Talk:Tibetan wolf

Korean wolf

Can someone explain why the Korean wolf is included in this article? The scientific name for the Korean wolf is Canis lupus coreanus and the references even this article call them "gray" wolves and not Tibetan wolves. The wolves that are being used for reintroducing "korean wolves" in Korea are grey wolves from Siberia, not Tibetan wovles: http://qtv.freechal.com/movie/QTVMovieView.asp?docid=2856219Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

See here. Coreanus is now considered a mere synonym of chanco. If the wolves used for the reintroduction are siberian, then they're introducing the wrong subspecies.Mariomassone (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Great there's conflicting info in the references. While the bucknell ref might be correct and the ref's in the article about "gray wolf" incorrect, that seems to leave us with the possibility that both the grey wolf, presumably the siberian grey wolf, and the tibetan wolf coexisted on the Korean peninsula. I also don't think the reference about wolf attacks in Korea assumes Tibetan wolves at all. Do you have any suggestions on how to clear this up? I'll try to look through Korean sources.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Tibetan wolf is a subspecies of grey wolf, just as the Siberian one is, not a distinct species. As far as I know, chanco is (was?) the only subspecies present on the Korean Peninsula. Mariomassone (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Any references that the Chanco is the only subspecies that existed in Korea? That seems pretty unlikely given the mixed facts presented in references in the article and the existence of other Siberian predators like tigers in the Korean peninsula.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Lost Wolves in Japan, the formerly considered distinct coreanus was reclassed as a subpopulation of chanco. There is no mention of other wolf subspecies living in the peninsula. Wolves do not necessarily have to follow the tiger's example in splitting into a subspecies. Political boundraries do not exist in nature: http://books.google.it/books?id=Ng3X8z230HYC&pg=PA42&dq=korean+wolf&hl=it&ei=UH5zTKb5KaSXOOmK6M4O&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=korean%20wolf&f=false Mariomassone (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

? wolves and leopards in Tibet ?

Leopards are not known to occur in Tibet. Therefore, can somebody review and validate this sentence and ref'ed source:

Large numbers of wolves have been reported to reduce leopard populations in Tibet.

-- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This page may be the source; I think it refers to snow leopards, not true leopards. Ucucha (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Trimble's book certainly is the source. But I could not find any statement there that would justify above sentence : that wolves reduce leopards or snow leopards in Tibet. Did you ? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Not explicitly; it does seem to say or imply that wolves hunt snow leopards. Ucucha (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Camera trap photo?

The animal in the photo doesn't really look like a Tibetan wolf... or any subspecies of Canis lupus. Obscuring eye shine aside, to me it looks exactly like a red fox. The fur looks red, the ears are large and appear to be black-backed, and the proportions are not on par with a wolf, eg. legs very slim, snout extremely narrow and pointed. 98.231.21.195 (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The file has been deleted due no evidence of any valid free license. Personally, I felt that the image was of low quality and the lack of information about its background by the uploader only made it more dubious. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Taxonomic confusion continues

This article starts "The Tibetan wolf (Canis lupus chanco), also known as the woolly wolf....

The article on the Himalayan wolf starts "The Himalayan wolf (Canis lupus chanco, syn. Canis himalayensis)...."

We have a problem: the two articles purport to discuss one and the same species, if the species name is correct in both articles.

Perhaps one of the authors will undertake to revise these articles? Failing this, I will do so - when I get round to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakashchit (talk • contribs) 11:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Tibetan wolf vs Mongolian wolf

A new article on the Mongolian wolf (Canis lupus chanco) should be created as separate from the article on the Tibetan wolf for the following reasons:

