![]() | 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 |
I was fortunate enough to have attended a seminar on the Eastern Canadian Wolf while stationed at Queen's University Biological Station, and so I've started (slowly) a page on the Eastern Canadian Wolf. I also added in the page that there is also genetic evidence to support the descent from the Red Wolf based on DNA samples from existing Canadian wolves in Algonquin Park and museum samples of Red Wolves obtained from several southern US states. Hearing it from the horse's mouth makes it hard to have it in writing! Just to let you guys know, and great work so far on this page. -- Waterspyder 21:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Just because an animal was extinct doesn't mean they were not in captivity! They could have been extinct from the wild not from captivity . They must have mated some red wolfs and let them in the wild and they made it happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.9.251 ( talk • contribs)
I'm confused:
Does this mean that there are other red wolves still in the wild who are not members of the three subspecies? RickK 01:52, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I was going to post the same complaint, Rick. Then I re-read it and figured out what the entry was trying to say - with some difficulty, I might add. No, it doesn't mean that, it means that Canis rufus gregoryi is the only surviving subspecies. But it's very badly written - I'll attend to it shortly. (But first, I'll look them up again and do some double-checking.) Tannin 02:00, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Thanks, Tannin. If I'd understood it, I would have changed it myself. :) RickK 02:02, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one ever fixed that. I just did now, 2 years later. Redwolf24 9 July 2005 12:22 (UTC)
Below text was moved here from " Texas red wolf", which I ( Infrogmation) turned into a redirect to this article:
"Texas redwolves are extinct because farmers thought they were eating their cattle so the killed them almost to the pointof extincttion. in 1970 they started to breed them but it did not work."
The article consisted of the intro and a long section on taxonomy with nothing about habits, social structure or even physical appearance. I have added two sections which I think fills it out nicely. Marskell 17:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Re: Adding External Links - I added a link to my site and it was deleted. My website is about wolves and has several pages and sections dedicated to the red wolf. Just trying to figure out why it was removed and what changes I need to make to have it listed here. I realize Wikipedia is not a link exchange or advertising pool, but my site is about wolves and is a valued resource in regards to the red wolf. Iamloup ( talk) 22:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC) iamloup
Is there any data on whether Red Wolf-Grey Wolf/Coyote hybrids are in fact fertile or not? If some info on that could be found, it could shed some more ligh on the problem: If they are fertile, that could mean they're of the same species; if not, they would probably be of the same genus but not the species. -- Arny 21:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The research that I have read indicates that all Red Wolves are in fact hybrids. This research is not final (as far as I know) but Red Wolves are fertile. The fact that they are fertile, however, is not dispositive of the species question. There are many examples of inter-species hybrids that are fertile. Wolves and Jackals reportedly produce fertile offspring as well as dogs and wolves producing fertile offspring. The real question is if they are a hybrid of two species rather than a n independant species themselves, do they warrant protection. Right now our conservation regulatory structure is not set up to protect a hybird no matter how rare. I will find the cite for the research-- Counsel 22:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I added a reference to genetic research on diversity of canis by Roy, but can't get it to link. Someone please help.
The info that's referenced as "more recent" and cited as evidence that the red wolf is a coyote/gray wolf hybrid is over twelve years old. The ability to interbreed with gray wolves and coyotes does not reasonably establish an argument that it's a hybrid between the species. Coyotes and Gray wolves can produce fertile offspring but nobody argues that they are two distinct (but closely related species). Why then is it surprising that red wolves and coyotes and red wolves and gray wolves can produce fertile offspring? I read an article that I have to find where they found fossil evidence that indicates that red wolves have been around in the southeastern USA for thousands of years as a distinct species. Also, the kind of hybridization between gray wolves and coyotes that would be required to produce red wolves is pretty fantastical based on their respective behaviours. -- TaeKwonTimmy 08:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Twelve years old is reasonably recent in light of the wikipedia publishing policy. Also this is not computing. In Biology twelve years is a recent change in theory. The fossil evidence you quote falls back again to morphological evidence, which has not been at the forefront of species categorization for a number of years now.
Yet the cross breeding potential that is mentioned is poor evidence. Many species can cross breed, but that doesn't prove they aren't distinct species or even subspecies. As I said earlier, all wolves and coyotes can interbreed and produce fertile offspring but that doesn't mean wolves and coyotes are the same species. -- TaeKwonTimmy 20:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Just like gulls and waterfowl, members of the genus Canis can interbreed very freely. The only practical criterion for species in this group which retains the interbreeding concept at all is whether the level of interbreeding is low enough to keep the group distinct. By the pure rule that "if the hybrids are fertile, they're all one species", there would be only one Canis species, and waterbird and gamebird taxonomy would be destroyed (where inter-generic hybrids are not particularly rare, and even inter-familial hybrids (yikes!) are possible) . 24.167.74.103 02:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Kep in mind that the definiton of species includes those animals that don't normally breed, but SOME can. The definition includes those that don't breed not only because they can't, or produce infertile offspring, but those that don't because of behavior, different habitats, etc. In the real world, it can get messy. Tigers and lions have fertile offspring, but in wild don't interbreed. Polar bears and brown bears can interbreed, and are fertile, in fact recent work suggests polar bears split and descended from brown bears, so we call them separate species. Zoos often find out by accident which species can interbreed, but that is nor a normal situation. Note on red wolf being just a hybrid, this is highly contentios still, even the wolf experts are still undecided and arguing the points. Just cause a new paper comes out doesn't mean it's accepted and correct.-- Paddling bear 18:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Again these are hardly "new" papers. In some cases the refutations of species status are decades old. Just because it goes against what you'd like to believe doesn't mean it's not accepted. Red wolf status as a seperate species has much more to do with politics than science. Also interbreeding is not the main indicator of the papers cited. The papers cite Genetic evidence. Interbreeding has not been the standard for species for some time. Genetics has taken the place of old, yes i mean OLD, standards of breeding and morphology. Genetically Red Wolves are not a seperate species. Get current and quit talking about all this "new" research that is largely over a decade old. Perhaps we should base all computing articles on twenty and thirty year old science as well. 74.188.22.225 20:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
American Bison and domestic cattle can also interbreed and produce fertile offspring. That does not make them the same species. Red wolves and coyotes can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. In the wild these are almost exclusively male wolf/female coyote crosses since female wolves are not inclinded to breed with coyotes. At the Alligator River Preserve this has been managed by producing buffer zones around the red wolf experimental population area. In the interior area coyotes are captured and permanently removed. In the surrounding buffer zone coyotes are captured and sterilized then returned. As the control area for the red wolf population has expanded the buffer zones have expanded as well.
Genetic studies continue to be ongoing. When both coyote and gray wolf markers were found in the earliest studies the theory proposed was one of hybridization. Subsequent studies have suggested the red wolf genome is older rather than younger than that of the other two species - suggesting the red wolf is the origin of the other two rather than a hybrid. Opinions do vary, and both the discussion and research are ongoing, but the most widely held view is of the red wolf as the originating species. CharmsDad ( talk) 19:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I firmly believe that the redwolf is in fact simply a variation of wolves and coyotes. I think that lesser male wolves are responcible for breeding with female coyotes, leaving out the “submale” coyote. This would create the “redwolf.” Would it be safe to say that female coyotes prefer wolves? So in a sense, male coyotes compete directly with lesser male wolves. However in the “red wolf/coyote” breed, it would probably be a male coyote’s advantage to mate with a female redwolf. (~PassiveBluffing~)
Sounds like your trying to disavow my accuracy or pretending to not to acknowledged my reasoning. Seems a tad nit close-minded and you did not even care to comment of my original inquiry, probably because it has validation and has caused you discomfort. What “scientist” is to say there determination is correct? Science always changes due to new perspective/determinations. But go ahead and steal my thoughts if that’s what you intend to do. ~PassiveBluffing~
Hey, can't we all just get along!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.139.86 ( talk • contribs)
These are hardly "new theories". The genetic comparison of red wolves to grey wolves and coyotes, as well as the debate of the legitimacy of red wolf species classification, goes back for several years. There are multiple papers detailing the lack of mitochondrial genetic differentiation, all peer-reveiwed and published. What does not belong on Wikipedia is political positioning to craft science into a justification of a political action. IE: The Red wolf status on endangered lists. I've twice seen references to legitimate research in this article removed, for no apparent reason than that they disrupted the presentation of the red wolf as a distinct species.
The presentation of the red wolf as a distinct species is not supported scientifically. At best we are unsure, as there is no genetic support for this classification.
I've added about half a dozen references, some from both sides of, and am trying to get them to link into the article itself. Someone please help with this. I've also removed a large amount of very emotionally biased wording, replacing it with references to peer reviewed research.
