![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
..and the other showed no signs of canine puncture marks or other cougar related injury.
Wha....? How is this evidence of a cougar attack if there were no cougar related injuries? It's like saying "A man was shot today, though there were no signs of a bullet hole." Dark hyena 11:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I remembered that my dad said that in Hong Kong, there was a special wolf race nicknamed "Short legged wolf" that used to roam in the New Territories area during the early 20th century. The wolf legs are of course shorter than the "normal" wolf that appear in China he said, anyways I wonder if this type of wolf still exist and also what is their proper scientific name? hanchi 24 May 2007
I've never heard of it, but then again, China is a little behind in wolf studies, so an undocumented subspecies is possible. Are you sure he wasnt referring to foxes or dholes? 129.12.230.169 12:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I doubt that, since Hong Kong doesnt have much foxes, even before the "urbanisation" in the 50's... I dont even think the wolf he was refering was Eurasian wolf. I think this wolf could be from specific breeding that made their legs gone short or has died out before anyone could record this species in time. However my dad says that when he was little, he did heard stories about this type of wolves roaming around in his village and eating live stocks. hanchi 25 May 2007
What happened to all the old discussions? This is an old article, but there's only one archive with a single entry in it. -- Kesh 02:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is "Gray Wolf" capitalized in the article and title? It is clearly not a proper noun. This article needs to be moved to gray wolf where it belongs. = ∫ t c 5th Eye 04:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
"The main differences between wolves and domestic dogs are that wolves have, on average, 30% larger brains..."
then in the chart:
"Domestic Dog Canis lupus familiaris Typically, a smaller subspecies, with 20% smaller brains..."
68.101.137.239 14:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Is the canadian timber wolf the same as the alaskan timber wolf? If so, is the canadian/alaskan timber wolf simply another name for the Mackenzie valley wolf? It was me who suggested it in the main Mackenzie wolf article, but I only did so because Alaskan/Canadian timber wolf doesnt seem to be a subspecies, but simply a generic term for large, snow dwelling North American wolves. 87.102.75.202 19:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, the Indian wolf is no longer considered a subspecies of grey wolf, however, the wolves of Turkey and other Middle Eastern countries (which were originally thought to be Indian wolves) should get their own article under Southern-east Asian Wolf (Canis lupus pallipes), which is still classed as a subspecies of grey wolf. 83.187.226.147 10:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Before we keep reverting, how about someone explain why the Indian wolf keeps getting removed an added on the actual article Talk page, hm? -- Kesh 11:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
the line "Wolves also do not possess dewclaws, unlike dogs" should be ammended to read "Wolves also do not possess dewclaws on their hind legs, unlike dogs". Wolves do have front dewclaws, same as dogs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.70.136.240 ( talk • contribs) 07:24, August 1, 2007 (UTC).
How about a verb in the third sentence of the leading paragraph?
Someone might wanna fix the two broken references at the "Notes and references" section, ref numbers #62 & #63. One has a date that's hyper linked wrong, the other is blank. Lord Sesshomaru
For example in body language:
The wolf rolls on its back and exposes its vulnerable throat and underside.
Does the writer come to assume that he knows what the wolf has in mind when acting submissive. Even if not, the explicit addition of this obviously irrelevant piece of information seems forcing the reader to understand the wolf as an explicitly savage animal which would rip it's own family members to shreads if only given the chance... which it is not. (Objectivelly it's a bit like saying "A mother holds a baby in her arms, the baby's thoat and vulnerable underside exposed"). And there are a few other examples of this kind of thinking spread troughout the article. I don't think this is appropriate for an encyclopedia article and would like to see it removed.