• The wolves of Tibet and the Himalayas were first described as Canis laniger Hodgson (1847)
• VIEW HISTORY shows that when this article was first created in 2005, its lead sentence commenced "The Tibetan wolf is a grey wolf species (Canis lupus laniger)..."
• Since that time, VIEW HISTORY shows that another editor has removed the original reference to its naming by Hodgson from the text of the article, and later another editor has reclassified it as Canis lupus chanco (this is what happens when people do deficient/no research)
• Gray (1863) described a wolf from Chinese Tartary, which is further to the north from Tibet, and named it chanco
• Mivart declared the same wolf as Canis lupus var. chanco in 1880 based on specimens from Mongolia
• Neither of these two assessments were based on a wolf from Tibet
• Pocock listed laniger under chanco in 1941 (that does not make it accepted)
• Wozencraft in MSW3 2005 listed C. laniger under the subspecies Canis lupus filchneri (Matschie, 1907) As the Tibetan wolf article is badged as part of Wikiproject Mammals, we are required to go with MSW3. Therefore, filchneri is the Tibetan wolf subspecies and not chanco. It would appear that our article on Subspecies of Canis lupus is in for a serious shake-up....
• There is growing genetic evidence that the Mongolian wolf and the Tibetan wolf are not the same thing - and this evidence will continue to grow as research focuses on the orgin of lupus
• Nobody is arguing that the Mongolian wolf is not chanco, so it would be a safe creation

A new article could be created under the name Mongolian wolf (Canis lupus chanco), the relevant content relocated from Tibetan wolf, the Tibetan wolf listed as Tibetan wolf (Canis lupus filchneri) in accordance with MSW3 but that its taxonomic classification is disputed regarding Canis lupus laniger because some researchers prefer to use that name.

I would like to hear other editors' opinions on this.

Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 21:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I say go for it, but chanco would inevitably redirect to Tibetan wolf. Need admin help here. Mariomassone (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, however I would simply reuse the Mongolian wolf redirect and remove the redirect code line once I had built the new article below it. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This action is now complete. The relationship between what is the Tibetan wolf and the Himalayan wolf remains complex, and I have removed some material from this article to the HW article until I can look into it further. Some studies will need to be reviewed in the light of C. l. filchneri. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tibetan 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121101104331/http://threatenedtaxa.org/ZooPrintJournal/2010/November/o242326xi101345-1348.pdf to http://threatenedtaxa.org/ZooPrintJournal/2010/November/o242326xi101345-1348.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirect proposal

We now have Ersmark 2016, Werhahn 2017, and Werhahn 2018 each indicating that the wolves of the Himalayas and the wolves of the Tibetan plateau are the same wolf, and these join numerous earlier studies which show the wolf to be basal to the Holarctic grey wolf. The Himalayan wolf is attracting all of the conservation attention that may lead to a taxonomic reclassification (with one proposed name being Canis himalayensis). Therefore, I propose to move all of the material from the Tibetan wolf article and convert it as a redirect to the Himalayan wolf article. I will wait a week for editors to reply. William Harris • (talk) • 20:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I understood you correctly. If Tibetan and Himalayan wolf are the same subspecies, then the older name chanco has precedence, so the content in Himalayan wolf page should be merged into the Tibetan wolf page. I noticed a few misunderstandings like authority in the infobox : this is the person who proposed the Latin name initially. Will also correct a few more refs in this page. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Having read Werhahn et al. (2017), it looks like a separate Himalayan wolf page may be justified, but if so, then NOT a merger with or redirect to the Tibetan wolf page. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

You will need to also read Werhahn 2018 - she has changed her position. I agree that the older name should take precedence, but I have referred Werhahn to an even older name that needs to be investigated. The taxonomic name is yet to be clarified and is matter for debate among taxonomists. Based on DNA, these are the same wolf. We cannot just delete Wozencraft from the Taxonomy section, he is the taxonomic authority that placed filchneri and laniger together long before the evolutionary biologists became involved with their DNA sequencing, which shows how good he is. We cannot just change the taxonomic name of a subspecies on Wikipedia based on what we might think is correct.

On what basis do you believe that Wikipedia should be maintaining two articles on what is the one wolf? William Harris • (talk) • 21:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't yet read Werhahn et al. (2018). Please give me some time. If they come to the conclusion that Tibetan and Himalayan wolves are one and the same subspecies, then of course content should be merged into Tibetan wolf page. In the meantime, just an editorial comment: the template {{MSW3}} automatically inserts the url to the online book page, hence it is not necessary to add this again into the ref. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC), edited by BhagyaMani (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I read Werhahn et al. (2018) now: they indeed propose a new wolf (species) subspecies Canis (lupus) himalayensis distinct from the earlier described Tibetan and Mongolian wolves. So imo the Himalayan wolf page should not be merged but kept separate, at least for the time being as long as this taxon's name is pending. Werhahn will surely continue working on this. Let's be patient. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

