This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The following post has been copied and pasted from the discussion page of the article [Australian Dingo]. It had been written (by me) quite a bit before the creation of this article: Chrisrus ( talk) 04:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
What's the difference between the referents of the term Canis lupus dingo on the one hand, and " Australian Dingo" on the other? In an effort to find out, I turned to the "Synonyms" list for C.l.dingo from MSW3. I googled each of these and here is my report:
"ANGRESS AND REED: DOMESTIC MAMMALS 85 A systematic description of the animal remains from Harappa in the Indus valley, collected during the seasons from 1924-25 to 1980-31. The material — dated back to the third millennium B.C. — contained skulls and other skeletal parts of dog, cattle, sheep and goat, besides fragments from the one-humped camel, the Indian pig (Sus cristatus, all parts of young animals), the domestic ass, the domesticated buffalo and an apparently domestic cat. The dog — named Canis tenggeranas harappensis — showed marked skull- affinities to the Indian wolf (Canis pallipes) and is considered the ancestor of the Indian greyhound. Cattle found were of the humped zebu (Bos indicus) and the humpless type, both regarded as descendants of B. primigenius. Sheep were identified with Oris vignei (domestic us). The goats of Harappa were regarded as derived from Capra aegagrus and their probable cradle of domestication is sought within the Indus valley."
That's pretty far away from Australia. We can call it the Indian Dingo? Could it be a sort of Missing link between the Indian Wolf and C.l.dingo, something on the way between Indian Wolf and dingo, before familiaris was found? 10.hallstromi Troughton, 1957 This is the New Guinea Singing Dog. 11.Reason dictates that there may be many more animals that may be Canis lupus dingo, but never had taxons suggested for them. I've heard about the Canaan Dog, the Carolina Dog, and the Telomian, just to name a few, which might be on the dingo side of the familiaris/dingo clade. Does this jive with your vision of the nature and scope of this article? It seem to me to be opening a can of worms for this article to be about the entire referent of the taxon Canis lupus dingo instead of just the Australian Dingo, which is the most likely target for a Wikipedia Search for "d-i-n-g-o" Chrisrus (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
At this time genetically speaking, the AU Dingo and New Guinea Singing Dog are a match, but to my knowledge there has been no definitive genetic study with others such as the Carolina Dog, Canaan, Thai Dingo etc. osm20 Oldsingerman20 ( talk) 01:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
We applaud you for your efforts on Canis lupus dingo. We feel it is definitely needed as there are so many dogs out there that stem from this group. I know my terminology may not be correct, but you know what I mean. I do think there is a heirarchy here since AU Dingo and NGSD were isolated and insulated from outside influence for so long. Personally, I think NGSD and AU Dingoes should be Canis lupus dingo and all the other "dingo type dogs" should be Canis lupus familiaris, but that's just my opinion. AU Dingoes and NGSD are much more primitive because of the way they have evolved. You may have to do an article titled Canis lupus familiaris too.. It's a big debate. osm20 Oldsingerman20 ( talk) 00:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you're ahead of your time and I know the feeling because I've been ahead of my time on several things too. It's very frustrating to have to deal with people who think they know something and in fact they know nothing. Personally, I know very little about most of the rare breeds. To me they're interesting, but I leave the fine print up to the breeders who have developed them. I think that's what I like so much about NGSD and AU Dingoes. Humans haven't bred them, altered them, changed them or shaped them. With NGSD and AU Dingoes, their environment has been their only master. If it sounds as though I'm promoting them, that is not really the case. What I'm saying are only the plain facts. AU Dingoes and NGSD are today just as they were thousands of years ago. Man hasn't completely managed to screw them up as yet. Yes, NGSD have a breed standard with United Kennel Club, but do you know how many have been registered with UKC? Like zero during the last 10 years. I view all other rare breeds as "altered by man". They have, even American Dingoes, lived near man and have been shaped by man. With the American Dingoes, they have gone "more feral" during the last hundred years than during the previous thousand, as near as I can tell. In a literal sense, all the dingo types are breeds of a sort in that they resemble one another within a specific range. Singers are a breed. Au Dinoes are a breed. Thai Dingoes are a breed. Telomians are a breed. And they're all dingo types. The differences lie within the facts and conditions regarding their existence in relation to man. And the relationship to man is what makes NGSD and Dingoes unique. They are today unchanged from ages ago. That is what makes them so special. They were shaped by nature. I believe it really takes working with them "hands on" to fully understand what I mean. Me, I like dogs. Any dog. We've raised numerous breeds. Each breed is unique. Each dog is unique but I chose Singers as my "first pick" because they exibit characteristics that strike me as quite unusual. They are a challenge everyday for their entire life. Never a dull moment and I'm quite sure folks who admire other breeds feel the same way about their breeds. It's all a matter of relevance. As for taxons, I figure some day the powers to be will figure it all out. My goal in life is to preserve what we have and hope we still have some when the powers finally make up their minds. The scientific community has done virtually nothing for Singers. Therefore, I have little, if any respect for their foolishness. If we would have depended on scientists to preserve Singing Dogs, Singers would be extinct today for certain. Universally, Singers are smarter than most of the people who study them. One last thing and I'll quit. Remember the study the man did where he tested the dogs ability to pick out treats or whatever. He considered Singing Dogs as unable to read human gestures. That is so funny. If he knew Singing Dogs he's realize the Singers were smarter than himself. They took one look at him and said, "Hey old buddy researcher, we're not interested in your silly games." An animal that can learn an agility course first time through is one smart cookie. The general public has no idea about these things regarding Singers. No idea at all. So, as far as the Canis lupus dingo article is concerned, I think it's a great idea if it makes readers realize how all these dingo dogs are related, but I think it will lack citations because most origin information is conjecture. If you can present what facts there are in existence at this time and allow the readers to make their own decisions, then you're cool. osm20 Oldsingerman20 ( talk) 07:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Chris, Just for your own information, I think the Lowland Singers described in the 1882 reference are actually what we call "VIllage Dogs". Village Dogs are NGSD hybrids or curs that have interbred with European farm dogs. By the 1880s there should have been a fairly large population of European domestics along the coast. These are not what we consider actual "Lowland Singers." Lowland Singers preceded these "Village Dogs" and were mostly extinct(intermingled) by the time the book was written. The giveaway is in their description. The lack of a bushy tail. NGSD have a bushy tail, not a smooth tail. Anyway, that's my take on the reference. If I were to use it personally, I would use it to explain the demise of the original and actual Lowland Singers at the hands of the European farm dogs. Eventually the entire Lowland Singer population was either hybridized or forced into the more remote highland regions. In other words, the sub group or what a person would call it, of Lowland Singers went extinct, probably by 1900 or so. I doubt that you'll find a published reference to this effect. osm20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be interesting to compare current NGSD brain size with the 1882 researcher because I think we'd find out he was measuring hybrids rather than actual pure NGSD and I would also hypothesize that the hybrid brains were smaller than Au Dingoes. NGSD are quite intelligent having the ability to reason and plan. When you couple their brain with their senses, they become smarter than most humans. They also have been known to use tools in order to carry out a plan, so the brain size thing is either a mistake or a gross oversight. Most likely, people read that guy's work and because of it decided NGSD weren't worth studying. Heck, he didn't probably even know about the Highland Singers because it