Does anyone else agree with me here? Should I go ahead with the slight cleanup or is there something about that form of expression that points out an important fact about wolves that I fail to see? -- 89.212.75.6 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
C. l. beothucus, along with two dozen other former North American gray wolf subspecies, were consolidated into five subspecies in the early nineties. This information is summarized here. C. l. beothucus, though considered extinct when it was believed to be a unique subspecies, no longer qualifies as "extinct" given this new taxonomic structure. Basically, though the Newfoundland Wolf was considered extinct in 1911, since it has since been determined that they were not genetically dissimilar from all the other subspecies that were consolidated into C. l. nubilus (Great Plains Wolf), they never truly were a unique subspecies and therefore cannot be "extinct".
My suggestion is to list them under the "former subspecies" subsection, explaining briefly how they were once considered extinct but have since been lumped with the Great Plains Wolf which are, of course, not extinct. TBH, it would be a wonderful idea to do this for all the former subspecies listed on the above-linked page. However, instead of giving each its own Wikipedia page, perhaps simply create a subsection under whatever subspecies they were lumped with. Each former subspecies wouldn’t warrant thorough details. They could just be listed.
In the meantime, I’m removing them from the “Extinct subspecies” subsection.
—
GrittyLobo441
04:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"The first layer is made up of tough guard hairs designed to repel water and dirt" - 'designed' is used in the wrong context, hair has not undergone the design process. Should read "The first layer is made of tough guard hairs which repel water and dirt". —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattWilcox ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Could this be mentioned here? Thyalcinus cynocephalus (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
68.114.29.24
21:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see the WP guideline and then please refrain from reverting blindly. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Should a section be made denoting how modern bands have used the wolf as a symbol? Bands such as Sonata Arctica, Wintersun, and Marduk have all used it. Maybe on the modern perceptions article? -- Notmyhandle 07:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the title of this article should be "Gray wolf", with "wolf" in lower case. WP:TITLE#Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles states "Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun". However, as I'm not a native speaker I decided to ask first. -- intgr [talk] 18:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The section in this article on social behavior is highly inaccurate. The terms 'alpha' and 'beta' are no longer recognized by leading wolf researchers. In fact, almost nothing is accurately known about wolf social behavior because it differs so dramatically based on if the wolf is in the wild or in captivity. It is true that the basic hierarchy with the 'alpha' and 'beta' wolves holds true in artificially created or unusually large packs, but naturally occurring wolf packs are smaller units that are simply nuclear families, the 'alphas' being the mother and father and the 'betas' being yearlings, or pups that were born the previous season and have yet to reach full maturity and start their own packs. A good book that explains this with more citations to more specific studies is Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation by L.D. Mech and L. Boitani. ( http://www.amazon.com/Wolves-Behavior-Conservation-David-Mech/dp/0226516962)
Interesting. I'm going to recieve that book as a Birthday present in three weeks. I'll check that bit out. 79.72.192.210 16:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is a link to an abstract that already says enough about the failures in the main text. Unfortunately, the full paper isn't for free, maybe I can get that through the university and add some information. http://rparticle.web-p.cisti.nrc.ca/rparticle/AbstractTemplateServlet?journal=cjz&volume=77&year=&issue=&msno=z99-099&calyLang=fra The german version of wikipedia has the correct information about the social structure known so far. Maybe someone with better english knowledge than mine could translate it and add it to the article. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.166.205.26 ( talk) 11:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Can someone put in the wolf is back in Germany again? (No, i'm not German) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mweites ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Here you go: http://www.nabu.de/m01/m01_03/06673.html http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/ema/species/canis_lupus.htm http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/3746/all Mweites 19:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes region of the United States (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) have once again been added to the Endangered Species Act. Should this necessitate a change from Least Concern of the IUCN status?
I will be updating the Canidae taxonomy and common names to match Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed, 2005) as follows:
I will hold off for a few days for comments. Since I'm posting this in multiple places, please contact me on my talk page if you have any concerns. I'll wait a week to give folks time to comment. -
October 12th-18th is National Wolf Awareness Week. If you want more information check out this link: [ [1]National Wolf Awareness Week]
The article should describe the traditional division of dogs and wolves into different species, and why DNA testing has changed this, and whether the DNA testing (probably just mtDNA) is actually conclusive (compare Red Wolf).