In view of Wozencraft (2005) following Pocock (1941) in subsuming laniger and subsequent junior synonyms to chanco, the Tibetan wolf page should be merged into the Mongolian wolf page. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not follow you logic in the paragraph above at all; Wozencraft had chanco listed as a separate subspecies to filchneri, with laniger a synonym of filchneri i.e. they are the same wolf. You have just read DNA studies that show the "Tibetan" wolf to be the same wolf as the "Himalayan" wolf - why would you then propose to put the "Tibetan" wolf under the Mongolian wolf?

Show me the page number and direct quote in Werhahn 2018 where they state that they propose "a new wolf (species) subspecies Canis (lupus) himalayensis distinct from the earlier described Tibetan and Mongolian wolves".

Additionally, it does not matter what Sharma nor Aggawahl nor Werhahn propose as its taxonomic status, that decision is left to international bodies. Currently, the authority is Wozencraft with filchneri, regardless of what anybody else believes - please take the opportunity to undo you most recent edits in the three articles. William Harris • (talk) • 02:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

When I look at id=14000748 for SUBSPECIES Canis lupus chanco in Wozencraft (2005), I see Synonyms: coreanus Abe, 1923; dorogostaiskii Skalon, 1936; ekloni Przewalski, 1883; filchneri (Matschie, 1907); karanorensis (Matschie, 1907); laniger Hodgson, 1847; niger Sclater, 1874; tschiliensis Matschie, 1907 listed on the very same page in this order. Wozencraft (2005) could of course not have anticipated in 2005 that another wolf species / subspecies would be proposed in a later decade. In general, he followed Pocock's assessments, also in regards to many other genera, species and subspecies. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Re Werhahn et al. (2018): I know of only ONE article published by these authors this year. And the first keyword mentioned in this one is Canis (lupus) himalayensis, followed by High-altitude adaptation; Himalayan wolf; ... Do you see this? Or which article do YOU refer to? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect.

Wozencraft listed all 38 of the subspecies of Canis lupus on that page, with the bold being the subspecies name and the following unbolded being the synonyms.

Under chanco Gray 1836 was listed coreanus Abe, 1923; dorogostaiskii Skalon, karanorensis Matschie, 1907; niger Sclater, 1874; tschiliensis Matschie, 1907 - these are chanco synonyms

Down the page further after about 20 other subspecies was listed filchneri (Matschie, 1907); laniger Hodgson, 1847; this is a filchneri synonym.

Note, karanorensis (Matschie, 1907) and filchneri (Matschie, 1907) are not the same wolf. We now have the taxonomist Wozencraft 2005 stating that the Tibetan and Himalayan wolf is the one wolf, and we have the evolutionary biologists in the teams Ersmark 2016, Werhahn 2017, and Werhahn 2018 stating this is the same wolf. Please take a look at a map of its range on page 4 of Werhahn 2018 - this is its range, that is what the science is telling us, and it does not include Mongolia nor northern China.

You did not read Werhahn 2018, you looked at a couple of metadata search tags on the front and then made a really bad assumption. Werhahn 2018 states on page 2, Table 1 "The formal taxonomic classification of the Himalayan wolf is pending; the valid Latin taxon will be assigned according to taxonomic priority ruling."

Until that time - and you continue to either delete or down-play Wozencraft 2005 and may not be aware of the ruling - we stay with MSW3: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals#Guidelines

I have put a lot of time into the articles on these 3 wolves trying my best to keep up with the debate and to simplify the taxonomy so that the average reader can follow it. I also appreciate your work here - and with Canis indica which will need to be looked at seriously by the researchers shortly - in fighting vandalism and fixing up my grammatical errors. However, you appear to have headed off in your own direction without fully reading nor understanding the cited references thoroughly, nor shown a willingness to discuss the points that I raised above. When articles are subject to a discussion on a Talk page, it is good practice - I would say good manners - to complete those discussions before entering into making edits.