wasn't until 1897 that one was shot and carried out of New Guinea. Thankfully someone did take some interest in them, at least enough interest to shoot one for study and just think, the carcass only lay dormant for another 14 years which is a Singer generation. See what I mean about the scientific community not doing anything for the Singing Dogs? As far as extinction of the Lowland Singers is concerned, there still exists two distinct leg lengths in Singers just as there still exists four black and tans, so the genes are still there for long and for shorter legs just as they are for black and tan coloration. There are also recessive genes for black and whites but we have only heard of one in the wild and two in captivity in the entire Singer history. Oh, the best one is blue-eyed-ness. All Singers have brown eyes except for one individual recorded as being named Jacob. He had one blue eye and one brown eye and we were able to trace him clear back to the original Taronga Park/San Diego pair. So you see, weren't AU Dingoes used to make the beginning Australian Shepard lines? Where do you suppose the cattle dogs got their bi-eyed-ness and their split-eyes? I wish I would have keep his remains. All we have of him are pictures of his eyes. You see, we've known for a long time that Au Dingoes and NGSD were cut from the same block of wood, but have never been able to prove it until this last Wilton etal DNA study. I know it seems I'm rattling on, but I'm hoping that by reading this stuff either you or someone else will get some ideas about ways to present some of this information. If not we'll just have to wait for a suitable reference source. osm20 Oldsingerman20 ( talk) 23:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
We think your approach is logical and we like your thinking on this. I'll try to help. osm20 Oldsingerman20 ( talk) 04:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
There's so little out there about some of these "dingoes", especially the southeast Asian ones. I've got a book in the mail, but if anyone out there has any suggestions as to where to look or anything to contribute, it'd be greatly appreciated. In the end, if almost nothing turns out to be known about them, that's fine I suppose for the article or sections to be very short, but I'm just really interested to learn more. Chrisrus ( talk) 05:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Chrisrus, One time I saw a picture of an ugly dog and it was captioned New Guinea Dingo. Come to find out, the book was written by a German in the 1890s. The dog looked nothing like a Singer so I started trying to find out how to get the book. I was finally able to find the book but then decided not to try to purchase it because in the process of all the searching I found out that the caption had been incorrectly translated. What it really said was along the lines of "a dingo like dog found in New Guinea." So you see how things can become quite confused just from mistranslating. After I read the "Dingo like dog" that someone has screwed up and was again confusing Village Dogs with Singing Dogs. Now I wonder, are you thinking there might actually have been a true "breed or landrace" of domesticated native dogs along the NG coast that bore no resemblance to Singers? I'm not talking hybrids here, rather a whole separate breed or landrace. This would have to be a breed or landrace that developed naturally prior to being watered down by European domestics. osm20 Oldsingerman20 ( talk) 20:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Have you read this book? http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=WTboYQ_C1U4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=New+Guinea+Singing+Dog&ots=QR40H_YDwp&sig=GyqRqyoTAnHPti7b_WctAgUCLtc#v=onepage&q=New%20Guinea%20Singing%20Dog&f=false
I think I can use it in the NGSD article. Does it have any application for you? osm20 Oldsingerman20 ( talk) 20:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all for your contributions to this article. A few words about the organization: There are two basic catagories, the way I see it, in terms of the way the article is organized. The first group are those that have been identified by Taxonomy. These are the ones listed as taxonomic synonyms by the new taxonomy, the ones listed there with some Latin or Greek names and then collected into this taxon. There will probably never be more of these, as any new ones proposed will not get a proposed taxon.
The second catagory are those that have since been proposed as dingoes since that time. The fellow who "discovered" the "American dingo", the researchers who promote concidering the Japanese Inu dogs, they for clear reasons are not going to be giving them a Latin or Greek name. As no such name is being suggested, taxonomy and the highest judges of mammology will not give us a ruling as to whether these ideas seem to right or wrong. It'll probably just sit there forever, with no ruling as to whether they should be concidered C.l.dingoes or not.
We need to make this clear. I'll think about it some more soon, but I thank you for any consideration you might give to this matter. Chrisrus ( talk) 17:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Some of these dingo type articles either need to be originated or improved. I haven't found hardly anything on the Siamese Hairless. osm20 Oldsingerman20 ( talk) 20:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Dingo range maps don't agree.
Our map shows a blob in northeastern India and slivers of Nepal and Bangladesh. Then there is another contiguous shape that doesn’t respect national boundaries, showing southern Burma, all of Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, with bits overlapping into southern China. On the Southern side, it shows all of peninsular Malaysia, but Singapore is not included.. The rest of Malaysia on Borneo is all included, as is the Indonesian part of that island, but Brunei is shown to be outside of dingo range. All the Philippine islands are solid pink, as are the biggest of the Indonesian Islands: Sumatra, Java, and Celebes. Then there is an archipelago without dingoes stretching from Bali to Timor, and those Indonesian Islands between Celebes and the Irian Jaya part of all of Papua New Guinea. PNG is solid dingo territory. Mainland Australia is completely within C.l.dingo range, but, as we know, there are no dingoes on Tasmania. None of the Pacific Islands east of Australia and PNG have dingoes, according to our map.
But the dingo range on our map shows two distinct types of dingo range, pink, which may or may not indicate majority hybrid populations, and a darker red color for areas where pure dingoes are the majority.
I don’t know what year this map is supposed to indicate, but it shows the highlands of PNG still have a population of pure dingoes, these being the New Guinea Singing Dogs, which, we declare, are still there, in contradiction of other articles which say they either aren’t or might not be there in pure form anymore.
Australia, our map says, has pure dingo populations in four distinct areas of central Australia, two in the north and two in the South.
Pure dingoes predominate just in the north of Thailand; in the rest of the country hybrids predominate, and this dark red blob bleeds over into substantial areas of Laos. About a fifth of this pure dingo blob is in China and Burma.
Interestingly, if you blow up the resolution all the way, you’ll notice a sliver along the Nepal/India border where the majority of dingoes are still purebred.
That's all. There's no more dingo range in the rest of the world.
According to our map, anyway. Let’s compare that with some others. Chrisrus ( talk) 05:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
There's another map in the Commons, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dingo, at the bottom, it's captioned "dingo distribution after Corbett 2006", made by Inugami-bargho. The note says it's taken from a book which in German is called "Wild Dogs" Wilde Hunde, Udo Gansloßer, Claudio Sillere-Zubiri, Filander Verlag 2006, ISBN-10 3-930831-63-5, page 323. It tells us that the only places dingoes are proven to exist (as of 2006) is central mainland Australia. There are none on australian islands, but all of Thailand has proven dingoes. the rest of the map, coastal Australia and everywhere else in southeast Asia as far as the map reaches, might be in dingo range, but it has been demonstrated.
If we could back up from the map Inu provided, how far would the blue range go? On page 16 of Corbett's 1995 book The Dingo in Australia and Asia, there is another map. It shows "extinct pure dingoes" range absolutely everywhere on the map of the world, except a swath across the top of the world, labeled "dogs in polar areas". This area where dingoes never lived includes all of Scandinavia, northern Russia and Siberia, and about a third to a half of Canada, with an arcing line running from the northwest to the southeast. Below this, according to this map, is a shaded area where dingoes used to live labeled "extinct pure dingoes".