This statement in the Interspecific Hybridization section is not supportable:
"Wolves and coyotes can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, a fact which calls into question their status as two separate species.[100]"
The notion that different species can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring is a popular misconception due to the mule. All sorts of different species like lions and tigers can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Even the camel and llama can interbreed. The primary issue is number of chromosomes, not degree of SNP divergence.
It would be awesome if someone could add a sound byte of the timber wolf howl. -- 24.119.32.80 ( talk) 04:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Uh, its on the infobox below the picture.. Mariomassone ( talk) 09:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You can also find some howls on the wolfscience web page. http://www.wolfscience.at/english/support/donate.html, different ages of timber wolves. -- Slartibertfass ( talk) 00:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Under Dietary habits... "With prey of equal or lesser weight to the wolf, such as lambs or small children..." I had to read this sentence three or four times to be sure I wasn't imagining it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3hgecko ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
I've taken notice of a few times the word evolution is used. I don't mean to be a broken record, but there is absolutely no proof of evolution anywhere. I do not think I am wrong, but if you can show me one single proof of evolution being real then I will take back my complaint. Until then, this is wrong and should be edited. Say soemthing else like adaption or something, not evolution. I do not like being told facts that I'm pretty sure are not real.
There's also no proof of the the earth being 300,000 years old either, so that's another issue. If ya'll believe in evolution then that's fine, but make accurate accounts to go with it or wikipedia's is just a way of forcing another's opinion down one's throat.
Thank-you.
The proof that evolution is real is overwhelming. Also a majority of Catholics (who are Christians) believe in evolution.
In fact, most Catholics are Christians who believe that God designed the universe to evolve.
A majority of Catholics also believe that Genesis is metaphorical and not literal.
It is only in insecure and easily-threatened back-country Christian Churches that the concept of evolution is feared--
(Due actually to a weak faith, ignorance and lack of intellectual confidence.)
Some of these back-country Churches have spread to larger cities, but they retain their backwoods ignorance and superstitious fears of the modern world.
In fact-- There is no conflict between Christianity and believing in evolution. Whatsoever.
69.171.160.182 ( talk) 17:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
So basically, you'd like to add creationist argument that states that wolves were once vegetarians? Mariomassone ( talk) 13:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you implying that there are other peer reviewed explanations to the wolf's origins? Please enlighten me. I am a carnivora fanatic myself, and as far as I've seen, no book on the subject ever talks about wolves being designed or anything other than having evolved. Mariomassone ( talk) 17:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I apologise if I seemed confrontational. However, I think it would be beneficial if you read the article on Italian Wall Lizard. This is a species which has been well documented to evolve rapidly in recent years. Mariomassone ( talk) 22:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was Moved.
—
V = I * R (
talk)
06:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
(dedent) Well, you can of course propose to move it right back then. I will however just note that the first quote was prefixed with "In the absence of consensus:" (not that the recent move had sufficient input to solidly determine it); and also that consensus can change; so it's not entirely automatic. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
This move was incorrect and the article should be moved back. Please see Wikipedia:FA#Biology, with such entries as Giant Otter, Killer Whale, Fin Whale, and all of the birds. This capitalization has long been standard. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Despite the traditional monthly reignition of the argument, the only consensus regarding whether to capitalise mammal articles or not has been that they should not move from the title given by the original or main author. Somebody move it back and then anybody interested can adjourn to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Capitalization, be handed a link to the reams of previous discussion, and spiral around in ever-decreasing circles accompanied by the faint background noise of the articles slowly crumbling. Yomangani talk 15:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
My main problem is that this seems pretty ad-hoc; this convention doesn't seem to be clearly documented anywhere. At best, we're indirectly interpolating/inferring that there's a rule; and even then, there seem to be a few exceptions looking at the FA list. Meanwhile the general MoS guidance is fairly clear. I won't oppose, I'm just saying the "move it back" argument isn't slam-dunk. The naming conventions should be modified to codify this. -- Cybercobra (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I have read some websites speaking about the grey wolf, and I highly am doubting about the conservation status.