Since the works cited aren't 40 years old, I don't see your point. And it doesn't seem unlikely at all. Does it seem unlikely that africans and caucasians are genetically the same species? I'd say not. They are not genetically identical any more than a borher and sister are, they are genetically the same species.
The bibliography page on the Red Wolf Recovery Program's web page has a rather extensive list of legitimate peer reviewed scientific publications. It is located at http://www.fws.gov/redwolf/biblio.html. The Red Wolf is not identical to either the Gray Wolf or the Coyote, but it is closely related to both. As to the comment about humans and their relationship, I see that as rather badly expressed and in poor taste. In the first place, people from Africa are not all of the same race, religion, culture or ethnic background. Secondly, humans are far more closely related to each other and have far less genetic variation between them than do most other species. The earliest genetic testing that confirmed the close relationship between Red Wolves and the other two species was published in the mid 90s. The original authors proposed this supported the theory that they were hybrids. Genetic testing has progressed substantially over the last decade and more recently published studies indicate both mitochondrial and nuclear genetic testing suggests the Red Wolf genome appears older than that of either of the other two species. This seems to support the theory that the Red Wolf is the origin of both other species rather than a hybrid of the two. Though generally rare, there are hybrids of both Red Wolves and Gray Wolves with Coyotes in the wild. These tend to be exclusively from a cross involving a male wolf and female coyote. Observations indicate female wolves (both Red and Gray) do not tend to be receptive to coyotes. When the female coyotes are not in heat the male wolves are generally not tolerant of their presence and, along with other pack members, will frequently actively pursue and kill them. CharmsDad ( talk) 06:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it "Red Wolf" or "red wolf"? This article uses the former, but (for instance) the Red Wolf Coalition seems to prefer the latter. Most Wikipedia articles seem to use the latter as well. If no one objects, I'm going to change this; I can't think of a good reason why "Red Wolf" should be capitalized but other animals' names shouldn't. Switchercat talk contribs 17:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I object to this. I see no reason to change the name to lower case, and I have no idea where you got this idea. I have yet to see any animals in Wikipedia which have lower case names, and if there are, I think you should use your editing capabilities and capitalize them. Vortex 22:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
See WP:BIRD for the rationale to using uppercase for species' common names. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I believe we should look at the other wolf sub-species on Wiki. They capitalize their names as well. The Red Wolf should be no different. I'm starting to think it would be more correct to be in lower case though, as most books and sites seem to keep their names lower case, or at least the animal in particular, such as Red wolf, or Marine otter. Wikipedia seems to have many capitalization problems. XD Hmmm... Quite a dilemma. Vortex 00:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The developing convention is caps for mammals, fish and invertebrates are often in lower case.-- Peta 00:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the assesment that the name "Red Wolf" should be de-capitalized (is that a real word??) But then again, I am not an authority on the matter so I guess my opinion doesn't count. Solon89 18:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I read an article recently (sorry can't cite) that there really is no such thing as a red wolf species -- genetic testing has determined that the entire group of animals was founded by Gray Wolf male/Coyote female hybridization.
This was a popular news article though -- could have been confused.
74.188.22.225 20:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC) read the citations listed at the end of the article. They are all scientific papers.
There seem to be 2 Red Wolf photos associated with this article: the current slightly fuzzy one, in the taxobox, of a running wolf, and the one I added fairly recently, of a captive specimen which shows better detail. Someone replaced the running wolf with the captive wolf in the taxobox, bringing us back down to a single photo. Now the taxobox photo has been exchanged for that of the running wolf, and we still only have one picture. Please, if there is an argument about which one is better for the taxobox, just switch them around. It's nice to have two distinctly different pictures. Tim Ross· talk 15:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I was fortunate enough to have attended a seminar on the Eastern Canadian Wolf while stationed at Queen's University Biological Station, and so I've started (slowly) a page on the Eastern Canadian Wolf. I also added in the page that there is also genetic evidence to support the descent from the Red Wolf based on DNA samples from existing Canadian wolves in Algonquin Park and museum samples of Red Wolves obtained from several southern US states. Hearing it from the horse's mouth makes it hard to have it in writing! Just to let you guys know, and great work so far on this page. -- Waterspyder 21:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
WHUT?
Just because an animal was extinct doesn't mean they were not in captivity! They could have been extinct from the wild not from captivity . They must have mated some red wolfs and let them in the wild and they made it happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.9.251 ( talk • contribs)
I'm confused:
Does this mean that there are other red wolves still in the wild who are not members of the three subspecies? RickK 01:52, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I was going to post the same complaint, Rick. Then I re-read it and figured out what the entry was trying to say - with some difficulty, I might add. No, it doesn't mean that, it means that Canis rufus gregoryi is the only surviving subspecies. But it's very badly written - I'll attend to it shortly. (But first, I'll look them up again and do some double-checking.) Tannin 02:00, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Thanks, Tannin. If I'd understood it, I would have changed it myself. :) RickK 02:02, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one ever fixed that. I just did now, 2 years later. Redwolf24 9 July 2005 12:22 (UTC)
Below text was moved here from " Texas red wolf", which I ( Infrogmation) turned into a redirect to this article:
"Texas redwolves are extinct because farmers thought they were eating their cattle so the killed them almost to the pointof extincttion. in 1970 they started to breed them but it did not work."
By: Desirae
Italic text'''
Is it "Red Wolf" or "red wolf"? This article uses the former, but (for instance) the Red Wolf Coalition seems to prefer the latter. Most Wikipedia articles seem to use the latter as well. If no one objects, I'm going to change this; I can't think of a good reason why "Red Wolf" should be capitalized but other animals' names shouldn't. Switchercat talk contribs 17:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I object to this. I see no reason to change the name to lower case, and I have no idea where you got this idea. I have yet to see any animals in Wikipedia which have lower case names, and if there are, I think you should use your editing capabilities and capitalize them. Vortex 22:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
See WP:BIRD for the rationale to using uppercase for species' common names. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I believe we should look at the other wolf sub-species on Wiki. They capitalize their names as well. The Red Wolf should be no different. I'm starting to think it would be more correct to be in lower case though, as most books and sites seem to keep their names lower case, or at least the animal in particular, such as Red wolf, or Marine otter. Wikipedia seems to have many capitalization problems. XD Hmmm... Quite a dilemma. Vortex 00:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The developing convention is caps for mammals, fish and invertebrates are often in lower case.-- Peta 00:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the assesment that the name "Red Wolf" should be de-capitalized (is that a real word??) But then again, I am not an authority on the matter so I guess my opinion doesn't count. Solon89 18:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
There seem to be 2 Red Wolf photos associated with this article: the current slightly fuzzy one, in the taxobox, of a running wolf, and the one I added fairly recently, of a captive specimen which shows better detail. Someone replaced the running wolf with the captive wolf in the taxobox, bringing us back down to a single photo. Now the taxobox photo has been exchanged for that of the running wolf, and we still only have one picture. Please, if there is an argument about which one is better for the taxobox, just switch them around. It's nice to have two distinctly different pictures. Tim Ross· talk 15:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I read an article recently (sorry can't cite) that there really is no such thing as a red wolf species -- genetic testing has determined that the entire group of animals was founded by Gray Wolf male/Coyote female hybridization.
This was a popular news article though -- could have been confused.
74.188.22.225 20:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC) read the citations listed at the end of the article. They are all scientific papers.
The article consisted of the intro and a long section on taxonomy with nothing about habits, social structure or even physical appearance. I have added two sections which I think fills it out nicely. Marskell 17:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Re: Adding External Links - I added a link to my site and it was deleted. My website is about wolves and has several pages and sections dedicated to the red wolf. Just trying to figure out why it was removed and what changes I need to make to have it listed here. I realize Wikipedia is not a link exchange or advertising pool, but my site is about wolves and is a valued resource in regards to the red wolf. Iamloup ( talk) 22:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC) iamloup
With regard to this:
"... which once roamed throughout the Southeastern United States and is a glacial period survivor of the Late Pleistocene epoch"
MSW3, as I read it, seems to state that this is not the current explanation for this wolf with noticeably coyotesque genetic material and morphology. The new consensus seems to me to be that these facts are best explained by understanding the Red Wolf to be a coywolf, albeit one that tends to breed like a subspecies. They don't seem sure when this happened, but imply it could be a result of changes caused by humans in North America, and as such would or could be much younger than that epoch (which is when C. latrans and C. lupis diverged explaining why that epoch was assumed to have been when the divergence happened.