Within this area are blobs of solid black, showing where "extant pure dingoes" can be found, at least as of the mid-90s. It shows some things we might expect, and some that may surprise. Pure dingoes can be found all throughout Australia, the southeast Asian archipelagos, and just about all of southern Asia. All of the Indochinese peninsula, just about all of China and Mongolia, Japan, Korea, and those parts of Russia that border these countries. Pakistan and the other -stan countries are mostly solid black, as is Iran, Iraq, eastern Turkey, and the entire Arabian peninsula, although it doesn't quite reach the Mediterranean. This blob extends a long, pretty think swath extending from the entire African coast of the Red Sea apparently has pure dingoes, although it doesn't extend out onto the Horn of Africa.
But that's not all. Madagascar, originally settled from Indochina, not the mainland, is also solid black. And there's a black blob in the Congo/Zaire area of Africa where pure dingoes live, or lived in 1995. It looks like Basenji territory to me.
And there's one more. There's a blob of black in the area where Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia all meet. This is the Carolina dog, accepted by no less an authority than Laurie Corbett, arguably one of the biggest names in cynology and less arguably in what I hope you forgive me if I call “dingoolgy” (Neologism coined on this day by me, I claim first usage of this word for Wikipedia!); no less an authority than Corbett accepts the Carolina Dog as a pure Dingo based on the research as it stood more than 15 years ago. Chrisrus ( talk) 06:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Does this about the Carolina Dog surprise you? A person would have to be stone blind not to see the dingo in CDs. BTW, I read someplace that wiki has taxons as Clf instead of Cld. That's not a surprise since there are like five ways to classify all these dingo types and no one can agree on any of them. ISIS records have Singing Dogs as Canis lupus Hallsromi. I'm settling, in my own mind, on Cld for all the dingo types and forget the controversy. The only thing that bothers me is that the NGSD and AU Dingo stand alone out there in this never never land as two examples of totally unaltered by man breeds and actually get no credit for it. There should be some way to separate them from all the other "dingo types". osm20 Oldsingerman20 ( talk) 22:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
My meaning is that there are just several ways to mix up the words familiaris, dingo, canis lupus, Hallstomi, and even to the point of doubling up some of these words. It's really rather foolish looking. "A whole lot of todo about nothing." I suppose that NGSD should be Canis lupus Hallstromi dingo and AU Dingo should be Canis lupus dingo and all the rest of the dingo types that have been associated with humans should be Canis lupus dingo familiaris. Then when you get to domestic dogs which would come under NGSD and AUD they would be Canis lupus familiaris with no dingo in there at all. Makes sense to me, but hey, I'm just a lay person who doesn't even have one Phd behind his name. osm20 Oldsingerman20 ( talk) 00:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Dingo ( Canis lupus dingo ) is a common name for several ancient semi wild dogs, which might more properly be called urhunder. This type of dogs is called too often pariah dog (backpacker dogs), but not all pariah dogs can be classified according to the scientific name Canis lupus dingo.
Wondering why Canis lupus dingo won't pull up as a wiki article? Also, when a person enlarges the map(not good), one sees the word pinky instead of the word pink. That word pinky looks rather wrong. osm20 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 ( talk • contribs) 12:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Chrisrus, You might want to look at this: http://zipcodezoo.com/Animals/C/Canis_lupus_dingo/ osm20 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Here I will try to present the information available about the Thai dingo in the book, "The Dingo in Australia and Asia by laurie Corbett. I got a used copy off the Internet, very cheap. 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Between pages 104 and 105 are a series of color photos, called "Plates"; Plate One, Plate Two, etc. to Plate 21. The vast majority are about the Australian Dingo, as is the majority of the book. Plate four is captioned "Part of a pack of 5 members, these dingoes are hunting small burrowing crabs along a beach in southern Thailand. This red-ginger varient is very common in Thailand. The red-ginger varient is fairly common in Thailand (26% of 'ginger' dingoes) but less common in Australia." When I look at the picture it looks exactly like any Australian Dingo at first, other than the color. The one in the background looks quite the same and has no "red" coloration, but is still much darker than the Aus. dingo from this article. Their fur might be a bit woolier than you might expect from a dingo. That's it for pictures of the Thai dingo for this book. There is a picture of a Sulawesi Asian dingo, but no more from Thailand. I can't say I'm not disappointed, especially because one reason I bought this book was to see Thai dingoes, but it's a great picture. To me, it erases any doubt there might have been (I can't find any modern person who disagrees that Thai Dingoes aren't really as Canis lupus dingo as the Australian Dingo, something I can't say about any other animal) that The Thai Dingo exists. It looks like two wild dingoes from a pack of five, surviving on their wits as wild animals in Thailand, just like a picture you might expect from Australia. 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Chrisrus, Can an editor use a photo without permission if the editor references the photo, as: "The photo on the left is an image of the Thai Dingo Image provided by _________." and then do a regular reference entry in the reference section???? osm20 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Chrisrus, You keep using the word "referent". Exactly what is a referent and what is it in this article/ BTW, there is no doubt in my mind that Cld is definitely being accepted for "dingo types" in all the literature I'm reading that is current. It looks as though Clf is being replaced by Cld. I find it interesting that dingo types are described as "Spitz-Like" when Spitz like dogs should be described as "dingo-like" since dingoes predate Spitz by several thousand years. I have often resorted to describing a Singing Dog as a smaller version of an Australian Dingo. Also, btw, Singers are not pack animals so when there is reference to Singers and their "pack" it just means the author is uninformed. Singers probably run/ran in pairs with the female being dominant, though smaller in stature than the male. Singers are super quick. Breaking up a Singer fight without doing harm to yourself can be a real challenge because there are teeth flying everywhere and Singers can be quite stubborn. Extreme caution has to be taken when combining multiple Singers in one enclosure. Extreme caution!! Adolescent pups will generally tolerate each other up to 7-8 months old and in some cases males have been known to live together for a very extended period of time especially if the females are removed early prior to their first heat. This is the first part of August so Singers will be coming into heat soon in North America. Our Singers will be awake and vocal all night long from now until breeding season is over. With 14 all singing during the night it becomes quite a beautiful chorus. Anyway, please explain this "referent" thing to me. osm20 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Editors, Several of my colleages and I must go on record as having to protest the lumping of AU Dingo and New Guinea Singing Dog into the Canis lupus dingo classification. No proof exists that shows any domestification of these two breeds. Due to their isolation from civilized mans' contact, they have existed for thousands of years as "commensal" dogs rather than "feral". The latest dna sampling show AU Dingo and NGSD are very, very, closely related. Wording of the articles AU Dingo and NGSD should be worded so that these facts are clearly reflected in the text. osm20 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 ( talk • contribs) 13:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Editors, Having read and reread the first paragraph of this article many, many times, several colleages and myslf can't help but marvel at the unique use of scientific doubletalk. Why are AU Dingoes and New Guinea Singing Dogs lumped into the same classification as "feral" dogs? There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that NGSD and AUD were ever domesticated in any way by anyone, yet they share the same classification with feral dogs in this article. Are there any references that dispute these purely hypotheical statements?? A clear explanation of this scientific oversight needs to be included in this text. osm20 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC) osm20 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please explain to us how living as a commensal state would change the physical appearance of wolves and make them over into dingoes? This is really bugginh some of us. osm20 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Editors, Yesterday a friend of mine and I drove down into Oklahoma to look at two AU Dingoes. There were six recently imported into the United States and we wanted to compare them to New Guinea Singing Dogs. I took some still photos and video of them. The video doesn't have sound and is a bit snowy, but the animals in them are very interesting and I really think that sound would have taken away from them anyway. I wondered whether some of you who edit these Dingo articles might be interested in them? I would be glad to post them to wiki media if you'd like to take a look. osm20 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that in the first paragraph it states AUD & NGSD as well as Thai Dingo and others are listed as C.l.d. Where are these others besides UAD and NGD listed? I haven't been able to find them? In MSW3??? Please advise. osm20 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 ( talk • contribs) 15:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The section on origin probably needs to be revised to include the newest DNA research findings. This is one link. There are many references to the research that are available. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-dingo-earlier-route.html osm20 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Paul012 is right. I couldn't find evidence on Google Scholar - I searched for various combinations of the words "Boran" "Hairless dog" and "Siamese" and I couldn't confirm any WP:RS to confirm we haven't been hoaxed about that animal. I am truely sorry if I posted it, but I can only say that I took that entire section from with the help of the Norwegian Wikipedia, so that is where that particular claim to fact came from if you want to do a forensic investigation. Please, if it does turn out that the Boran Siamese Hairless Dog is not a hoax, then feel free to re-add it, with good citation, of course, but now two of us have tried to varify that info and failed so I deleted it. Now I want to have a look and that part again about varients of the Thai dog. Chrisrus ( talk) 04:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
New research suggests that Canis Dingo is not a sub species of Wolf or dog but is its own Species known as "Canis Dingo" as Reported by Dr Mathew Crowther from the University of Sydney’s School of Biological Sciences.
