf page, there is an opportunity to create a more wholistic background for all three: the demise of the wolf with the expansion of the coyote and the hybridization leading to the 3 - all within the same chapter, with the priviso that this is one theory that has been proposed. Or as Vonholdt 2016 (the earlier May article that is now overlooked for the July one) has said: "...creating the largest mammalian hybrid zone known." Regards,  William Harris |talk  09:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

While Way seems to be the one promoting usage of the term "coywolf" for oriens, he's not the only one saying that it is one: it does, in fact, have both wolf and coyote ancestry.

The article coywolf started out as pretty much the same thing as liger or zorse, an article about a thing that people create or might occur in the wild but as far as we know and based on evidence and reason very probably not a common thing in the wild.

Since then, we have learned that lycaon, rufus, and oriens are coywolves, but not in the same way as an animal is a liger.

The three of them are populations of many individuals that interbreed and maintain basically the exact same morphology away from the edges of their ranges, where there may be mixing.

For example, here in the Hudson Valley, far from the lycaon or rufus ranges, there untold thousands of oriens that all look like littermates. It's not some strange canis soupus situation as there may be in Ontairo where the oriens and lycaon ranges overlap.

And not just here: far and wide, from far into Canada and down to the Middle Atlantic states, there they are, again and again and again: oriens are everywhere and all the same they are all around about %30 wolf.

By the way Johnathan Way and I had a discussion in the comments section here: http://theconversation.com/why-the-eastern-coyote-should-be-a-separate-species-the-coywolf-59214 that might interest you. You have to hit the "show comments" button. In it, I thank and applaud him for proposing the taxon oriens, but urge that he not just call it the "coywolf" but rather maybe "the northeastern coywolf" or something to distinguish it from all the other coywolves that aren't oriens. Chrisrus (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. I agree with you - anything that is part coyote and wolf must be a coywolf! You know Chris, because you are so passionate about the New Guinea Singing Dog and the Dingo - not to mention the "timezone" hours you appear to keep, I always thought that you were located here in Australia, or in New Zealand. Wikipedia is an amazing, borderless place. Regards, William: who on Wikipedia is now leaving the world of the Coyote and returning to his world of the Late Pleistocene wolf.  William Harris |talk  07:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I resist being painted as passionate about the New Guinea Singing dog. There was too much passion there, so I was called upon to help by being dispassionate. The NGSD is merely interesting to me. I feel you've attributed emotion to me for which you have no clear evidence. Passion is a great motivator but one must be dispassionate. I brought it to your attention in the hope that you would be interested in improving the article, and still hold out that hope, because its objectively interesting. Chrisrus (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I now understand your position. Regards,  William Harris |talk  10:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Invasive species

I have added it to the category of invasive species in the United States because it is widely considered by many to be such. The Eastern Coyote is known to have been a large factor in the extirpation of gray wolves which are now rarely seen in the Northeastern US and most states east of the Mississippi river, and are a known threat to Eastern wolves and their habitat. However, unlike most invasive species, they do have a semi-positive effect. Because they are occupying the territory that once belonged to the extirpated and now rarely seen gray wolves, they help reduce the overabundance of deer, and their predation on deer helped the nearly extirpated raven populations recover and thrive, and are beneficial to the population of fishers, martens, and golden eagles which are native to the state. They have reduced the number of groundhogs, hares, and rabbits similarly with positive results. In conclusion while they are an invasive threat by having driven out most of the local wolf population and threatening those few that remain, they also have a positive effect on the ecosystem by occupying the role that wolves served in the wake of their severely reduced population, even if they caused a problem in the ecosystem by replacing and threatening the native wolf population in the region. Titanoboa Constrictor (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Reference

Hello User:Ddum5347. You have stated that the Eastern coyote is C. latrans and have cited as the reference Population genomics of grey wolves and wolf-like canids in North America. I am having difficulty finding your claim within that reference, perhaps you might be good enough to direct me to the specific page and paragraph number? William Harris (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The source used has the eastern wolf (C. l. lycaon) as a wolf subspecies with both grey wolf and coyote admixture, similar to the eastern coyote. This means that the eastern coyote is only a variant of coyote with considerable grey wolf admixture, but not enough to be consider a true hybrid. Ddum5347 (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand about C. l. lycaon - or C. lycaon as some taxonomists prefer and therefore neither are wrong - and I also note that you have made in inference based on lycaon. When you say "This means that the eastern coyote is only a variant of coyote with considerable grey wolf admixture, but not enough to be consider a true hybrid" - where in the article Population genomics does it state that? Where does it mention the Eastern coyote at all? I did not request your personal opinion, I requested a page and paragraph number, which have not been provided. Therefore, the species box has been removed because this is not a species, its a hybrid. William Harris (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I have removed the "hybridbox" from this article because the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature does not recognise mammal hybrid taxonomy, only binomial (species) designations. The plant nomenclature does recognise hybrids for plants, thus a hybridbox. William Harris (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)