There is a need for corrective action to get the articles back to where they were. I have amended the Himalayan wolf and the Mongolian wolf. If you wish to keep the Tibetan wolf article then you will need to revert all of your other edits here - if not then I intend to wipe the lot and turn the article into a redirect to the Himalayan wolf so that we can focus on development of what is the one wolf. I am quite happy to seek third opinions from the "Wikipedia wolf pack". William Harris • (talk) • 08:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

One again, you are editing without discussion. How did you think that this is going to end? William Harris • (talk) • 10:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Re MSW3: there seem to be two versions, which slightly differ in classification of subspecies, namely 1) in the book page 576 is filchnevi (note the spelling !) bolded indeed, 2) in the online version at bucknell.edu is filchneri (correctly spelled) listed as syn. of chanco, whereby 2) is congruent with all previous assessments by Allen (1938), Pocock (1941), Ellerman and Morrison-Scott (1966), and Mech (1974). -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

There is only one version of MSW3, the one that appears in the printed text and online - what Bucknell publishes on its website is not my concern. One spelling error is not a green light for you to do what you like. It does not matter what previous taxonomists have stated, we are required to use MSW3, which you are ignoring. Please stop what is appearing to be more and more like disruptive editing. William Harris • (talk) • 10:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

If you consider the {{MSW3}} template id referrer to the respective bucknelll.edu pages invalid or not appropriate, then you must complain with the people who designed it. Bucknell Uni is DeeAnn Reeders home uni, so rather unlikely that the content there is wrong. In all other instances re classification of mammals that I know of and referred to in resp. wiki pages, content of online book and bucknell.edu is congruent. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should use the printed book form of MSW3 as defintive. It has an incorrect spelling and we are not going to use this incorrect spelling. This appears to have been corrected in the online version (maintained by an editor of MSW3 and the supposedly forecoming MSW4). The entry is also changed from that in the book to match the sources cited by MSW3. Wozencraft doesn't make original taxonomic decisions, he reviews the literature and makes choice of which references to use. The online version matches the references he cites.

Incidentally, we are not required to follow MSW3. It is the recommended reference for mammals, a decision made when it was relatively new and up to date. But now it is clearly outdated and we should follow reliable sources where they are available (Wikipedias guiding principle). A large number of mammal pages no longer follow MSW3. For instance, all the Felidae have been updated to the IUCN specialist cat group recommendations. The laurasian insectivores are now in Euliptophyla, not the two orders in MSW3. The problem for the wolves is that that there isn't a good secondary taxonomic source for recent changes. Moreover, if the articles are to be rearranged following recent changes (e.g. the African golden wolf and Ethiopian wolf), then MSW3 is no longer being used as the definitive source.   Jts1882 | talk  15:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly what I figure too, from all other Wozencraft's accounts in regards to mammal classification: he did not perform any analysis of skulls and skins himself, but all he wrote in this edition is based on previous literature. And it's this previous literature that I collated for the Taxonomy section of this page. Alas, it was all considered disruptive and reverted.-- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Ann Reader was not the taxonomic authority for Order Carnivora in MSW3 - Wozencraft was. She was an editor. Why anybody would want to refer to the Bucknell website regarding wolves is beyond my understanding - it does not even reflect C.l. filchneri.

Yes JTS, MSW3 is a guideline, and there are no others that are endorsed by WikiProject Tree of Life - which is where the MSW3 edict came from. The rest of your comments on its applicability are your personal conjecture - conjecture I do not see reflected on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals#Guidelines. The authority I use for wolves is ITIS, which continues to largely support Wozencraft, rightly or wrongly. Where there is doubt in a taxonomic classification, then DNA studies offer guidance, as they did with the African wolf. ITIS supports the African wolf (but now it appears to be ancient admixture of lupus x simensis - i.e. Ethiopian wolf). Similar with the wolves of the Himalayas and Tibet - the taxonomy is unclear, the DNA results are compelling. William Harris • (talk) • 18:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

As there appears to be no support, I will not progress this matter until whole genome sequencing supports the current mitochondrial, X-chromosome, and Y-chromosome evidence. William Harris • (talk) • 10:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Chanco: taxonomic history