First off, it seems impossible, because there aren't alot of wolf populations in Europe or in North America (Only in certain parts of Canada and mainly alaska or montana). In addition, many claim that the wolf should be of great concern because their population continues to drop from excessive hunting.
And what websites would those be? The Least Concern status is given by the
IUCN.
"..there aren't alot of wolf populations in Europe.."
Whoah, you can stop right there. See the article List of grey wolf populations by country.
Portugal has a stable wolf population of 200-300 which is afforded full protection
Spain's wolf population is estimated at 2000 and growing
In Italy, wolves are a protected species, with current estimates indicating that there are 500-800 wolves living in the wild
Wolves migrated from Italy to France as recently as 1992, and the current French wolf population is said to be composed of 40-50 individuals and growing
Currently, there are around 35 wolves in 4 packs now roaming the heaths of the eastern German region of Lusatia, and they are now still expanding their range to the west and north
The number of wolves in Switzerland is uncertain, having been guessed at 1-2 individuals. Wolves are afforded protection
Scandinavia has a population of over 200 wolves
Finland has a stable population of 116-123 wolves
Poland has an increasing population of 700-800 wolves which are afforded legal protection except in the Bieszczady Mountains
Estonia has a quite stable wolf population of around 200
Lithuania has over 600 wolves which are increasing in number. The species is not protected
Latvia has an unprotected, yet stable population of 900 wolves
Belarus is home to an increasing population of 2,000-2,500 wolves
Ukraine has an unprotected, yet stable population of 2,000 wolves
The Czech Republic has a stable and protected population of 20 wolves
Slovakia has a stable population of 350-400 wolves which is protected, though with some exceptions
Slovenia has a population of 70-100 wolves and increasing. As of 1991, they are a protected species
Croatia has a population of 100-150 wolves and increasing
Bosnia and Herzegovina is thought to have a population of 400 wolves, though they are decreasing in number and are afforded no legal protection
The former State Union of Serbia and Montenegro has a stable population of 500 wolves, though it is unknown if they are afforded any protection
Hungary has a stable population of 50 wolves which are protected
Romania has an increasing population of 2,500 wolves which are granted legal protection
Bulgaria has a stable population of 800-1,000 unprotected wolves
Greece has a stable population of 200-300 wolves which are legally protected
The Republic of Macedonia has an increasing, yet unprotected population of 1,000 wolves
Albania has a protected population of 250 wolves which are increasing in number
Turkey has an unknown number of wolves thought to be as high as 1,000
Russia: 25,000-30,000, and are increasing
So basically, if you are pessimistic about the presented numbers and pick the minimum figures, the number still adds up to 41,732 wolves. It has been proven that 300 wolves are needed to maintain a good genepool (remember that wolves have no concept of political boundraries, and regularly cross nations to breed with other populations). The current population (if the minimum figure is accepted) is nearly 140 times greater than that. Mariomassone ( talk) 13:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Even if you remove Russia, the number (16,732) is still ideal. Mariomassone ( talk) 13:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I am a student at High Tech High, and I was wondering why this page was locked. I am doing a project about the Gray Wolf Page. I have some information that I would like to share with this article. I would like to add information about how Canines are related and in most places of America, they are endangered. While in others, they are threatened. This is information I gathered from the U.S Fish & Wildlife Service Environmental Conservation Online System. The website is http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A00D I hope that I will be able to make changes to this page. Please consider the changes I wish to make. I will not copyright this information, I will simply put it into my own words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icekingman ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a brand news article published by the wolfscience center: "Explaining Dog Wolf Differences in Utilizing Human Pointing Gestures: Selection for Synergistic Shifts in the Development of Some Social Skills" see also http://www.wolfscience.at/english/research/blog/05September2009/ -- Slartibertfass ( talk) 17:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Gray Wolf article related question at Talk:Timber Wolf. -- EarthFurst ( talk) 18:53, 13 September 2009 (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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
..and the other showed no signs of canine puncture marks or other cougar related injury.
