Talk:Subspecies of Canis lupus

Wolf subspecies maps

I was looking at the range maps for the subspecies of wolf and have a few questions and conflicting observations.

1. The map in the infobox of Subspecies of Canis lupus has Canis lupus nubilus with a range in eastern Canada (Baffin Is, Hudson Bay surrounds) and on the west coast, which seems odd for the extinct Great Plains Wolf,
2. There is an old map File:Gray wolf subspecies original.gif which shows a distribution of C. l. nubilus from Baffin Island, either side of Hudson Bay, down to central and western US and up the western coast to Alaska. This might make sense if it was extirpated form its namesake area.
3. The map in the subspecies article for North American wolves shows far more subspecies, with C. l. labridorius, C. l. hudsonicus C. l. irrimotus, C. l. columbianus and C. l. ligoni covering parts of the range.
4. Reading the text on North American wolves mentions the Nowak theory, with C. l. nubilus sensu lato covering a much larger range than C. l. nubilus sensu stricto.

This is a bit confusing when the two maps in the article represented different theories. In particular the infobox map doesn't represent the treatment of North American wolves in the article and shows a subspecies distribution for C. l. nubilus that excludes the range given for the subspecies in the North American table.   Jts1882 | talk  15:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello JTS - thanks for raising this. Mario and I have reached this problem before, the story can be found at Subspecies of Canis lupus#North America. Nowak tried to recycle the extinct C. l. nubilus for his purpose. His proposal was not supported by Wozencraft in MSW3 who supported the original Goldman 1944 classifications as being taxonomically sound. In my opinion, these other maps should be axed in favor of Goldman 1944. Would you mind if I copy and paste this section into Talk:Wolf - it is time for this matter to be raised, and hopefully addressed, on that page. William Harristalk 01:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead and move it if you think the issue worth broader discussion. I was confused and I had actually read the Nowak proposal before. I think the proposal is worth a mention, with the map in the right place, as it might yet get wide traction. In Felidae the tiger and lion are down to two subspecies each, largely driven by conservation concerns, so 30+ in wolves is taking a very different taxonomic approach (both too extreme in my view). Is there a world map of the Goldman system or a Eurasian equivalent of the North American map?   Jts1882 | talk  07:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that the range of lupus is far greater than the range of the lion and the tiger, facilitating more sub-species. Goldman only mapped wolves in North America. I am not sure what the map for Eurasia was based on, possibly Nowak - Mario is our main man on this. I will now move this conversation to Talk:Subspecies of Canis lupus instead of Wolf. William Harristalk 09:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I recall using the maps from Mammals of the Soviet Union and Nowak's work as references for the Eurasian range. Mariomassone (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Given that, I regard Eurasia as sound. It is North America that is giving the problems. Perhaps we go with JTS's idea of putting a note on the range map. Else, we relocate the map in the taxobox under Eurasia, and hope that nobody notices North America. Or, both actions. William Harristalk 12:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Jts1882, those edits will have to hold until someone, somewhere, can come up with a definitive map of the distribution of lupus. William Harristalk 08:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This page needs an update

This page seriously needs an update. Many of these subspecies are no longer recognized as valid (especially many of the North American ones). This article should contain up-to-date information only. 24.150.136.254 (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Conflicting dates re: C. l. floridanus extinction

This page and the sub-specific page list different dates of extinction, 1908 vs 1934 respectively. Whatever date is chosen, it should be listed consistently. 67.166.113.142 (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Carolina dog/American dingo

The American dingo has been isolated longer than Canis lupus dingo, so should be considered a distinct subspecies too. Perhaps, its scientific name could be Canis lupus carolinensis? 49.177.208.149 (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Are any reliable sources using such a term? Because Wikipedia is very much not for introducing newly created names. Ever. oknazevad (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

No, that name is just an example for what this very real distinct subspecies of grey wolf or domestic dog could be. 49.177.208.149 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"Could be" is not appropriate for Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Short description

Generally a list has no SD, and I normally set SD=none for a list article. However, the policy assumes that the article has a clear title that makes sense to the "average" reader. Maybe this article should be renamed? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 19:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be. The use of the scientific name in the title is specifically chosen because there are other species whose common name includes "wolf", and because some subspecies (at least according to some categorization schemes) include animals whose common name does not include "wolf", so using the more precise binomial nomenclature makes the scope clear. Or at least as clear as it can be when the taxonomy is not 100% settled in the mammalogist community. oknazevad (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. If the article subject is unclear from the title for "most" people, then there is an argument in favour of a SD — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 19:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)