Since my recent edits were reverted, I would appreciate Jts1882’s view on this revision of the lead and Taxonomy sections: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tibetan_wolf&oldid=872963251. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jts1882 for your reply!!! Do you think my edits were disruptive? Or worthwhile to keep and show the taxonomic history? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

When you ignore the advice I offered, and ignore 3 recently published genetic studies to pursue you personal agenda of Canis himalayensis at all costs - something the wolves of the Himalayas will never be called because laniger has precedence - you can form you own opinion about your behavior here. William Harris • (talk) • 18:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I do certainly not have any personal agenda re Canis himalayensis. Re Werhahn et al. (2018): see table on page 2, where they propose Canis (lupus) himalayensis as new (species) subspecies followed by a note that “Canis lupus chanco ... wolf clade found in the Mongolian region ... does not belong to the Himalayan wolf lineage”. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Since you chose to neglect previous literature on chanco classification and also Jts1882’s comments, I wonder why you invited at all for this discussion. You seem to be rather proprietary in regards to these 3 wolf pages, so do whatever you want to screw them up. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I invited nobody here; this is a talk page.

At the close of the first paragraph of your proposed edits on Tibetan wolf, you cite as evidence that the "Tibetan" wolf is called the Chinese wolf and Mongolian wolf based on the works of Tsuda 1997 and Chen 2010 - where did they mention specimens from Tibet? They didn't, yet you believe that I am the one most likely to stuff up these 3 wolves?

Putting taxonomy aside for one moment, after looking at the 3 very recent DNA studies of Ersmark and Werhahn, do you believe that the high-altitude-adapted wolves of the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau are different from those found to the north on the plains of Mongolia and northern China. Yes or no? William Harris • (talk) • 20:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello editor BhagyaMani, I am still seeking your opinion on the question that I proposed directly above. William Harris • (talk) • 07:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Editor JTS is not coming back to assess your edits as you have requested. You need to be aware that WP:DISRUPTSIGNS does not care if your edits were in good faith. The solution as per WP:DDE is WP:AN/I. These appear to be reasonable people over there, I am sure they will offer you their full and frank assessment. William Harris • (talk) • 10:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

That was because I wanted to give a more careful reply and have been busy. You do a lot of valuable and detailed work on these wolf pages, but I agree with some of his edits and think some of your reversions were without foundation. You have taken a rather surprising approach to the printed MSW3 as the ultimate authority even when it clearly has errors (spelling mistakes, missing words (before [preoccupied] in the chanco synonyms), giving different statements to the references Wozencraft cites as his source). User:BhagyaMani was using the references that Wozencraft cited to make some edits and was correct to do so. They are supported by the official website of MSW3. Your disparaging reference to this site as the "Bucknell website" doesn't make it less official, which is why it is widely linked to on Wikipedia. The database that runs it was used in the prepation of the MSW3 (you can read about it in the reports of the ASM committee that oversaw the preparation). Remember we had a discussion about the errors in the print book earlier this year. I found that discussion strange at the time, but saw no need to make more of it.   Jts1882 | talk  16:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Printing errors are a problem with the publisher's typesetter and not with the author. One can always refer to the original taxonomic classifier's publication to see what a taxon was called.

It does not matter what the Bucknell database was used for, Wozencraft was the authority for "Order Carnivora" in the printed MSW3 and not those who prepared the database at Bucknell University. I only do wolves here on Wikipedia, and this major taxonomic blunder with no author attributed by Bucknell here contrasts with Wozencraft's published work here, therefore Bucknell is dismissed by me as unWP:RELIABLE WP:TERTIARY source - it is not the printed MSW3 WP:SECONDARY source, it purports to be MSW3. Wozencraft placing laniger as a taxonomic synonym for filcheri has proven correct, with him now being supported by mDNA, X-chromosome DNA, and Y-chromosome DNA.

Just because the Bucknell site is widely linked in Wikipedia - because it existed before the Google Books version of MSW3 was available - does not make it in any way equivalent to the printed MSW3. The other species-level articles on Wikipedia need to move off Bucknell in favor of the Google Books version of the printed copy, not the other way around. In short - the Bucknell website is not Wozencraft writing in the printed MSW3, certainly where wolves are concerned.