Wha....? How is this evidence of a cougar attack if there were no cougar related injuries? It's like saying "A man was shot today, though there were no signs of a bullet hole." Dark hyena 11:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I remembered that my dad said that in Hong Kong, there was a special wolf race nicknamed "Short legged wolf" that used to roam in the New Territories area during the early 20th century. The wolf legs are of course shorter than the "normal" wolf that appear in China he said, anyways I wonder if this type of wolf still exist and also what is their proper scientific name? hanchi 24 May 2007
I've never heard of it, but then again, China is a little behind in wolf studies, so an undocumented subspecies is possible. Are you sure he wasnt referring to foxes or dholes? 129.12.230.169 12:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I doubt that, since Hong Kong doesnt have much foxes, even before the "urbanisation" in the 50's... I dont even think the wolf he was refering was Eurasian wolf. I think this wolf could be from specific breeding that made their legs gone short or has died out before anyone could record this species in time. However my dad says that when he was little, he did heard stories about this type of wolves roaming around in his village and eating live stocks. hanchi 25 May 2007
What happened to all the old discussions? This is an old article, but there's only one archive with a single entry in it. -- Kesh 02:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is "Gray Wolf" capitalized in the article and title? It is clearly not a proper noun. This article needs to be moved to gray wolf where it belongs. = ∫ t c 5th Eye 04:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
"The main differences between wolves and domestic dogs are that wolves have, on average, 30% larger brains..."
then in the chart:
"Domestic Dog Canis lupus familiaris Typically, a smaller subspecies, with 20% smaller brains..."
68.101.137.239 14:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Is the canadian timber wolf the same as the alaskan timber wolf? If so, is the canadian/alaskan timber wolf simply another name for the Mackenzie valley wolf? It was me who suggested it in the main Mackenzie wolf article, but I only did so because Alaskan/Canadian timber wolf doesnt seem to be a subspecies, but simply a generic term for large, snow dwelling North American wolves. 87.102.75.202 19:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, the Indian wolf is no longer considered a subspecies of grey wolf, however, the wolves of Turkey and other Middle Eastern countries (which were originally thought to be Indian wolves) should get their own article under Southern-east Asian Wolf (Canis lupus pallipes), which is still classed as a subspecies of grey wolf. 83.187.226.147 10:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Before we keep reverting, how about someone explain why the Indian wolf keeps getting removed an added on the actual article Talk page, hm? -- Kesh 11:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
the line "Wolves also do not possess dewclaws, unlike dogs" should be ammended to read "Wolves also do not possess dewclaws on their hind legs, unlike dogs". Wolves do have front dewclaws, same as dogs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.70.136.240 ( talk • contribs) 07:24, August 1, 2007 (UTC).
How about a verb in the third sentence of the leading paragraph?
Someone might wanna fix the two broken references at the "Notes and references" section, ref numbers #62 & #63. One has a date that's hyper linked wrong, the other is blank. Lord Sesshomaru
For example in body language:
The wolf rolls on its back and exposes its vulnerable throat and underside.
Does the writer come to assume that he knows what the wolf has in mind when acting submissive. Even if not, the explicit addition of this obviously irrelevant piece of information seems forcing the reader to understand the wolf as an explicitly savage animal which would rip it's own family members to shreads if only given the chance... which it is not. (Objectivelly it's a bit like saying "A mother holds a baby in her arms, the baby's thoat and vulnerable underside exposed"). And there are a few other examples of this kind of thinking spread troughout the article. I don't think this is appropriate for an encyclopedia article and would like to see it removed.