I have linked the Journal entry and news reports to back that up.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jzo.12134/abstract http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/dog-gone-scientists-confirm-the-dingo-is-a-unique-species-20140328-35onp.html http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-dingo-really-is-a-distinctly-australian-animal-and-not-a-dog-or-wolf-scientists-2014-3
If this is indeed the case, the page should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.136.201 ( talk) 09:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline ( talk) 13:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Canis lupus dingo →
Dingo – This article describes dingoes overall, while the dingo article only describes Australian dingoes, therefore, the "dingo" article should be renamed
Australian dingo and this "dingo."
Editor abcdef (
talk)
08:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Please note the comment section of [ http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/taxon_browser.cfm?msw_id=11387&CFID=35384701&CFTOKEN=2b893bb6bda03d5e-7D3B41ED-C9A9-7B4B-982CE3B9D432138B&jsessionid=d8305e0cebb20a9e0ed00146579695a55387 of Mammal Species of the World's page about this taxon.
Please note that the comment section say "Domestic Dog" in brackets.
Please note that the same is true of Canis lupus familiaris. i See here.
There is further explanation in the comments section of the Canis lupus page, here.
It says "Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate--artificial variants created by domestication and selective breeding (Vilá et al., 1999; Wayne and Ostrander, 1999; Savolainen et al., 2002). Although this may stretch the subspecies concept, it retains the correct allocation of synonyms."
The domestic dog is one subspecies, with C.l. dingo only a provisionally separate subspecies; the proviso being that we allow that both are "Domestic dog". So they mark both taxa as "domestic dog" in an unranked name between subspecies and species which is also subspecies. They're sorry, this is odd, but what can they do, you know. As you know, dingoes are dogs, too. It's only taxonomy, not a hard science. Chrisrus ( talk) 19:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Chris, I have referred to MSW3 and I apologise for misleading you. The bottom of p576-577 states "Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies..." etc. However, the upper 3/4 of p576 is one huge paragraph titled SYNONYMS listing all of the C.l. subspecies and synonyms. It states "...........dingo Meyer, 1793 [domestic dog]; antarticus...........familiaris Linnaeus, 1758 [domestic dog]; aegyptus................" Let me know if there needs to be some 'predation' on the Dog page. William Harris • talk • 08:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello All, regarding the section titled "Other dingoes", can anybody provide a good reason why it should not be deleted? There is no evidence supporting the proposal that any of these breeds of dogs are dingoes, and where there is a citation provided there has been misinterpretation as to what the research is telling us. Regards, William Harris • talk • 03:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
We seem to be using Taxonomy of Australian Mammals now as our authority for current taxonomy, not MSW3 anymore. Is that correct? Chrisrus ( talk) 14:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
First, the lead presently states that New Guinea Singing dog is included in Canis lupus dingo.
However, The Taxonomy of Australian Mammals states "These names have not been included within dingo here because ...... hallstromi is considered another primitive breed."
ToAM does not include the New Guinea singing dog in dingo, as MSW3 does.
Second, it's not clear that, in the above quote, "dingo" refers to Canis lupus dingo, rather than Canis dingo.
If not because of ToAM, why do we include the NGSD, but not tenggerana and so on? Chrisrus ( talk) 18:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
We need summaries of [1] Page 288.
It seems unambiguous. It says specimens labeled dingo and all it's synonyms be included in C.l. familiaris, and that "dingo", along with its synonyms, no longer used as a taxa going forward.
This book just came out recently. Have experts adopted this practice? Chrisrus ( talk) 17:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
This article should cover not just Canis lupus dingo, but also Canis dingo, and any others, (Canis familiaris dingo, taxonomic synonym, invalid taxon).
The referent of this article should be changed from the trinomial name to the taxon.
I.e.: It should be moved to the ''dingo'' (taxon).
It should be re-written in such a way as to say that, while dingo has always referred to the Australian dingo, in some other references it has at times also included certain other, other non-Australian animals; while others consider it invalid. And then go on to explain. Chrisrus ( talk) 16:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Given what we now know listed under Lineage, and that the y-DNA haplotypes H6 and H8 are exhibited by the Thai Ridgeback, and H1 for the Phuqoc Dog (note: H1 is a European signature, this dog has been bred recently) so there is no match to the dingo's H60 (derived from H5), how did Corbett get it so wrong? Well, largely he didn't. Let us start from first principles - nobody alive today has seen a dog! What we are looking at is a dog/wolf hybrid or dog/wolf introgression from multiple wolf populations (Freedman 2014) but Corbett did not know that back in 1985 and 1995. When Corbett did his morph measures, he was actually comparing the skulls of a dog (dog with C.l.lupus introgressed - from Europe) with a Japanese dog (dog/Japanese wolf hybrid - Pang, Duleba), and a dingo (dog/C.l. chanco hybrid - Pang, Deluba, Freedman) and thai dogs. Let me suggest that the thai dogs were actually dog/C.l. chanco hybrids from another population of chanco crossed later (yet to be confirmed but links to the yDNA "second wave" conclusion of Sacks). The morph skull signature of dog/chanco is still there in the dingo and thai dogs but the mDNA-yDNA haplotypes are different, so the genetic relationship is more distant but still cluster in East Asia. The Japanese wolf was a distant "cousin" of chanco. The result was the morph chart published by Corbett in 1995 showing the groupings: wolf, dingo, thai dog, japanese dog, dog. It was demonstrating dog/wolf crossings from multiple wolf populations, as Vila was about to find genetically in his 1997 study. William Harris • talk • 22:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Chris, as I had mentioned above, I treat an article development as a work of art - it takes a number of iterations before it is complete. I have now completed what I set out to achieve on the C.l.d. and NGSD pages, and shortly you will become aware of my failed attempt to amend the Dingo page and help form something better. I have not included the stunning thing that the researchers found in the dingo genome because these pages are not ready for that yet; indeed, the dingo page is not ready to move from 2004. I have a copy of my contribution to this page and will now be moving on from the dingo-related pages as of today, with no WATCH in place. I leave this page in the care of its editors and watchers. Regards, William • talk • 06:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The following post has been copied and pasted from the discussion page of the article [Australian Dingo]. It had been written (by me) quite a bit before the creation of this article: Chrisrus ( talk) 04:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
What's the difference between the referents of the term Canis lupus dingo on the one hand, and " Australian Dingo" on the other? In an effort to find out, I turned to the "Synonyms" list for C.l.dingo from MSW3. I googled each of these and here is my report:
"ANGRESS AND REED: DOMESTIC MAMMALS 85 A systematic description of the animal remains from Harappa in the Indus valley, collected during the seasons from 1924-25 to 1980-31. The material — dated back to the third millennium B.C. — contained skulls and other skeletal parts of dog, cattle, sheep and goat, besides fragments from the one-humped camel, the Indian pig (Sus cristatus, all parts of young animals), the domestic ass, the domesticated buffalo and an apparently domestic cat. The dog — named Canis tenggeranas harappensis — showed marked skull- affinities to the Indian wolf (Canis pallipes) and is considered the ancestor of the Indian greyhound. Cattle found were of the humped zebu (Bos indicus) and the humpless type, both regarded as descendants of B. primigenius. Sheep were identified with Oris vignei (domestic us). The goats of Harappa were regarded as derived from Capra aegagrus and their probable cradle of domestication is sought within the Indus valley."