There are also several other places in the article where the older take on the nature and origin of the Red Wolf needs updating in this respect. Chrisrus ( talk) 20:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd need more time to read up, because the fossil and genetic don't agree and fossil references I've seen are old. I can't combine the book I have that suggests red wolves evolved from a wolf-coyote while an earlier wolf-type, which suggests a common ancestor to wolves being a few million years ago (I'd have to check that) verse the genetics that suggest much closer relation. I couldn't tell if that meant the fossils weren't understood correctly or whether the post-European settlements just allowed these two similar animals to hybridize again, swamping the red wolf with grey wolf and coyote genes. Or am I totally misunderstanding this debate?-- Paddling bear ( talk) 18:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Facts:
But because the average substitution rate of mitochondrial DNA in mammals is much greater than that of nuclear genes6, mtDNA analysis is a more useful way of distinguishing closely related species. We have now analysed mtDNA restriction-enzyme sites and cytochrome b gene sequence variation in captive red wolves and in 77 canids sampled during the capture period. We also used the polymerase chain reaction to amplify and then sequenced mtDNA from red wolf skins collected before substantial hybridization of red wolves with coyotes is thought to have occurred. Phylogenetic analysis indicates that red wolves have either a grey wolf or coyote mtDNA genotype, demonstrating hybridization among these species. Thus, the red wolf is entirely a hybrid form or a distinct taxon that hybridized with coyotes and grey wolves over much of its previous geographical range.
[ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v351/n6327/abs/351565a0.html%7C "Mitochondrial DNA analysis implying extensive hybridization of the endangered red wolf Canis rufus" R. K. Wayne Department of Biology, UCLA & S. M. Jenks Department of Physiology, U of C San Francisco, San Francisco, California 94143, USA Present address: Department of Psychology, UC Berkeley]
Chrisrus ( talk) 02:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2386371 Chrisrus ( talk) 01:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I firmly believe that the redwolf is in fact simply a variation of wolves and coyotes. I think that lesser male wolves are responcible for breeding with female coyotes, leaving out the “submale” coyote. This would create the “redwolf.” Would it be safe to say that female coyotes prefer wolves? So in a sense, male coyotes compete directly with lesser male wolves. However in the “red wolf/coyote” breed, it would probably be a male coyote’s advantage to mate with a female redwolf. (~PassiveBluffing~)
Sounds like your trying to disavow my accuracy or pretending to not to acknowledged my reasoning. Seems a tad nit close-minded and you did not even care to comment of my original inquiry, probably because it has validation and has caused you discomfort. What “scientist” is to say there determination is correct? Science always changes due to new perspective/determinations. But go ahead and steal my thoughts if that’s what you intend to do. ~PassiveBluffing~
Hey, can't we all just get along!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.139.86 ( talk • contribs)
These are hardly "new theories". The genetic comparison of red wolves to grey wolves and coyotes, as well as the debate of the legitimacy of red wolf species classification, goes back for several years. There are multiple papers detailing the lack of mitochondrial genetic differentiation, all peer-reveiwed and published. What does not belong on Wikipedia is political positioning to craft science into a justification of a political action. IE: The Red wolf status on endangered lists. I've twice seen references to legitimate research in this article removed, for no apparent reason than that they disrupted the presentation of the red wolf as a distinct species.
The presentation of the red wolf as a distinct species is not supported scientifically. At best we are unsure, as there is no genetic support for this classification.
I've added about half a dozen references, some from both sides of, and am trying to get them to link into the article itself. Someone please help with this. I've also removed a large amount of very emotionally biased wording, replacing it with references to peer reviewed research.
Since the works cited aren't 40 years old, I don't see your point. And it doesn't seem unlikely at all. Does it seem unlikely that africans and caucasians are genetically the same species? I'd say not. They are not genetically identical any more than a borher and sister are, they are genetically the same species.
The bibliography page on the Red Wolf Recovery Program's web page has a rather extensive list of legitimate peer reviewed scientific publications. It is located at http://www.fws.gov/redwolf/biblio.html. The Red Wolf is not identical to either the Gray Wolf or the Coyote, but it is closely related to both. As to the comment about humans and their relationship, I see that as rather badly expressed and in poor taste. In the first place, people from Africa are not all of the same race, religion, culture or ethnic background. Secondly, humans are far more closely related to each other and have far less genetic variation between them than do most other species. The earliest genetic testing that confirmed the close relationship between Red Wolves and the other two species was published in the mid 90s. The original authors proposed this supported the theory that they were hybrids. Genetic testing has progressed substantially over the last decade and more recently published studies indicate both mitochondrial and nuclear genetic testing suggests the Red Wolf genome appears older than that of either of the other two species. This seems to support the theory that the Red Wolf is the origin of both other species rather than a hybrid of the two. Though generally rare, there are hybrids of both Red Wolves and Gray Wolves with Coyotes in the wild. These tend to be exclusively from a cross involving a male wolf and female coyote. Observations indicate female wolves (both Red and Gray) do not tend to be receptive to coyotes. When the female coyotes are not in heat the male wolves are generally not tolerant of their presence and, along with other pack members, will frequently actively pursue and kill them. CharmsDad ( talk) 06:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
According to Smoky Mountains National Park "The red wolves are not pack-oriented like the gray wolf. Red wolves give birth to five to seven pups in April, but a few usually die. Parents raise the family together. As the pups mature, the family may remain together and appear to make a small pack."
Is this accurate? The Wiki page doesn't really say but it gives the impression that the young don't typically stay with their parents to form a "pack". You can find my source here. It is the second-to-last section.
Gatorgirl7563 ( talk) 22:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
See here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#The_Case_of_the_Red_Wolf Chrisrus ( talk) 18:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to add a 'synonym' section to the taxonomy box like the black bear has for Eurctos, but it's not working. I tried to paste this "| synonyms = Canis rufus" which was cut from the bear page. Can anyone fix it? Also, it'd be nice to add where the 3 subspp. were from, I'll see if I can find it. Would the trinomial authority still be the same as the old binomial we've got listed? Shouldn't it be the updated person who suggested we lump them? -- Paddling bear ( talk) 01:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I see now why my attempt didn't work! After more thought, I think the species authority does just translate to the new level, now as the subspp. for the red wolf. What happens to the 3 subspecies of red wolf though? Perhaps if we had more of teach of the 3, we'd be able to resolve this taxonomy debate more clearly. However, taxonomists back then were splitters, there were something like 28 subspp. of 'grizzly' bear in the US at one point, some of the type specimens were from the same area but one was older and male and the other younger and female, so later people decided they were not valid. The old literature isn't always correct (I wonder about the NY trapper records, how do we know where they trapped them? Another reference said PA was the northern limit). Lots of curiosities with this animal. Paddling bear ( talk) 04:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
At the beginning of this article the classification for the red wolf is listed as Canis lupus rufus (gray wolf subspecies). In the rest of the article where I noticed the classification seems to be listed as the more commonly accepted Canis rufus (separate species). While there continues to be some controversy around these animals, the most widely held opinion still seems to be to consider them as a unique and separate species. As such, shouldn't the correct listing for the classification be Canis rufus? CharmsDad ( talk) 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
MSW3 comments: "Provisionally includes rufus, (recognized by Paradiso, 1968; Paradiso and Nowak, 1972; Atkins and Dillion, 1971; Paradiso and Nowak, 1972; Nowak, 1979, 1992, 2002) although this problematic group (rufus, floridanus, gregoryi) should probably be best listed as incertae sedis. The widely used name C. niger is invalid (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1957a). The validity of rufus as a full species was questioned by Clutton-Brock et al. (1976), and Lawrence and Bossert (1967, 1975), due to the existence of natural hybrids with lupus and latrans. Natural hybridization may be a consequence of habitat disruption by man (Paradiso and Nowak, 1972, 2002). All specimens examined by Wayne and Jenks (1991) had either a lupus or latrans mtDNA genotype and there appears to be a growing consensus that all historical specimens are a product of hybridization (Nowak, 2002; Reich et al., 1999; Roy et al., 1994, 1996; Wayne et al., 1992, 1998). Hybridization between wolf and coyote has long been recognized (Nowak, 2002). Two recent studies make the strongest case for separation. Wilson et al. (2000) argued for separation of the Eastern Canadian Wolf (as Canis lycaon) and the Red Wolf (as Canis rufus) as separate species based on mtDNA, but see Nowak (2002) who could not find support for this in a morphometric study. Nowak (2002) in an extensive analysis of tooth morphology concluded that there was a distinct population intermediate between traditionally recognized wolves and coyotes, which warranted full species recognition (C. rufus). The red wolf is here considered a hybrid after Wayne and Jenks (1991), Wayne (1992, 1995), and Wayne et al. (1992). Although hybrids are not normally recognized as subspecies, I have chosen as a compromise to retain rufus because of its uncertain status. Also see Roy et al. (1994, 1996), Vilá et al. (1999), and Nowak (2002) who provided an excellent review of the situation." -- Paddling bear ( talk) 01:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Uther, I'll