Does anyone else agree with me here? Should I go ahead with the slight cleanup or is there something about that form of expression that points out an important fact about wolves that I fail to see? -- 89.212.75.6 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
C. l. beothucus, along with two dozen other former North American gray wolf subspecies, were consolidated into five subspecies in the early nineties. This information is summarized here. C. l. beothucus, though considered extinct when it was believed to be a unique subspecies, no longer qualifies as "extinct" given this new taxonomic structure. Basically, though the Newfoundland Wolf was considered extinct in 1911, since it has since been determined that they were not genetically dissimilar from all the other subspecies that were consolidated into C. l. nubilus (Great Plains Wolf), they never truly were a unique subspecies and therefore cannot be "extinct".
My suggestion is to list them under the "former subspecies" subsection, explaining briefly how they were once considered extinct but have since been lumped with the Great Plains Wolf which are, of course, not extinct. TBH, it would be a wonderful idea to do this for all the former subspecies listed on the above-linked page. However, instead of giving each its own Wikipedia page, perhaps simply create a subsection under whatever subspecies they were lumped with. Each former subspecies wouldn’t warrant thorough details. They could just be listed.
In the meantime, I’m removing them from the “Extinct subspecies” subsection.
—
GrittyLobo441
04:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"The first layer is made up of tough guard hairs designed to repel water and dirt" - 'designed' is used in the wrong context, hair has not undergone the design process. Should read "The first layer is made of tough guard hairs which repel water and dirt". —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattWilcox ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Could this be mentioned here? Thyalcinus cynocephalus (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
68.114.29.24
21:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see the WP guideline and then please refrain from reverting blindly. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Should a section be made denoting how modern bands have used the wolf as a symbol? Bands such as Sonata Arctica, Wintersun, and Marduk have all used it. Maybe on the modern perceptions article? -- Notmyhandle 07:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the title of this article should be "Gray wolf", with "wolf" in lower case. WP:TITLE#Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles states "Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun". However, as I'm not a native speaker I decided to ask first. -- intgr [talk] 18:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The section in this article on social behavior is highly inaccurate. The terms 'alpha' and 'beta' are no longer recognized by leading wolf researchers. In fact, almost nothing is accurately known about wolf social behavior because it differs so dramatically based on if the wolf is in the wild or in captivity. It is true that the basic hierarchy with the 'alpha' and 'beta' wolves holds true in artificially created or unusually large packs, but naturally occurring wolf packs are smaller units that are simply nuclear families, the 'alphas' being the mother and father and the 'betas' being yearlings, or pups that were born the previous season and have yet to reach full maturity and start their own packs. A good book that explains this with more citations to more specific studies is Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation by L.D. Mech and L. Boitani. ( http://www.amazon.com/Wolves-Behavior-Conservation-David-Mech/dp/0226516962)
Interesting. I'm going to recieve that book as a Birthday present in three weeks. I'll check that bit out. 79.72.192.210 16:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is a link to an abstract that already says enough about the failures in the main text. Unfortunately, the full paper isn't for free, maybe I can get that through the university and add some information. http://rparticle.web-p.cisti.nrc.ca/rparticle/AbstractTemplateServlet?journal=cjz&volume=77&year=&issue=&msno=z99-099&calyLang=fra The german version of wikipedia has the correct information about the social structure known so far. Maybe someone with better english knowledge than mine could translate it and add it to the article. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.166.205.26 ( talk) 11:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Can someone put in the wolf is back in Germany again? (No, i'm not German) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mweites ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Here you go: http://www.nabu.de/m01/m01_03/06673.html http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/ema/species/canis_lupus.htm http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/3746/all Mweites 19:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes region of the United States (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) have once again been added to the Endangered Species Act. Should this necessitate a change from Least Concern of the IUCN status?
I will be updating the Canidae taxonomy and common names to match Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed, 2005) as follows:
I will hold off for a few days for comments. Since I'm posting this in multiple places, please contact me on my talk page if you have any concerns. I'll wait a week to give folks time to comment. -
October 12th-18th is National Wolf Awareness Week. If you want more information check out this link: [ [1]National Wolf Awareness Week]
The article should describe the traditional division of dogs and wolves into different species, and why DNA testing has changed this, and whether the DNA testing (probably just mtDNA) is actually conclusive (compare Red Wolf).