That's pretty far away from Australia. We can call it the Indian Dingo? Could it be a sort of Missing link between the Indian Wolf and C.l.dingo, something on the way between Indian Wolf and dingo, before familiaris was found? 10.hallstromi Troughton, 1957 This is the New Guinea Singing Dog. 11.Reason dictates that there may be many more animals that may be Canis lupus dingo, but never had taxons suggested for them. I've heard about the Canaan Dog, the Carolina Dog, and the Telomian, just to name a few, which might be on the dingo side of the familiaris/dingo clade. Does this jive with your vision of the nature and scope of this article? It seem to me to be opening a can of worms for this article to be about the entire referent of the taxon Canis lupus dingo instead of just the Australian Dingo, which is the most likely target for a Wikipedia Search for "d-i-n-g-o" Chrisrus (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
At this time genetically speaking, the AU Dingo and New Guinea Singing Dog are a match, but to my knowledge there has been no definitive genetic study with others such as the Carolina Dog, Canaan, Thai Dingo etc. osm20 Oldsingerman20 ( talk) 01:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
We applaud you for your efforts on Canis lupus dingo. We feel it is definitely needed as there are so many dogs out there that stem from this group. I know my terminology may not be correct, but you know what I mean. I do think there is a heirarchy here since AU Dingo and NGSD were isolated and insulated from outside influence for so long. Personally, I think NGSD and AU Dingoes should be Canis lupus dingo and all the other "dingo type dogs" should be Canis lupus familiaris, but that's just my opinion. AU Dingoes and NGSD are much more primitive because of the way they have evolved. You may have to do an article titled Canis lupus familiaris too.. It's a big debate. osm20 Oldsingerman20 ( talk) 00:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you're ahead of your time and I know the feeling because I've been ahead of my time on several things too. It's very frustrating to have to deal with people who think they know something and in fact they know nothing. Personally, I know very little about most of the rare breeds. To me they're interesting, but I leave the fine print up to the breeders who have developed them. I think that's what I like so much about NGSD and AU Dingoes. Humans haven't bred them, altered them, changed them or shaped them. With NGSD and AU Dingoes, their environment has been their only master. If it sounds as though I'm promoting them, that is not really the case. What I'm saying are only the plain facts. AU Dingoes and NGSD are today just as they were thousands of years ago. Man hasn't completely managed to screw them up as yet. Yes, NGSD have a breed standard with United Kennel Club, but do you know how many have been registered with UKC? Like zero during the last 10 years. I view all other rare breeds as "altered by man". They have, even American Dingoes, lived near man and have been shaped by man. With the American Dingoes, they have gone "more feral" during the last hundred years than during the previous thousand, as near as I can tell. In a literal sense, all the dingo types are breeds of a sort in that they resemble one another within a specific range. Singers are a breed. Au Dinoes are a breed. Thai Dingoes are a breed. Telomians are a breed. And they're all dingo types. The differences lie within the facts and conditions regarding their existence in relation to man. And the relationship to man is what makes NGSD and Dingoes unique. They are today unchanged from ages ago. That is what makes them so special. They were shaped by nature. I believe it really takes working with them "hands on" to fully understand what I mean. Me, I like dogs. Any dog. We've raised numerous breeds. Each breed is unique. Each dog is unique but I chose Singers as my "first pick" because they exibit characteristics that strike me as quite unusual. They are a challenge everyday for their entire life. Never a dull moment and I'm quite sure folks who admire other breeds feel the same way about their breeds. It's all a matter of relevance. As for taxons, I figure some day the powers to be will figure it all out. My goal in life is to preserve what we have and hope we still have some when the powers finally make up their minds. The scientific community has done virtually nothing for Singers. Therefore, I have little, if any respect for their foolishness. If we would have depended on scientists to preserve Singing Dogs, Singers would be extinct today for certain. Universally, Singers are smarter than most of the people who study them. One last thing and I'll quit. Remember the study the man did where he tested the dogs ability to pick out treats or whatever. He considered Singing Dogs as unable to read human gestures. That is so funny. If he knew Singing Dogs he's realize the Singers were smarter than himself. They took one look at him and said, "Hey old buddy researcher, we're not interested in your silly games." An animal that can learn an agility course first time through is one smart cookie. The general public has no idea about these things regarding Singers. No idea at all. So, as far as the Canis lupus dingo article is concerned, I think it's a great idea if it makes readers realize how all these dingo dogs are related, but I think it will lack citations because most origin information is conjecture. If you can present what facts there are in existence at this time and allow the readers to make their own decisions, then you're cool. osm20 Oldsingerman20 ( talk) 07:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Chris, Just for your own information, I think the Lowland Singers described in the 1882 reference are actually what we call "VIllage Dogs". Village Dogs are NGSD hybrids or curs that have interbred with European farm dogs. By the 1880s there should have been a fairly large population of European domestics along the coast. These are not what we consider actual "Lowland Singers." Lowland Singers preceded these "Village Dogs" and were mostly extinct(intermingled) by the time the book was written. The giveaway is in their description. The lack of a bushy tail. NGSD have a bushy tail, not a smooth tail. Anyway, that's my take on the reference. If I were to use it personally, I would use it to explain the demise of the original and actual Lowland Singers at the hands of the European farm dogs. Eventually the entire Lowland Singer population was either hybridized or forced into the more remote highland regions. In other words, the sub group or what a person would call it, of Lowland Singers went extinct, probably by 1900 or so. I doubt that you'll find a published reference to this effect. osm20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be interesting to compare current NGSD brain size with the 1882 researcher because I think we'd find out he was measuring hybrids rather than actual pure NGSD and I would also hypothesize that the hybrid brains were smaller than Au Dingoes. NGSD are quite intelligent having the ability to reason and plan. When you couple their brain with their senses, they become smarter than most humans. They also have been known to use tools in order to carry out a plan, so the brain size thing is either a mistake or a gross oversight. Most likely, people read that guy's work and because of it decided NGSD weren't worth studying. Heck, he didn't probably even know about the Highland Singers because it wasn't until 1897 that one was shot and carried out of New Guinea. Thankfully someone did take some interest in them, at least enough interest to shoot one for study and just think, the carcass only lay dormant for another 14 years which is a Singer generation. See what I mean about the scientific community not doing anything for the Singing Dogs? As far as extinction of the Lowland Singers is concerned, there still exists two distinct leg lengths in Singers just as there still exists four black and tans, so the genes are still there for long and for shorter legs just as they are for black and tan coloration. There are also recessive genes for black and whites but we have only heard of one in the wild and two in captivity in the entire Singer history. Oh, the best one is blue-eyed-ness. All Singers have brown eyes except for one individual recorded as being named Jacob. He had one blue eye and one brown eye and we were able to trace him clear back to the original Taronga Park/San Diego pair. So you see, weren't AU Dingoes used to make the beginning Australian Shepard lines? Where do you suppose the cattle dogs got their bi-eyed-ness and their split-eyes? I wish I would have keep his remains. All we have of him are pictures of his eyes. You see, we've known for a long time that Au Dingoes and NGSD were cut from the same block of wood, but have never been able to prove it until this last Wilton etal DNA study. I know it seems I'm rattling on, but I'm hoping that by reading this stuff either you or someone else will get some ideas about ways to present some of this information. If not we'll just have to wait for a suitable reference source. osm20 Oldsingerman20 ( talk) 23:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