admit that I don't understand your example. Your example of a synonym shows one distinct taxon being moved to a subpopulation of another, how is that different from C. rufus being a distinct taxon but being moved to a sub of C. lupus? Either way, I'm not arguing over it. The quotation from MSW3 had nothing to do with this 'arguement' that I didn't know was happening. I noticed most of the edits were years old, and one mentioned that more details were needed to clear up the debate over C. rufus vs. C. l. rufus. I thought posting it here would help people add parts as they could.because I know I don't have time to really work this over. I do think that genetics is causing a lot of debate and rethinking over taxonomy when the genetics don't fit the older morphometrics or other methods used to classify animals. Policy doesn't change fast either. Genetics can tell us things are MORE related than others, but there is not code that says 'species'. Paleontology finds evidence that red wolves were here before grey wolves crossed from Asia, so we need a theory that matches all evidence. Perhaps what the fossil evidence shows isn't clearly understood. I've seen a paper that estimates how long ago American black bears split from Asiatic black bears, which fits the fossils and the known opening of the Bering Strait pretty well. I don't know the wolf literature that well, but from reading the links, it's not that clear cut. We don't have many (or any) samples of pure red wolves, even the 14 they used to start the captive breeding project might have been hybrids of some level. I want this page to be clear about the debate so that it doesn't have to be edited every time a new paper comes out with a new viewpoint. Nature is a continuum while humans are trying to put distinct labels on things. All species originally start out as a population only slightly different than the parent group, something interupts the frequency of interbreeding and time builds up diverging genes until even if they could breed (like lions and tigres) they don't, in the wild. I agree with what Uther writes below, MSW3 is showing that the evidence is equivacal, and more data and analysis will be needed to clear it up. mt-DNA only shows the direct mother's line and y-chromosomes only show the direct father's line, we don't know what happend to the father's mother or the mother's father, etc. Are the wolf genes not from their common ancestor? I don't understand what humans have to do with the hybridization of wolves and coyotes. From the fossil evidence, I assumed the suspected hybridization of eastern wolves and coyotes happend a LONG time ago (fossils suggest coyotes were in the E. North America 10,000 years ago, but not in historic times). I could be wrong on the time that the geneticists were hypothesizing since I didn't read all the scientific literatuer, just some of the links. I surely didn't mean to start any arguement. I just know that there is a lot of room for debate on what the genetics mean, especially when the data is corrupted (as our source for red wolves are), that is why so many publications still debate it. If it was clear, it'd be over and we'd just site the final publication. I agree with Uther's problem with pigeonholing exactly. I don't think we are that far off. Paddling bear ( talk) 04:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know a citation for the 3 subspecies? I've left it as it was, reather than adding it with the taxonomy, because the debate doesnt' seem to be at that level. Since 2 are extinct, I don't know if the 3 will be lumped under C. lupus rufus or if they'll all be equal subspp. of C. lupus. Does any of the pubs you guys have read even touch on that?-- Paddling bear ( talk) 05:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I mean it is not 50-50 wolf/coyo. It's 80% coyo. It IS a coyote for all effective purposes. you can't even tell the animals apart. HAve to kill them and dissect the brains and make some judgement off of that initial study on differences there.
If anything, it should be called a gray coyote, not a red wolf. Or just a coyote. ;-)
The whole breeding program with efforts to prevent coyote interbreeding seems kind of odd too when you realize the animals are indistinguishable in appearance from the outside.
64.134.168.97 ( talk) 16:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I removed a chunk of text that was so out of policy as to be worthless. It attempted to rebutt the cited study published in May 2011 about the genetic relationships of red wolves to coyotes and gray wolves. It had not one cite and read as a though it were one editor's opinion on the study, a clear and utterly unacceptable violation of WP:NOR. I commented it out, and tagged all the problems in it (i.e., every sentence). If it's salvageable, it needs citations aplenty and to actually summarize those citations, not to introduce original thought. oknazevad ( talk) 16:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
According to California Wolf Center, the red wolf is in a class by itself. Not a subspecies for the gray wolf. I think more research needs to be done before stating as fact. http://www.californiawolfcenter.org/learn/wolf-facts/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.25.62 ( talk) 17:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there any data on whether Red Wolf-Grey Wolf/Coyote hybrids are in fact fertile or not? If some info on that could be found, it could shed some more ligh on the problem: If they are fertile, that could mean they're of the same species; if not, they would probably be of the same genus but not the species. -- Arny 21:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The research that I have read indicates that all Red Wolves are in fact hybrids. This research is not final (as far as I know) but Red Wolves are fertile. The fact that they are fertile, however, is not dispositive of the species question. There are many examples of inter-species hybrids that are fertile. Wolves and Jackals reportedly produce fertile offspring as well as dogs and wolves producing fertile offspring. The real question is if they are a hybrid of two species rather than a n independant species themselves, do they warrant protection. Right now our conservation regulatory structure is not set up to protect a hybird no matter how rare. I will find the cite for the research-- Counsel 22:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I added a reference to genetic research on diversity of canis by Roy, but can't get it to link. Someone please help.
The info that's referenced as "more recent" and cited as evidence that the red wolf is a coyote/gray wolf hybrid is over twelve years old. The ability to interbreed with gray wolves and coyotes does not reasonably establish an argument that it's a hybrid between the species. Coyotes and Gray wolves can produce fertile offspring but nobody argues that they are two distinct (but closely related species). Why then is it surprising that red wolves and coyotes and red wolves and gray wolves can produce fertile offspring? I read an article that I have to find where they found fossil evidence that indicates that red wolves have been around in the southeastern USA for thousands of years as a distinct species. Also, the kind of hybridization between gray wolves and coyotes that would be required to produce red wolves is pretty fantastical based on their respective behaviours. -- TaeKwonTimmy 08:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Twelve years old is reasonably recent in light of the wikipedia publishing policy. Also this is not computing. In Biology twelve years is a recent change in theory. The fossil evidence you quote falls back again to morphological evidence, which has not been at the forefront of species categorization for a number of years now.
Yet the cross breeding potential that is mentioned is poor evidence. Many species can cross breed, but that doesn't prove they aren't distinct species or even subspecies. As I said earlier, all wolves and coyotes can interbreed and produce fertile offspring but that doesn't mean wolves and coyotes are the same species. -- TaeKwonTimmy 20:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Just like gulls and waterfowl, members of the genus Canis can interbreed very freely. The only practical criterion for species in this group which retains the interbreeding concept at all is whether the level of interbreeding is low enough to keep the group distinct. By the pure rule that "if the hybrids are fertile, they're all one species", there would be only one Canis species, and waterbird and gamebird taxonomy would be destroyed (where inter-generic hybrids are not particularly rare, and even inter-familial hybrids (yikes!) are possible) . 24.167.74.103 02:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Kep in mind that the definiton of species includes those animals that don't normally breed, but SOME can. The definition includes those that don't breed not only because they can't, or produce infertile offspring, but those that don't because of behavior, different habitats, etc. In the real world, it can get messy. Tigers and lions have fertile offspring, but in wild don't interbreed. Polar bears and brown bears can interbreed, and are fertile, in fact recent work suggests polar bears split and descended from brown bears, so we call them separate species. Zoos often find out by accident which species can interbreed, but that is nor a normal situation. Note on red wolf being just a hybrid, this is highly contentios still, even the wolf experts are still undecided and arguing the points. Just cause a new paper comes out doesn't mean it's accepted and correct.-- Paddling bear 18:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Again these are hardly "new" papers. In some cases the refutations of species status are decades old. Just because it goes against what you'd like to believe doesn't mean it's not accepted. Red wolf status as a seperate species has much more to do with politics than science. Also interbreeding is not the main indicator of the papers cited. The papers cite Genetic evidence. Interbreeding has not been the standard for species for some time. Genetics has taken the place of old, yes i mean OLD, standards of breeding and morphology. Genetically Red Wolves are not a seperate species. Get current and quit talking about all this "new" research that is largely over a decade old. Perhaps we should base all computing articles on twenty and thirty year old science as well. 74.188.22.225 20:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
American Bison and domestic cattle can also interbreed and produce fertile offspring. That does not make them the same species. Red wolves and coyotes can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. In the wild these are almost exclusively male wolf/female coyote crosses since female wolves are not inclinded to breed with coyotes. At the Alligator River Preserve this has been managed by producing buffer zones around the red wolf experimental population area. In the interior area coyotes are captured and permanently removed. In the surrounding buffer zone coyotes are captured and sterilized then returned. As the control area for the red wolf population has expanded the buffer zones have expanded as well.