This statement in the Interspecific Hybridization section is not supportable:
"Wolves and coyotes can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, a fact which calls into question their status as two separate species.[100]"
The notion that different species can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring is a popular misconception due to the mule. All sorts of different species like lions and tigers can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Even the camel and llama can interbreed. The primary issue is number of chromosomes, not degree of SNP divergence.
It would be awesome if someone could add a sound byte of the timber wolf howl. -- 24.119.32.80 ( talk) 04:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Uh, its on the infobox below the picture.. Mariomassone ( talk) 09:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You can also find some howls on the wolfscience web page. http://www.wolfscience.at/english/support/donate.html, different ages of timber wolves. -- Slartibertfass ( talk) 00:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Under Dietary habits... "With prey of equal or lesser weight to the wolf, such as lambs or small children..." I had to read this sentence three or four times to be sure I wasn't imagining it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3hgecko ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
I've taken notice of a few times the word evolution is used. I don't mean to be a broken record, but there is absolutely no proof of evolution anywhere. I do not think I am wrong, but if you can show me one single proof of evolution being real then I will take back my complaint. Until then, this is wrong and should be edited. Say soemthing else like adaption or something, not evolution. I do not like being told facts that I'm pretty sure are not real.
There's also no proof of the the earth being 300,000 years old either, so that's another issue. If ya'll believe in evolution then that's fine, but make accurate accounts to go with it or wikipedia's is just a way of forcing another's opinion down one's throat.
Thank-you.
The proof that evolution is real is overwhelming. Also a majority of Catholics (who are Christians) believe in evolution.
In fact, most Catholics are Christians who believe that God designed the universe to evolve.
A majority of Catholics also believe that Genesis is metaphorical and not literal.
It is only in insecure and easily-threatened back-country Christian Churches that the concept of evolution is feared--
(Due actually to a weak faith, ignorance and lack of intellectual confidence.)
Some of these back-country Churches have spread to larger cities, but they retain their backwoods ignorance and superstitious fears of the modern world.
In fact-- There is no conflict between Christianity and believing in evolution. Whatsoever.
69.171.160.182 ( talk) 17:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
So basically, you'd like to add creationist argument that states that wolves were once vegetarians? Mariomassone ( talk) 13:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you implying that there are other peer reviewed explanations to the wolf's origins? Please enlighten me. I am a carnivora fanatic myself, and as far as I've seen, no book on the subject ever talks about wolves being designed or anything other than having evolved. Mariomassone ( talk) 17:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I apologise if I seemed confrontational. However, I think it would be beneficial if you read the article on Italian Wall Lizard. This is a species which has been well documented to evolve rapidly in recent years. Mariomassone ( talk) 22:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was Moved.
—
V = I * R (
talk)
06:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
(dedent) Well, you can of course propose to move it right back then. I will however just note that the first quote was prefixed with "In the absence of consensus:" (not that the recent move had sufficient input to solidly determine it); and also that consensus can change; so it's not entirely automatic. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
This move was incorrect and the article should be moved back. Please see Wikipedia:FA#Biology, with such entries as Giant Otter, Killer Whale, Fin Whale, and all of the birds. This capitalization has long been standard. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Despite the traditional monthly reignition of the argument, the only consensus regarding whether to capitalise mammal articles or not has been that they should not move from the title given by the original or main author. Somebody move it back and then anybody interested can adjourn to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Capitalization, be handed a link to the reams of previous discussion, and spiral around in ever-decreasing circles accompanied by the faint background noise of the articles slowly crumbling. Yomangani talk 15:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
My main problem is that this seems pretty ad-hoc; this convention doesn't seem to be clearly documented anywhere. At best, we're indirectly interpolating/inferring that there's a rule; and even then, there seem to be a few exceptions looking at the FA list. Meanwhile the general MoS guidance is fairly clear. I won't oppose, I'm just saying the "move it back" argument isn't slam-dunk. The naming conventions should be modified to codify this. -- Cybercobra (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I have read some websites speaking about the grey wolf, and I highly am doubting about the conservation status.