We think your approach is logical and we like your thinking on this. I'll try to help. osm20 Oldsingerman20 ( talk) 04:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
There's so little out there about some of these "dingoes", especially the southeast Asian ones. I've got a book in the mail, but if anyone out there has any suggestions as to where to look or anything to contribute, it'd be greatly appreciated. In the end, if almost nothing turns out to be known about them, that's fine I suppose for the article or sections to be very short, but I'm just really interested to learn more. Chrisrus ( talk) 05:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Chrisrus, One time I saw a picture of an ugly dog and it was captioned New Guinea Dingo. Come to find out, the book was written by a German in the 1890s. The dog looked nothing like a Singer so I started trying to find out how to get the book. I was finally able to find the book but then decided not to try to purchase it because in the process of all the searching I found out that the caption had been incorrectly translated. What it really said was along the lines of "a dingo like dog found in New Guinea." So you see how things can become quite confused just from mistranslating. After I read the "Dingo like dog" that someone has screwed up and was again confusing Village Dogs with Singing Dogs. Now I wonder, are you thinking there might actually have been a true "breed or landrace" of domesticated native dogs along the NG coast that bore no resemblance to Singers? I'm not talking hybrids here, rather a whole separate breed or landrace. This would have to be a breed or landrace that developed naturally prior to being watered down by European domestics. osm20 Oldsingerman20 ( talk) 20:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Have you read this book? http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=WTboYQ_C1U4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=New+Guinea+Singing+Dog&ots=QR40H_YDwp&sig=GyqRqyoTAnHPti7b_WctAgUCLtc#v=onepage&q=New%20Guinea%20Singing%20Dog&f=false
I think I can use it in the NGSD article. Does it have any application for you? osm20 Oldsingerman20 ( talk) 20:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all for your contributions to this article. A few words about the organization: There are two basic catagories, the way I see it, in terms of the way the article is organized. The first group are those that have been identified by Taxonomy. These are the ones listed as taxonomic synonyms by the new taxonomy, the ones listed there with some Latin or Greek names and then collected into this taxon. There will probably never be more of these, as any new ones proposed will not get a proposed taxon.
The second catagory are those that have since been proposed as dingoes since that time. The fellow who "discovered" the "American dingo", the researchers who promote concidering the Japanese Inu dogs, they for clear reasons are not going to be giving them a Latin or Greek name. As no such name is being suggested, taxonomy and the highest judges of mammology will not give us a ruling as to whether these ideas seem to right or wrong. It'll probably just sit there forever, with no ruling as to whether they should be concidered C.l.dingoes or not.
We need to make this clear. I'll think about it some more soon, but I thank you for any consideration you might give to this matter. Chrisrus ( talk) 17:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Some of these dingo type articles either need to be originated or improved. I haven't found hardly anything on the Siamese Hairless. osm20 Oldsingerman20 ( talk) 20:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Dingo range maps don't agree.
Our map shows a blob in northeastern India and slivers of Nepal and Bangladesh. Then there is another contiguous shape that doesn’t respect national boundaries, showing southern Burma, all of Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, with bits overlapping into southern China. On the Southern side, it shows all of peninsular Malaysia, but Singapore is not included.. The rest of Malaysia on Borneo is all included, as is the Indonesian part of that island, but Brunei is shown to be outside of dingo range. All the Philippine islands are solid pink, as are the biggest of the Indonesian Islands: Sumatra, Java, and Celebes. Then there is an archipelago without dingoes stretching from Bali to Timor, and those Indonesian Islands between Celebes and the Irian Jaya part of all of Papua New Guinea. PNG is solid dingo territory. Mainland Australia is completely within C.l.dingo range, but, as we know, there are no dingoes on Tasmania. None of the Pacific Islands east of Australia and PNG have dingoes, according to our map.
But the dingo range on our map shows two distinct types of dingo range, pink, which may or may not indicate majority hybrid populations, and a darker red color for areas where pure dingoes are the majority.
I don’t know what year this map is supposed to indicate, but it shows the highlands of PNG still have a population of pure dingoes, these being the New Guinea Singing Dogs, which, we declare, are still there, in contradiction of other articles which say they either aren’t or might not be there in pure form anymore.
Australia, our map says, has pure dingo populations in four distinct areas of central Australia, two in the north and two in the South.
Pure dingoes predominate just in the north of Thailand; in the rest of the country hybrids predominate, and this dark red blob bleeds over into substantial areas of Laos. About a fifth of this pure dingo blob is in China and Burma.
Interestingly, if you blow up the resolution all the way, you’ll notice a sliver along the Nepal/India border where the majority of dingoes are still purebred.
That's all. There's no more dingo range in the rest of the world.
According to our map, anyway. Let’s compare that with some others. Chrisrus ( talk) 05:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
There's another map in the Commons, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dingo, at the bottom, it's captioned "dingo distribution after Corbett 2006", made by Inugami-bargho. The note says it's taken from a book which in German is called "Wild Dogs" Wilde Hunde, Udo Gansloßer, Claudio Sillere-Zubiri, Filander Verlag 2006, ISBN-10 3-930831-63-5, page 323. It tells us that the only places dingoes are proven to exist (as of 2006) is central mainland Australia. There are none on australian islands, but all of Thailand has proven dingoes. the rest of the map, coastal Australia and everywhere else in southeast Asia as far as the map reaches, might be in dingo range, but it has been demonstrated.
If we could back up from the map Inu provided, how far would the blue range go? On page 16 of Corbett's 1995 book The Dingo in Australia and Asia, there is another map. It shows "extinct pure dingoes" range absolutely everywhere on the map of the world, except a swath across the top of the world, labeled "dogs in polar areas". This area where dingoes never lived includes all of Scandinavia, northern Russia and Siberia, and about a third to a half of Canada, with an arcing line running from the northwest to the southeast. Below this, according to this map, is a shaded area where dingoes used to live labeled "extinct pure dingoes".