Genetic studies continue to be ongoing. When both coyote and gray wolf markers were found in the earliest studies the theory proposed was one of hybridization. Subsequent studies have suggested the red wolf genome is older rather than younger than that of the other two species - suggesting the red wolf is the origin of the other two rather than a hybrid. Opinions do vary, and both the discussion and research are ongoing, but the most widely held view is of the red wolf as the originating species. CharmsDad ( talk) 19:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
CharmsDad is correct - the definition of species is now rather holistic, I'd say mostly genetic but with serious consideration to behavior, morphology, etc. This is extensively reviewed in Chambers et al - one of three recent USFWS authors with an extensive review in North American Fauna late 2012. Based on their comprehensive and lengthy review of the genetic studies, two adding mitochondrial DNA and Y-chronomose haplotype DNA to the Von Holdt 2011 48,000 SNP study, and behavioral and morphological studies, the updated consensus is that the red wolf is an independent species. I just spoke with Don Smith at the Smithsonian and his next edition of Mammals of North America won't be out until 2016 but he agrees the red wolf is an independent species with likely origin from a North American ancestor to both coyotes and red wolves. This may explain why gray wolves, which originated in Eurasia, don't breed with coyotes, but red wolves with a North American origin, do breed with coyotes. The latter occurs now because the red wolf was so decimated and its social/pack structure so weakened that the desperate remainder started interbreeding with coyotes. Whether the eastern wolf is Canis rufus or Canis lycaon leans towards the latter now (again see Chambers et al) but I think we need to wait a bit longer before we change it from Canis lupus lycaon to Canis lycaon. Meanwhile I have updated the red wolf page to Canis rufus, and the Texas red wolf page to Canis rufus rufus, although Chambers does not think there is enough evidence for the three red wolf subspecies. If you want a PDF of Chambers I have embedded the links in the refs, or go to my talk page and ask me to email you a copy. Schmiebel ( talk) 18:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I will have to disagree with many of the edits that have been popping up with the statements that grey wolves and coyotes have never hybridized. There have been cases of hybridizations in the southern states between coyotes and Mexican Grey wolves.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003333
Also, in one "chupacabra" case, analysis conducted by the UC Davis team confirmed that the male animal was a coywolf sired by a Mexican wolf and born out of a female coyote.
While not related to the Red wolves in the north, I do want to note that it's POSSIBLE that some of those apparently "distinct" regions in the Red wolves and Eastern wolves are likely wolf/coyote mix regions caused by hundred of years of interbreeding between the grey wolf/Pre-Columbian eastern coyote hybrid populations. Because the population of Eastern wolves and red wolves have been separated from the pure animals for many years, their genetic materials may have evolved into a form that makes them appear more distinct from both the pure coyotes and other subspecies of the grey wolves. I also disagree with the statements that grey wolves did not arrive in the eastern provinces and states until more recently. The Newfoundland and Labrador subspecies have been living in the Atlantic Canada for centuries. In fact, it's possible the Labrador wolf subspecies may represent what's left of the original population of eastern grey wolves before the others hybridized with the coyotes and formed the eastern wolves and red wolves. Nosferatuslayer ( talk) 16:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
MSW3, the citation we use for the taxon, http://www.vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/taxon_browser.cfm?msw_id=11374 says it's Canis lupus rufus, not Canis rufus rufus, noting that Canis lupus "...provisionally includes rufus, (recognized by Paradiso, 1968; Paradiso and Nowak, 1972; Atkins and Dillion, 1971; Paradiso and Nowak, 1972; Nowak, 1979, 1992, 2002) although this problematic group (rufus, floridanus, gregoryi) should probably be best listed as incertae sedis."
Despite this, it was recently change to Canis rufus rufus.
Question: Should we change it back? Chrisrus ( talk) 04:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Something about this doesn't feel right.
First, this article said they were a distinct Canis species like any other.
Then, it said that all extant individuals had been tested and they were all coywolves; part lupus and part latrans, and so therefore a problem for taxonomy but we understood the situation well as they'd all been tested and the conclusions were in, a hybrid species that bred true like the eastern coyote, which breeds true, or the whole "Canis soupus", if you pardon the term of art borrowed from experts, for the fuzzy areas along the continuum between the Eastern Coyote fading northwest into the pureblood Eastern Wolfves and southwest into real coyotes, which is supposed to be dynamic, in flux, and confusing.
Now, I am happy to hear from you the advance inside information that you have personally heard that the experts in charge of the next edition of MSW plan to call the referent of this article Canis rufus rufus and to have all other subspecies into just that one, no mention of latrans nor lupus nor lycaon nor gregoyi nor floridianus. I'm glad they've got it all sorted now for here on out everyone's going to agree that's the perfect name for this odd type of creature in a system designed before Darwin, even with no provision for hybrid species that breed true.
But let's wait until it's published to change the taxobox and primary lead subject complement and the rest of the articles on Wikipedia, an extensive system which is still MSW3. I want to know how they are going to include the word latrans in the trinomial for the red wolf, for example. Because I don't see how they can. I want to see what they put in the comments next time, about what we might be advised about, if there are any further provisos they want to issue, and which taxa are best incertae sedis and why, and everything else in the next edition. At least as far as the taxobox goes, and our system all through Wikipedia, which will have widespread ramifications for many articles. Say all you want in the body, in the taxonomy section. But let's go with what MSW3 says until the next one is actually published at least in the taxobox and all the other articles. Chrisrus ( talk) 03:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Very well. Let's close this thread and turn our attention to the significance in this change in taxonomy on all the articles that link here. Done.
Chrisrus (
talk)
22:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
What is the significance of this change in taxonomy on articles that link here, such as Subspecies of Canis lupus, Canis, Coywolf, Texas red wolf, and so on? Chrisrus ( talk) 22:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Although Chambers et al N. Amer. Fauna 2012, in their extensive holistic review of the latest genetic, behavioral and morphometric studies, opines that the eastern wolf is an independent species (at least the Algonquin Provincial Park wolves are not hybrids) and recommended the taxonomic change to Canis lycaon. However they also raise the possibility that the eastern wolf species is synonymous with the red wolf Canis rufus. I communicated with Don Wilson at the Smithsonian about this also and the argument for what the correct species is for the eastern wolf (perhaps today better described as the eastern Canadian wolf) is controversial, although it is not a gray wolf-coyote hybrid in Algonquin PP. Great Lakes wolves appear to be hybrids between gray wolves and eastern wolves/eastern wolf-coyote hybrids and only when you get to Algonquin Park does the pure eastern wolf strain seem to persist. East/southeast of the Great Lakes are eastern wolf-coyote hybrids aplenty so all this is quite complicated. The status of science for red wolves seems more advanced and settled, with established genetic tests developed to screen red wolf scat to test for hybridization with coyotes. Although the eastern wolf story literature is evolving rapidly, it is not clear that it is an independent species or that Canis rufus is represented by the eastern Canada wolf at the north part of its range and the red wolf of the U.S. southeast in the southern part of its range. Therefore, I do not yet favor changing the Canis lupus lycaon designation to Canis lycaon for the eastern wolf, until more publications emerge and a clear consensus forms, as it has finally for the red wolf. Just one person's opinion though. Schmiebel ( talk) 21:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately this debate on the species status of the Eastern wolves is still ongoing. Contrary to popular belief, it has not ended yet. The reason for this is due to the fact that some of the outdated researches made suggestions that the Grey wolves did not arrive in the east until a few hundreds of years ago and that the coyotes only arrived here more recently when they in fact had migrated into Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, and other parts of the Atlantic regions of Canada long. Some of the wolves may have been here much longer before the first wave of Pre-Columbian Eastern coyotes arrived. The Labrador wolf may be the LAST pure Grey wolf subspecies left in the Atlantic region since all of the Eastern wolves in Canada are known to have varying degrees of coyote genes in them but the ones around the Great Lake and the Atlantic regions are predominately Grey wolves due to backcrossing with either the Great Plains wolves or the Labrador wolves respectively. The Algonquin Park population which is said to be the most genetically distinct population of Eastern wolves had been separated from all of the other Grey wolves and coyote subspecies for hundreds of years but the 2011 research conducted by Roland Kays of the New York Museum suggests that around 600-900 years ago the Eastern wolves may have been pure Grey wolves before they hybridized with the Pre-Columbian eastern coyotes. Overtime, these Coywolf hybrids migrated all over the east and backcrossed with other Grey wolves or other Pre-Columbian coyotes but the Algonquin Park population in Ontario was very much separated from all of the other populations and over generations of interbreeding within their population became more genetically distinct much like how the Island wolves in Vancouver and the Mexican Grey wolves are more genetically distinct from the Rocky mountain wolves even though these wolves are still Grey wolves.
The red wolves in the southeast have a much different origin which is why they are not considered to be the same as the Eastern wolves. There were three populations of Coywolves that gave rise to the red wolves. The Texas population which was later on captured and reintroduced into North Carolina MAY had been hybrids between the now extinct Texas Grey wolves and the southern coyotes. Some of these coyotes in Texas today are still known to have grey wolf haplotypes in them which may have been passed on to them by either the Texas Grey wolves or the Mexican wolves. The other Coywolf population that later on went extinct in the wild was the Mississippi Valley population with may have originated in the aftermath of Grey wolf exterminations back when much of the surrounding areas was being converted into human residents and industrial lands. The remnant Grey wolves would have been forced to cross with the coyotes migrating in from the west and most of the Coywolves backcrossed with other pure coyotes. Some of these Coywolves were later on extracted from the wild and mixed with the captive Texas red wolves. A third Coywolf population was the Florida Black wolves who may have originated from hybrids between the extinct Florida Grey wolves and coyotes from the second wave that migrated into the east. But sadly this population became extinct before it could be properly studied.