First off, it seems impossible, because there aren't alot of wolf populations in Europe or in North America (Only in certain parts of Canada and mainly alaska or montana). In addition, many claim that the wolf should be of great concern because their population continues to drop from excessive hunting.
And what websites would those be? The Least Concern status is given by the
IUCN.
"..there aren't alot of wolf populations in Europe.."
Whoah, you can stop right there. See the article List of grey wolf populations by country.
Portugal has a stable wolf population of 200-300 which is afforded full protection
Spain's wolf population is estimated at 2000 and growing
In Italy, wolves are a protected species, with current estimates indicating that there are 500-800 wolves living in the wild
Wolves migrated from Italy to France as recently as 1992, and the current French wolf population is said to be composed of 40-50 individuals and growing
Currently, there are around 35 wolves in 4 packs now roaming the heaths of the eastern German region of Lusatia, and they are now still expanding their range to the west and north
The number of wolves in Switzerland is uncertain, having been guessed at 1-2 individuals. Wolves are afforded protection
Scandinavia has a population of over 200 wolves
Finland has a stable population of 116-123 wolves
Poland has an increasing population of 700-800 wolves which are afforded legal protection except in the Bieszczady Mountains
Estonia has a quite stable wolf population of around 200
Lithuania has over 600 wolves which are increasing in number. The species is not protected
Latvia has an unprotected, yet stable population of 900 wolves
Belarus is home to an increasing population of 2,000-2,500 wolves
Ukraine has an unprotected, yet stable population of 2,000 wolves
The Czech Republic has a stable and protected population of 20 wolves
Slovakia has a stable population of 350-400 wolves which is protected, though with some exceptions
Slovenia has a population of 70-100 wolves and increasing. As of 1991, they are a protected species
Croatia has a population of 100-150 wolves and increasing
Bosnia and Herzegovina is thought to have a population of 400 wolves, though they are decreasing in number and are afforded no legal protection
The former State Union of Serbia and Montenegro has a stable population of 500 wolves, though it is unknown if they are afforded any protection
Hungary has a stable population of 50 wolves which are protected
Romania has an increasing population of 2,500 wolves which are granted legal protection
Bulgaria has a stable population of 800-1,000 unprotected wolves
Greece has a stable population of 200-300 wolves which are legally protected
The Republic of Macedonia has an increasing, yet unprotected population of 1,000 wolves
Albania has a protected population of 250 wolves which are increasing in number
Turkey has an unknown number of wolves thought to be as high as 1,000
Russia: 25,000-30,000, and are increasing
So basically, if you are pessimistic about the presented numbers and pick the minimum figures, the number still adds up to 41,732 wolves. It has been proven that 300 wolves are needed to maintain a good genepool (remember that wolves have no concept of political boundraries, and regularly cross nations to breed with other populations). The current population (if the minimum figure is accepted) is nearly 140 times greater than that. Mariomassone ( talk) 13:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Even if you remove Russia, the number (16,732) is still ideal. Mariomassone ( talk) 13:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I am a student at High Tech High, and I was wondering why this page was locked. I am doing a project about the Gray Wolf Page. I have some information that I would like to share with this article. I would like to add information about how Canines are related and in most places of America, they are endangered. While in others, they are threatened. This is information I gathered from the U.S Fish & Wildlife Service Environmental Conservation Online System. The website is http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A00D I hope that I will be able to make changes to this page. Please consider the changes I wish to make. I will not copyright this information, I will simply put it into my own words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icekingman ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a brand news article published by the wolfscience center: "Explaining Dog Wolf Differences in Utilizing Human Pointing Gestures: Selection for Synergistic Shifts in the Development of Some Social Skills" see also http://www.wolfscience.at/english/research/blog/05September2009/ -- Slartibertfass ( talk) 17:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Gray Wolf article related question at Talk:Timber Wolf. -- EarthFurst ( talk) 18:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)