Within this area are blobs of solid black, showing where "extant pure dingoes" can be found, at least as of the mid-90s. It shows some things we might expect, and some that may surprise. Pure dingoes can be found all throughout Australia, the southeast Asian archipelagos, and just about all of southern Asia. All of the Indochinese peninsula, just about all of China and Mongolia, Japan, Korea, and those parts of Russia that border these countries. Pakistan and the other -stan countries are mostly solid black, as is Iran, Iraq, eastern Turkey, and the entire Arabian peninsula, although it doesn't quite reach the Mediterranean. This blob extends a long, pretty think swath extending from the entire African coast of the Red Sea apparently has pure dingoes, although it doesn't extend out onto the Horn of Africa.
But that's not all. Madagascar, originally settled from Indochina, not the mainland, is also solid black. And there's a black blob in the Congo/Zaire area of Africa where pure dingoes live, or lived in 1995. It looks like Basenji territory to me.
And there's one more. There's a blob of black in the area where Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia all meet. This is the Carolina dog, accepted by no less an authority than Laurie Corbett, arguably one of the biggest names in cynology and less arguably in what I hope you forgive me if I call “dingoolgy” (Neologism coined on this day by me, I claim first usage of this word for Wikipedia!); no less an authority than Corbett accepts the Carolina Dog as a pure Dingo based on the research as it stood more than 15 years ago. Chrisrus ( talk) 06:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Does this about the Carolina Dog surprise you? A person would have to be stone blind not to see the dingo in CDs. BTW, I read someplace that wiki has taxons as Clf instead of Cld. That's not a surprise since there are like five ways to classify all these dingo types and no one can agree on any of them. ISIS records have Singing Dogs as Canis lupus Hallsromi. I'm settling, in my own mind, on Cld for all the dingo types and forget the controversy. The only thing that bothers me is that the NGSD and AU Dingo stand alone out there in this never never land as two examples of totally unaltered by man breeds and actually get no credit for it. There should be some way to separate them from all the other "dingo types". osm20 Oldsingerman20 ( talk) 22:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
My meaning is that there are just several ways to mix up the words familiaris, dingo, canis lupus, Hallstomi, and even to the point of doubling up some of these words. It's really rather foolish looking. "A whole lot of todo about nothing." I suppose that NGSD should be Canis lupus Hallstromi dingo and AU Dingo should be Canis lupus dingo and all the rest of the dingo types that have been associated with humans should be Canis lupus dingo familiaris. Then when you get to domestic dogs which would come under NGSD and AUD they would be Canis lupus familiaris with no dingo in there at all. Makes sense to me, but hey, I'm just a lay person who doesn't even have one Phd behind his name. osm20 Oldsingerman20 ( talk) 00:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Dingo ( Canis lupus dingo ) is a common name for several ancient semi wild dogs, which might more properly be called urhunder. This type of dogs is called too often pariah dog (backpacker dogs), but not all pariah dogs can be classified according to the scientific name Canis lupus dingo.
Wondering why Canis lupus dingo won't pull up as a wiki article? Also, when a person enlarges the map(not good), one sees the word pinky instead of the word pink. That word pinky looks rather wrong. osm20 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 ( talk • contribs) 12:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Chrisrus, You might want to look at this: http://zipcodezoo.com/Animals/C/Canis_lupus_dingo/ osm20 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Here I will try to present the information available about the Thai dingo in the book, "The Dingo in Australia and Asia by laurie Corbett. I got a used copy off the Internet, very cheap. 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Between pages 104 and 105 are a series of color photos, called "Plates"; Plate One, Plate Two, etc. to Plate 21. The vast majority are about the Australian Dingo, as is the majority of the book. Plate four is captioned "Part of a pack of 5 members, these dingoes are hunting small burrowing crabs along a beach in southern Thailand. This red-ginger varient is very common in Thailand. The red-ginger varient is fairly common in Thailand (26% of 'ginger' dingoes) but less common in Australia." When I look at the picture it looks exactly like any Australian Dingo at first, other than the color. The one in the background looks quite the same and has no "red" coloration, but is still much darker than the Aus. dingo from this article. Their fur might be a bit woolier than you might expect from a dingo. That's it for pictures of the Thai dingo for this book. There is a picture of a Sulawesi Asian dingo, but no more from Thailand. I can't say I'm not disappointed, especially because one reason I bought this book was to see Thai dingoes, but it's a great picture. To me, it erases any doubt there might have been (I can't find any modern person who disagrees that Thai Dingoes aren't really as Canis lupus dingo as the Australian Dingo, something I can't say about any other animal) that The Thai Dingo exists. It looks like two wild dingoes from a pack of five, surviving on their wits as wild animals in Thailand, just like a picture you might expect from Australia. 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Chrisrus, Can an editor use a photo without permission if the editor references the photo, as: "The photo on the left is an image of the Thai Dingo Image provided by _________." and then do a regular reference entry in the reference section???? osm20 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Chrisrus, You keep using the word "referent". Exactly what is a referent and what is it in this article/ BTW, there is no doubt in my mind that Cld is definitely being accepted for "dingo types" in all the literature I'm reading that is current. It looks as though Clf is being replaced by Cld. I find it interesting that dingo types are described as "Spitz-Like" when Spitz like dogs should be described as "dingo-like" since dingoes predate Spitz by several thousand years. I have often resorted to describing a Singing Dog as a smaller version of an Australian Dingo. Also, btw, Singers are not pack animals so when there is reference to Singers and their "pack" it just means the author is uninformed. Singers probably run/ran in pairs with the female being dominant, though smaller in stature than the male. Singers are super quick. Breaking up a Singer fight without doing harm to yourself can be a real challenge because there are teeth flying everywhere and Singers can be quite stubborn. Extreme caution has to be taken when combining multiple Singers in one enclosure. Extreme caution!! Adolescent pups will generally tolerate each other up to 7-8 months old and in some cases males have been known to live together for a very extended period of time especially if the females are removed early prior to their first heat. This is the first part of August so Singers will be coming into heat soon in North America. Our Singers will be awake and vocal all night long from now until breeding season is over. With 14 all singing during the night it becomes quite a beautiful chorus. Anyway, please explain this "referent" thing to me. osm20 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Editors, Several of my colleages and I must go on record as having to protest the lumping of AU Dingo and New Guinea Singing Dog into the Canis lupus dingo classification. No proof exists that shows any domestification of these two breeds. Due to their isolation from civilized mans' contact, they have existed for thousands of years as "commensal" dogs rather than "feral". The latest dna sampling show AU Dingo and NGSD are very, very, closely related. Wording of the articles AU Dingo and NGSD should be worded so that these facts are clearly reflected in the text. osm20 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 ( talk • contribs) 13:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Editors, Having read and reread the first paragraph of this article many, many times, several colleages and myslf can't help but marvel at the unique use of scientific doubletalk. Why are AU Dingoes and New Guinea Singing Dogs lumped into the same classification as "feral" dogs? There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that NGSD and AUD were ever domesticated in any way by anyone, yet they share the same classification with feral dogs in this article. Are there any references that dispute these purely hypotheical statements?? A clear explanation of this scientific oversight needs to be included in this text. osm20 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC) osm20 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please explain to us how living as a commensal state would change the physical appearance of wolves and make them over into dingoes? This is really bugginh some of us. osm20 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Editors, Yesterday a friend of mine and I drove down into Oklahoma to look at two AU Dingoes. There were six recently imported into the United States and we wanted to compare them to New Guinea Singing Dogs. I took some still photos and video of them. The video doesn't have sound and is a bit snowy, but the animals in them are very interesting and I really think that sound would have taken away from them anyway. I wondered whether some of you who edit these Dingo articles might be interested in them? I would be glad to post them to wiki media if you'd like to take a look. osm20 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that in the first paragraph it states AUD & NGSD as well as Thai Dingo and others are listed as C.l.d. Where are these others besides UAD and NGD listed? I haven't been able to find them? In MSW3??? Please advise. osm20 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 ( talk • contribs) 15:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The section on origin probably needs to be revised to include the newest DNA research findings. This is one link. There are many references to the research that are available. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-dingo-earlier-route.html osm20 79.228.144.32 ( talk) 09:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Paul012 is right. I couldn't find evidence on Google Scholar - I searched for various combinations of the words "Boran" "Hairless dog" and "Siamese" and I couldn't confirm any WP:RS to confirm we haven't been hoaxed about that animal. I am truely sorry if I posted it, but I can only say that I took that entire section from with the help of the Norwegian Wikipedia, so that is where that particular claim to fact came from if you want to do a forensic investigation. Please, if it does turn out that the Boran Siamese Hairless Dog is not a hoax, then feel free to re-add it, with good citation, of course, but now two of us have tried to varify that info and failed so I deleted it. Now I want to have a look and that part again about varients of the Thai dog. Chrisrus ( talk) 04:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
New research suggests that Canis Dingo is not a sub species of Wolf or dog but is its own Species known as "Canis Dingo" as Reported by Dr Mathew Crowther from the University of Sydney’s School of Biological Sciences.