Overall, while the Red wolves and Eastern wolves are both known to have mix grey wolf and coyote markers making them both technically Coywolves, they are NOT the same "species" and have different theoretical origins. Nosferatuslayer ( talk) 20:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
That's wrong, it's concidered Canis lupus rufus, a subspecies of Gray Wolf with a certain percentage of latrans DNA. Please fix taxobox and text. Chrisrus ( talk) 19:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I have made some recent editing to include all three possibilities. Because of the fact that the debate between researchers over the classification and species status for the red wolf is still ongoing and probably won't be ending anytime soon, I decided that to satisfy all three sides, I've changed the description on the top from simply Canis rufus to the three possibilites tha the red wolf MAY be a distinct Canis rufus species, a subspecies of the Grey wolf being Canis lupus rufus, or a hybrid between the Grey wolves and the coyotes as many have suggested for a long time. More research needs to be done at present. Nosferatuslayer ( talk) 21:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
In "fossil and historic record", it says that bounties to Indians in New York proves that the red wolf lived that far north. However, I did some research on the sources that say that, and it doesnt say that red wolves lived there-it only says wolves. So should I edit out the part of the article that says that red wolves lived in new york? Here are some quotes to back up the fact that the records in the 1700s say nothing about red wolves living in NY, they only mention wolves, which could have very well been gray wolves.
http://eaglesbyte.blogspot.com/2012/01/eastern-new-york-state-timeline-1715.html
1720
State Apr 19
The approximate date pioneer Jacobus Stoughtenburgh arrives in the future Dutchess County, settles what will become Hyde Park. Area settlers begin paying Wappinger and other Indians bounties on wolves.
William Bartram said that Pennsylvania had gray wolves, not the smaller and lighter wolves of the southeast. So why does "range and habitat" say that red wolves lived in Central Pennsylvania? Which reliable sources prove that, and how do those source coincide with what William bartram, a historic source, says? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxedo Cat777 ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Tuxedo Cat777 ( talk) 13:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
1. Make new genetic findings more explicit (if it's been determined to be a hybrid, just say it, and give it more space on the taxonomy section).
2. Address fossil finds (don't they contradict recent origin?)
3. Every comparison made with a coyote or wolf should include the adjective "pure".
4. Address the impact of recent study on conservation efforts. I've already made my stance on the wording; I'd go ahead and just call it a variety of coywolf, but for now I'll let it digest a bit.
Mariomassone (
talk)
16:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
http://www.wolfsongalaska.org/red_wolf.html
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/7/e1501714
Turns out it's a hybrid after all. Mariomassone ( talk) 17:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
How about...
"The red wolf (Canis rufus[4]/Canis lupus rufus[5]), also known as the Florida wolf or Mississippi Valley wolf[6], is a hybrid coywolf species native to the eastern United States."
...where " coywolf hybrid species" would link to a section of the article coywolf separate from coywolves that are "one-offs" or something other than a naturally selected hybrid species that breeds true.
---? Chrisrus ( talk) 14:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
M's diagram, with some amendment (above) and if he has the time, could be put up under both red and eastern wolf articles if nobody has any objections, with a note in brackets that it is based on one recent finding and cite it. It does represent the research to date, even if the work is preliminary and raises other questions.
William Harris |
talk
23:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
As I read it, it seems to say that red wolf re-introduction efforts are doomed to failure due to genetic swamping with so many coyotes in North Carolina.
It would seem an important information to share with readers of this article. Chrisrus ( talk) 16:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I stumbled on this recent article on "coywolf" taxonomy: Comment on “northeastern coyote/coywolf” taxonomy and admixture by Tyler J. Wheeldon and Brent R. Patterson. I'm not sure it helps with any of the discussion above, although it does clearly state some issues of concern. Jts1882 ( talk) 16:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy allows enlarging maps and graphs in order to make them legible without having to click on them. This enlargement can be up to 500px.
Wiki guidelines also suggest making adjacent comparative maps the same size for ease of comparison and for article esthetics. Resizing of images for this purpose can be up to 400px, according to Wikipedia policy.
By the way, other specifically comparative-type adjacent images (such as the image with C. Rufus compared to C. Latrans) may also be enlarged, up to 4 or 5 hundred pixels in order to make comparisons easy, again without the reader having to click on the images.
173.66.140.144 ( talk) 11:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Just a comment on the current image/map size kangaroo action: I'd say for the maps the argument can be made that it's useful to have them at large sizes because details have to be taken in at a glance; for photos it's not a good idea, because they are primarily illustrative and not informative, and anyone wanting to check details can go to the full-size version. So keep the photos at standard thumb and have the maps slightly enlarged? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Taxonomy section includes "Texas red wolf (Canis rufus rufus) was also functionally extinct in the wild by 1980, although that status was changed to endangered when captive-bred red wolves from Texas were reintroduced in eastern North Carolina in 1987". I checked the ref (being used for that sentence) and the text doesn't mention Texas, but the "historic range" image ( https://www.fws.gov/southeast/images/pages/red-wolf-historic-range.jpg ) on that ref webpage includes "source population"/red-area which is in Texas AND Louisiana. Is it reasonable to add "and Louisiana" to the article resulting in "... captive-bred red wolves from Texas and Louisiana were reintroduced ..."? -- EarthFurst ( talk) 01:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello User:William Harris, looks like I got into an unexpected dispute. What should I not change/remove? Mainly I intended to elaborate a bit more on the Galveston canids and add some info on the Louisiana study. I did make a few extra changes as well, which seems to be the source of this dispute. Just tell me which changes I shouldn't make. -- Geekgecko ( talk) 18:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for presenting your position on the Talk page.
(Where did these ghost alleles originally come from? They are from wolf or coyote populations that no longer exist - that went extinct many hundreds, or even thousands, of years ago. Traces of their lineage exist in the ghost alleles (gene expressions) found in the study of the admixed canids found on Galveston Island, which do not match any wolf or coyote populations that exist today, as best we know.) William Harris • (talk) • 10:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I didn't have time to add this into the proper section of the article, but it is exceptionally important to include. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/there-was-actually-a-study-to-determine-if-red-wolves-are-wolves-the-answer-could-have-doomed-them/ar-BBVwJNW?ocid=spartanntp Have a good night. Mcelite ( talk) 04:36, 3 April 2019 (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 |
I was fortunate enough to have attended a seminar on the Eastern Canadian Wolf while stationed at Queen's University Biological Station, and so I've started (slowly) a page on the Eastern Canadian Wolf. I also added in the page that there is also genetic evidence to support the descent from the Red Wolf based on DNA samples from existing Canadian wolves in Algonquin Park and museum samples of Red Wolves obtained from several southern US states. Hearing it from the horse's mouth makes it hard to have it in writing! Just to let you guys know, and great work so far on this page. -- Waterspyder 21:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Just because an animal was extinct doesn't mean they were not in captivity! They could have been extinct from the wild not from captivity . They must have mated some red wolfs and let them in the wild and they made it happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.9.251 ( talk • contribs)
I'm confused:
Does this mean that there are other red wolves still in the wild who are not members of the three subspecies? RickK 01:52, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I was going to post the same complaint, Rick. Then I re-read it and figured out what the entry was trying to say - with some difficulty, I might add. No, it doesn't mean that, it means that Canis rufus gregoryi is the only surviving subspecies. But it's very badly written - I'll attend to it shortly. (But first, I'll look them up again and do some double-checking.) Tannin 02:00, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Thanks, Tannin. If I'd understood it, I would have changed it myself. :) RickK 02:02, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one ever fixed that. I just did now, 2 years later. Redwolf24 9 July 2005 12:22 (UTC)
Below text was moved here from " Texas red wolf", which I ( Infrogmation) turned into a redirect to this article:
"Texas redwolves are extinct because farmers thought they were eating their cattle so the killed them almost to the pointof extincttion. in 1970 they started to breed them but it did not work."