I will continue to support (the printed) MSW3 because - as we have both discussed before elsewhere on several occasions - there is no accepted replacement for it across mammal taxonomy, certainly not accepted by WikiProject Tree of Life. The day that the Tree goes off MSW3 is the day my first edit will be to change the domestic dog to Canis familiaris; I still await that day. William Harris • (talk) • 21:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Range of Canis lupus filchneri in China.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion closed, range map kept. William Harris • (talk) • 11:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

C. l. laniger vs C. l. fichneri

Hodgson's name Canis lupus laniger 1847 should have priority on C. l. filchneri Matschie (1907). (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 23.1). Could you explain, why Chris Wozencraft used C. l. filchneri? By the way he made unpleasant mistake in the name filchnevi. (Wilson, Reeder, 2005. V. 1. p 576). Hunu (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hunu: The epithet laniger is preoccupied as Hamilton Smith (1840) used Canis laniger for a domestic dog (presumably a specimen later identified as a domestic dog). The next oldest available name in filchneri. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Range map is incorrect

The present map in the infobox shows the name Xichan over the region that is actually called Tibet Autonomous Region, follow the link to see a map. Whereas Xichan is the name of temples in Fujian and in Sichuan. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I suppose it is supposed to be Xīzàng (Western Tsang) which is the Chinese name for Tibet. I wondered if it could be an alternative spelling like Mueller for Müller, but I can't find anything with Google. English Wikipedia should use Tibet anyway. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the one who made this map mistook Sichuan for Tibet. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I wonder anyway why the Mongolian wolf + Tibetan wolf should be distinct subspecies, or rather: are treated as being distinct in wikipedia? Because:

• a) the specimen described by Gray (1863) : Chinese Tartary encompassed not only Mongolia, but also Qinghai, which is part of the Tibetan Plateau; and at the time, the British troops were not stationed in today's sovereign state Mongolia, but in China.
• b) there is no topographic barrier to dispersal in this large region, and other species living there like snow leopard and Pallas's cat are not considered to have evolved into geographically isolated subspecies. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You could be right that the Mongolian wolf subspecies should refer to Quinhai specimen. The Alverez et al report definitely seems to be leaning towards including the Mongolian wolf, hence the choice of chanco. But the map to the right suggests the Mongolian wolf has a much wider range and seems to match the range description in Ellerman & Morrison-Scott: Range: Russian Pamir, Chinese Turkestan, Tianshan, Tibet, Mongolia, Northern China (including Shensi). The Himalayan wolf, with its adaptations, will not cover this whole range. The wolf definitely needs a review of the subspecies as there are far to many by modern standards, but until then its hard to made changes based on reliable sources. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I did NOT mean to suggest that we make a decision on the validity of subspecies. I only suggest to merge the pages on Tibetan wolf and Mongolian wolf, as both are considered chanco. We can then keep the page on Himalayan wolf and adjust its Latin name, once the Canid SG made a decision based on future samples. It'll probably take 2 years for sampling, analysing and publishing results of surveys in a wider range. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Himalayan wolf

Authors have given different scientific names for this Canis lineage in different studies and databases, including C.l. laniger, C. l. chanco, C. l. himalayensis, and C. l. filchneri, with both Himalayan wolf and Tibetan wolf used as its common names (Werhahn 2020). It is clear from numerous DNA studies that these are the same wolf (refer Himilayan wolf article). In 2019, a workshop hosted by the IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group noted that the Himalayan wolf's distribution included the Himalayan range and the Tibetan Plateau. The group recommends that this wolf lineage is to be known as the "Himalayan wolf" and classified as Canis lupus chanco until a genetic analysis of the holotypes is available (Alvares 2019).

I assume this means Gray's chanco specimen from Chinese Tartary (a vast area and nobody knows from where specifically), and Matschie's filchneri from Qinghai province of China, will be examined to see which specimen - and therefore which taxonomic name - matches the Himalayan wolf's DNA. There exists the possibility that NEITHER specimen matches. Either way, the wolf is now called the Himalayan wolf and the text of the Tibetan wolf article has been located to the Himalayan wolf article, and the Tibetan wolf article turned into a redirect. William Harristalk 10:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)