I have linked the Journal entry and news reports to back that up.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jzo.12134/abstract http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/dog-gone-scientists-confirm-the-dingo-is-a-unique-species-20140328-35onp.html http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-dingo-really-is-a-distinctly-australian-animal-and-not-a-dog-or-wolf-scientists-2014-3
If this is indeed the case, the page should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.136.201 ( talk) 09:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline ( talk) 13:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Canis lupus dingo →
Dingo – This article describes dingoes overall, while the dingo article only describes Australian dingoes, therefore, the "dingo" article should be renamed
Australian dingo and this "dingo."
Editor abcdef (
talk)
08:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Please note the comment section of [ http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/taxon_browser.cfm?msw_id=11387&CFID=35384701&CFTOKEN=2b893bb6bda03d5e-7D3B41ED-C9A9-7B4B-982CE3B9D432138B&jsessionid=d8305e0cebb20a9e0ed00146579695a55387 of Mammal Species of the World's page about this taxon.
Please note that the comment section say "Domestic Dog" in brackets.
Please note that the same is true of Canis lupus familiaris. i See here.
There is further explanation in the comments section of the Canis lupus page, here.
It says "Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate--artificial variants created by domestication and selective breeding (Vilá et al., 1999; Wayne and Ostrander, 1999; Savolainen et al., 2002). Although this may stretch the subspecies concept, it retains the correct allocation of synonyms."
The domestic dog is one subspecies, with C.l. dingo only a provisionally separate subspecies; the proviso being that we allow that both are "Domestic dog". So they mark both taxa as "domestic dog" in an unranked name between subspecies and species which is also subspecies. They're sorry, this is odd, but what can they do, you know. As you know, dingoes are dogs, too. It's only taxonomy, not a hard science. Chrisrus ( talk) 19:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Chris, I have referred to MSW3 and I apologise for misleading you. The bottom of p576-577 states "Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies..." etc. However, the upper 3/4 of p576 is one huge paragraph titled SYNONYMS listing all of the C.l. subspecies and synonyms. It states "...........dingo Meyer, 1793 [domestic dog]; antarticus...........familiaris Linnaeus, 1758 [domestic dog]; aegyptus................" Let me know if there needs to be some 'predation' on the Dog page. William Harris • talk • 08:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello All, regarding the section titled "Other dingoes", can anybody provide a good reason why it should not be deleted? There is no evidence supporting the proposal that any of these breeds of dogs are dingoes, and where there is a citation provided there has been misinterpretation as to what the research is telling us. Regards, William Harris • talk • 03:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
We seem to be using Taxonomy of Australian Mammals now as our authority for current taxonomy, not MSW3 anymore. Is that correct? Chrisrus ( talk) 14:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
First, the lead presently states that New Guinea Singing dog is included in Canis lupus dingo.
However, The Taxonomy of Australian Mammals states "These names have not been included within dingo here because ...... hallstromi is considered another primitive breed."
ToAM does not include the New Guinea singing dog in dingo, as MSW3 does.
Second, it's not clear that, in the above quote, "dingo" refers to Canis lupus dingo, rather than Canis dingo.
If not because of ToAM, why do we include the NGSD, but not tenggerana and so on? Chrisrus ( talk) 18:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
We need summaries of [1] Page 288.
It seems unambiguous. It says specimens labeled dingo and all it's synonyms be included in C.l. familiaris, and that "dingo", along with its synonyms, no longer used as a taxa going forward.
This book just came out recently. Have experts adopted this practice? Chrisrus ( talk) 17:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
This article should cover not just Canis lupus dingo, but also Canis dingo, and any others, (Canis familiaris dingo, taxonomic synonym, invalid taxon).
The referent of this article should be changed from the trinomial name to the taxon.
I.e.: It should be moved to the ''dingo'' (taxon).
It should be re-written in such a way as to say that, while dingo has always referred to the Australian dingo, in some other references it has at times also included certain other, other non-Australian animals; while others consider it invalid. And then go on to explain. Chrisrus ( talk) 16:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Given what we now know listed under Lineage, and that the y-DNA haplotypes H6 and H8 are exhibited by the Thai Ridgeback, and H1 for the Phuqoc Dog (note: H1 is a European signature, this dog has been bred recently) so there is no match to the dingo's H60 (derived from H5), how did Corbett get it so wrong? Well, largely he didn't. Let us start from first principles - nobody alive today has seen a dog! What we are looking at is a dog/wolf hybrid or dog/wolf introgression from multiple wolf populations (Freedman 2014) but Corbett did not know that back in 1985 and 1995. When Corbett did his morph measures, he was actually comparing the skulls of a dog (dog with C.l.lupus introgressed - from Europe) with a Japanese dog (dog/Japanese wolf hybrid - Pang, Duleba), and a dingo (dog/C.l. chanco hybrid - Pang, Deluba, Freedman) and thai dogs. Let me suggest that the thai dogs were actually dog/C.l. chanco hybrids from another population of chanco crossed later (yet to be confirmed but links to the yDNA "second wave" conclusion of Sacks). The morph skull signature of dog/chanco is still there in the dingo and thai dogs but the mDNA-yDNA haplotypes are different, so the genetic relationship is more distant but still cluster in East Asia. The Japanese wolf was a distant "cousin" of chanco. The result was the morph chart published by Corbett in 1995 showing the groupings: wolf, dingo, thai dog, japanese dog, dog. It was demonstrating dog/wolf crossings from multiple wolf populations, as Vila was about to find genetically in his 1997 study. William Harris • talk • 22:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Chris, as I had mentioned above, I treat an article development as a work of art - it takes a number of iterations before it is complete. I have now completed what I set out to achieve on the C.l.d. and NGSD pages, and shortly you will become aware of my failed attempt to amend the Dingo page and help form something better. I have not included the stunning thing that the researchers found in the dingo genome because these pages are not ready for that yet; indeed, the dingo page is not ready to move from 2004. I have a copy of my contribution to this page and will now be moving on from the dingo-related pages as of today, with no WATCH in place. I leave this page in the care of its editors and watchers. Regards, William • talk • 06:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)