The article consisted of the intro and a long section on taxonomy with nothing about habits, social structure or even physical appearance. I have added two sections which I think fills it out nicely. Marskell 17:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Re: Adding External Links - I added a link to my site and it was deleted. My website is about wolves and has several pages and sections dedicated to the red wolf. Just trying to figure out why it was removed and what changes I need to make to have it listed here. I realize Wikipedia is not a link exchange or advertising pool, but my site is about wolves and is a valued resource in regards to the red wolf. Iamloup ( talk) 22:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC) iamloup
Is there any data on whether Red Wolf-Grey Wolf/Coyote hybrids are in fact fertile or not? If some info on that could be found, it could shed some more ligh on the problem: If they are fertile, that could mean they're of the same species; if not, they would probably be of the same genus but not the species. -- Arny 21:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The research that I have read indicates that all Red Wolves are in fact hybrids. This research is not final (as far as I know) but Red Wolves are fertile. The fact that they are fertile, however, is not dispositive of the species question. There are many examples of inter-species hybrids that are fertile. Wolves and Jackals reportedly produce fertile offspring as well as dogs and wolves producing fertile offspring. The real question is if they are a hybrid of two species rather than a n independant species themselves, do they warrant protection. Right now our conservation regulatory structure is not set up to protect a hybird no matter how rare. I will find the cite for the research-- Counsel 22:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I added a reference to genetic research on diversity of canis by Roy, but can't get it to link. Someone please help.
The info that's referenced as "more recent" and cited as evidence that the red wolf is a coyote/gray wolf hybrid is over twelve years old. The ability to interbreed with gray wolves and coyotes does not reasonably establish an argument that it's a hybrid between the species. Coyotes and Gray wolves can produce fertile offspring but nobody argues that they are two distinct (but closely related species). Why then is it surprising that red wolves and coyotes and red wolves and gray wolves can produce fertile offspring? I read an article that I have to find where they found fossil evidence that indicates that red wolves have been around in the southeastern USA for thousands of years as a distinct species. Also, the kind of hybridization between gray wolves and coyotes that would be required to produce red wolves is pretty fantastical based on their respective behaviours. -- TaeKwonTimmy 08:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Twelve years old is reasonably recent in light of the wikipedia publishing policy. Also this is not computing. In Biology twelve years is a recent change in theory. The fossil evidence you quote falls back again to morphological evidence, which has not been at the forefront of species categorization for a number of years now.
Yet the cross breeding potential that is mentioned is poor evidence. Many species can cross breed, but that doesn't prove they aren't distinct species or even subspecies. As I said earlier, all wolves and coyotes can interbreed and produce fertile offspring but that doesn't mean wolves and coyotes are the same species. -- TaeKwonTimmy 20:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Just like gulls and waterfowl, members of the genus Canis can interbreed very freely. The only practical criterion for species in this group which retains the interbreeding concept at all is whether the level of interbreeding is low enough to keep the group distinct. By the pure rule that "if the hybrids are fertile, they're all one species", there would be only one Canis species, and waterbird and gamebird taxonomy would be destroyed (where inter-generic hybrids are not particularly rare, and even inter-familial hybrids (yikes!) are possible) . 24.167.74.103 02:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Kep in mind that the definiton of species includes those animals that don't normally breed, but SOME can. The definition includes those that don't breed not only because they can't, or produce infertile offspring, but those that don't because of behavior, different habitats, etc. In the real world, it can get messy. Tigers and lions have fertile offspring, but in wild don't interbreed. Polar bears and brown bears can interbreed, and are fertile, in fact recent work suggests polar bears split and descended from brown bears, so we call them separate species. Zoos often find out by accident which species can interbreed, but that is nor a normal situation. Note on red wolf being just a hybrid, this is highly contentios still, even the wolf experts are still undecided and arguing the points. Just cause a new paper comes out doesn't mean it's accepted and correct.-- Paddling bear 18:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Again these are hardly "new" papers. In some cases the refutations of species status are decades old. Just because it goes against what you'd like to believe doesn't mean it's not accepted. Red wolf status as a seperate species has much more to do with politics than science. Also interbreeding is not the main indicator of the papers cited. The papers cite Genetic evidence. Interbreeding has not been the standard for species for some time. Genetics has taken the place of old, yes i mean OLD, standards of breeding and morphology. Genetically Red Wolves are not a seperate species. Get current and quit talking about all this "new" research that is largely over a decade old. Perhaps we should base all computing articles on twenty and thirty year old science as well. 74.188.22.225 20:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
American Bison and domestic cattle can also interbreed and produce fertile offspring. That does not make them the same species. Red wolves and coyotes can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. In the wild these are almost exclusively male wolf/female coyote crosses since female wolves are not inclinded to breed with coyotes. At the Alligator River Preserve this has been managed by producing buffer zones around the red wolf experimental population area. In the interior area coyotes are captured and permanently removed. In the surrounding buffer zone coyotes are captured and sterilized then returned. As the control area for the red wolf population has expanded the buffer zones have expanded as well.
Genetic studies continue to be ongoing. When both coyote and gray wolf markers were found in the earliest studies the theory proposed was one of hybridization. Subsequent studies have suggested the red wolf genome is older rather than younger than that of the other two species - suggesting the red wolf is the origin of the other two rather than a hybrid. Opinions do vary, and both the discussion and research are ongoing, but the most widely held view is of the red wolf as the originating species. CharmsDad ( talk) 19:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I firmly believe that the redwolf is in fact simply a variation of wolves and coyotes. I think that lesser male wolves are responcible for breeding with female coyotes, leaving out the “submale” coyote. This would create the “redwolf.” Would it be safe to say that female coyotes prefer wolves? So in a sense, male coyotes compete directly with lesser male wolves. However in the “red wolf/coyote” breed, it would probably be a male coyote’s advantage to mate with a female redwolf. (~PassiveBluffing~)
Sounds like your trying to disavow my accuracy or pretending to not to acknowledged my reasoning. Seems a tad nit close-minded and you did not even care to comment of my original inquiry, probably because it has validation and has caused you discomfort. What “scientist” is to say there determination is correct? Science always changes due to new perspective/determinations. But go ahead and steal my thoughts if that’s what you intend to do. ~PassiveBluffing~
Hey, can't we all just get along!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.139.86 ( talk • contribs)
These are hardly "new theories". The genetic comparison of red wolves to grey wolves and coyotes, as well as the debate of the legitimacy of red wolf species classification, goes back for several years. There are multiple papers detailing the lack of mitochondrial genetic differentiation, all peer-reveiwed and published. What does not belong on Wikipedia is political positioning to craft science into a justification of a political action. IE: The Red wolf status on endangered lists. I've twice seen references to legitimate research in this article removed, for no apparent reason than that they disrupted the presentation of the red wolf as a distinct species.
The presentation of the red wolf as a distinct species is not supported scientifically. At best we are unsure, as there is no genetic support for this classification.
I've added about half a dozen references, some from both sides of, and am trying to get them to link into the article itself. Someone please help with this. I've also removed a large amount of very emotionally biased wording, replacing it with references to peer reviewed research.
Since the works cited aren't 40 years old, I don't see your point. And it doesn't seem unlikely at all. Does it seem unlikely that africans and caucasians are genetically the same species? I'd say not. They are not genetically identical any more than a borher and sister are, they are genetically the same species.
The bibliography page on the Red Wolf Recovery Program's web page has a rather extensive list of legitimate peer reviewed scientific publications. It is located at http://www.fws.gov/redwolf/biblio.html. The Red Wolf is not identical to either the Gray Wolf or the Coyote, but it is closely related to both. As to the comment about humans and their relationship, I see that as rather badly expressed and in poor taste. In the first place, people from Africa are not all of the same race, religion, culture or ethnic background. Secondly, humans are far more closely related to each other and have far less genetic variation between them than do most other species. The earliest genetic testing that confirmed the close relationship between Red Wolves and the other two species was published in the mid 90s. The original authors proposed this supported the theory that they were hybrids. Genetic testing has progressed substantially over the last decade and more recently published studies indicate both mitochondrial and nuclear genetic testing suggests the Red Wolf genome appears older than that of either of the other two species. This seems to support the theory that the Red Wolf is the origin of both other species rather than a hybrid of the two. Though generally rare, there are hybrids of both Red Wolves and Gray Wolves with Coyotes in the wild. These tend to be exclusively from a cross involving a male wolf and female coyote. Observations indicate female wolves (both Red and Gray) do not tend to be receptive to coyotes. When the female coyotes are not in heat the male wolves are generally not tolerant of their presence and, along with other pack members, will frequently actively pursue and kill them. CharmsDad ( talk) 06:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it "Red Wolf" or "red wolf"? This article uses the former, but (for instance) the Red Wolf Coalition seems to prefer the latter. Most Wikipedia articles seem to use the latter as well. If no one objects, I'm going to change this; I can't think of a good reason why "Red Wolf" should be capitalized but other animals' names shouldn't. Switchercat talk contribs 17:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I object to this. I see no reason to change the name to lower case, and I have no idea where you got this idea. I have yet to see any animals in Wikipedia which have lower case names, and if there are, I think you should use your editing capabilities and capitalize them. Vortex 22:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
See WP:BIRD for the rationale to using uppercase for species' common names. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I believe we should look at the other wolf sub-species on Wiki. They capitalize their names as well. The Red Wolf should be no different. I'm starting to think it would be more correct to be in lower case though, as most books and sites seem to keep their names lower case, or at least the animal in particular, such as Red wolf, or Marine otter. Wikipedia seems to have many capitalization problems. XD Hmmm... Quite a dilemma. Vortex 00:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The developing convention is caps for mammals, fish and invertebrates are often in lower case.-- Peta 00:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the assesment that the name "Red Wolf" should be de-capitalized (is that a real word??) But then again, I am not an authority on the matter so I guess my opinion doesn't count. Solon89 18:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I read an article recently (sorry can't cite) that there really is no such thing as a red wolf species -- genetic testing has determined that the entire group of animals was founded by Gray Wolf male/Coyote female hybridization.
This was a popular news article though -- could have been confused.
74.188.22.225 20:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC) read the citations listed at the end of the article. They are all scientific papers.
There seem to be 2 Red Wolf photos associated with this article: the current slightly fuzzy one, in the taxobox, of a running wolf, and the one I added fairly recently, of a captive specimen which shows better detail. Someone replaced the running wolf with the captive wolf in the taxobox, bringing us back down to a single photo. Now the taxobox photo has been exchanged for that of the running wolf, and we still only have one picture. Please, if there is an argument about which one is better for the taxobox, just switch them around. It's nice to have two distinctly different pictures. Tim Ross· talk 15:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I was fortunate enough to have attended a seminar on the Eastern Canadian Wolf while stationed at Queen's University Biological Station, and so I've started (slowly) a page on the Eastern Canadian Wolf. I also added in the page that there is also genetic evidence to support the descent from the Red Wolf based on DNA samples from existing Canadian wolves in Algonquin Park and museum samples of Red Wolves obtained from several southern US states. Hearing it from the horse's mouth makes it hard to have it in writing! Just to let you guys know, and great work so far on this page. -- Waterspyder 21:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
WHUT?
Just because an animal was extinct doesn't mean they were not in captivity! They could have been extinct from the wild not from captivity . They must have mated some red wolfs and let them in the wild and they made it happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.9.251 ( talk • contribs)
I'm confused:
Does this mean that there are other red wolves still in the wild who are not members of the three subspecies? RickK 01:52, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I was going to post the same complaint, Rick. Then I re-read it and figured out what the entry was trying to say - with some difficulty, I might add. No, it doesn't mean that, it means that Canis rufus gregoryi is the only surviving subspecies. But it's very badly written - I'll attend to it shortly. (But first, I'll look them up again and do some double-checking.) Tannin 02:00, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Thanks, Tannin. If I'd understood it, I would have changed it myself. :) RickK 02:02, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one ever fixed that. I just did now, 2 years later. Redwolf24 9 July 2005 12:22 (UTC)
Below text was moved here from " Texas red wolf", which I ( Infrogmation) turned into a redirect to this article:
"Texas redwolves are extinct because farmers thought they were eating their cattle so the killed them almost to the pointof extincttion. in 1970 they started to breed them but it did not work."
By: Desirae
Italic text'''
Is it "Red Wolf" or "red wolf"? This article uses the former, but (for instance) the Red Wolf Coalition seems to prefer the latter. Most Wikipedia articles seem to use the latter as well. If no one objects, I'm going to change this; I can't think of a good reason why "Red Wolf" should be capitalized but other animals' names shouldn't. Switchercat talk contribs 17:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I object to this. I see no reason to change the name to lower case, and I have no idea where you got this idea. I have yet to see any animals in Wikipedia which have lower case names, and if there are, I think you should use your editing capabilities and capitalize them. Vortex 22:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
See WP:BIRD for the rationale to using uppercase for species' common names. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I believe we should look at the other wolf sub-species on Wiki. They capitalize their names as well. The Red Wolf should be no different. I'm starting to think it would be more correct to be in lower case though, as most books and sites seem to keep their names lower case, or at least the animal in particular, such as Red wolf, or Marine otter. Wikipedia seems to have many capitalization problems. XD Hmmm... Quite a dilemma. Vortex 00:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The developing convention is caps for mammals, fish and invertebrates are often in lower case.-- Peta 00:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the assesment that the name "Red Wolf" should be de-capitalized (is that a real word??) But then again, I am not an authority on the matter so I guess my opinion doesn't count. Solon89 18:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
There seem to be 2 Red Wolf photos associated with this article: the current slightly fuzzy one, in the taxobox, of a running wolf, and the one I added fairly recently, of a captive specimen which shows better detail. Someone replaced the running wolf with the captive wolf in the taxobox, bringing us back down to a single photo. Now the taxobox photo has been exchanged for that of the running wolf, and we still only have one picture. Please, if there is an argument about which one is better for the taxobox, just switch them around. It's nice to have two distinctly different pictures. Tim Ross· talk 15:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I read an article recently (sorry can't cite) that there really is no such thing as a red wolf species -- genetic testing has determined that the entire group of animals was founded by Gray Wolf male/Coyote female hybridization.
This was a popular news article though -- could have been confused.
74.188.22.225 20:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC) read the citations listed at the end of the article. They are all scientific papers.
The article consisted of the intro and a long section on taxonomy with nothing about habits, social structure or even physical appearance. I have added two sections which I think fills it out nicely. Marskell 17:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Re: Adding External Links - I added a link to my site and it was deleted. My website is about wolves and has several pages and sections dedicated to the red wolf. Just trying to figure out why it was removed and what changes I need to make to have it listed here. I realize Wikipedia is not a link exchange or advertising pool, but my site is about wolves and is a valued resource in regards to the red wolf. Iamloup ( talk) 22:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC) iamloup
With regard to this:
"... which once roamed throughout the Southeastern United States and is a glacial period survivor of the Late Pleistocene epoch"
MSW3, as I read it, seems to state that this is not the current explanation for this wolf with noticeably coyotesque genetic material and morphology. The new consensus seems to me to be that these facts are best explained by understanding the Red Wolf to be a coywolf, albeit one that tends to breed like a subspecies. They don't seem sure when this happened, but imply it could be a result of changes caused by humans in North America, and as such would or could be much younger than that epoch (which is when C. latrans and C. lupis diverged explaining why that epoch was assumed to have been when the divergence happened.
There are also several other places in the article where the older take on the nature and origin of the Red Wolf needs updating in this respect. Chrisrus ( talk) 20:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd need more time to read up, because the fossil and genetic don't agree and fossil references I've seen are old. I can't combine the book I have that suggests red wolves evolved from a wolf-coyote while an earlier wolf-type, which suggests a common ancestor to wolves being a few million years ago (I'd have to check that) verse the genetics that suggest much closer relation. I couldn't tell if that meant the fossils weren't understood correctly or whether the post-European settlements just allowed these two similar animals to hybridize again, swamping the red wolf with grey wolf and coyote genes. Or am I totally misunderstanding this debate?-- Paddling bear ( talk) 18:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Facts:
But because the average substitution rate of mitochondrial DNA in mammals is much greater than that of nuclear genes6, mtDNA analysis is a more useful way of distinguishing closely related species. We have now analysed mtDNA restriction-enzyme sites and cytochrome b gene sequence variation in captive red wolves and in 77 canids sampled during the capture period. We also used the polymerase chain reaction to amplify and then sequenced mtDNA from red wolf skins collected before substantial hybridization of red wolves with coyotes is thought to have occurred. Phylogenetic analysis indicates that red wolves have either a grey wolf or coyote mtDNA genotype, demonstrating hybridization among these species. Thus, the red wolf is entirely a hybrid form or a distinct taxon that hybridized with coyotes and grey wolves over much of its previous geographical range.
[ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v351/n6327/abs/351565a0.html%7C "Mitochondrial DNA analysis implying extensive hybridization of the endangered red wolf Canis rufus" R. K. Wayne Department of Biology, UCLA & S. M. Jenks Department of Physiology, U of C San Francisco, San Francisco, California 94143, USA Present address: Department of Psychology, UC Berkeley]
Chrisrus ( talk) 02:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2386371 Chrisrus ( talk) 01:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I firmly believe that the redwolf is in fact simply a variation of wolves and coyotes. I think that lesser male wolves are responcible for breeding with female coyotes, leaving out the “submale” coyote. This would create the “redwolf.” Would it be safe to say that female coyotes prefer wolves? So in a sense, male coyotes compete directly with lesser male wolves. However in the “red wolf/coyote” breed, it would probably be a male coyote’s advantage to mate with a female redwolf. (~PassiveBluffing~)
Sounds like your trying to disavow my accuracy or pretending to not to acknowledged my reasoning. Seems a tad nit close-minded and you did not even care to comment of my original inquiry, probably because it has validation and has caused you discomfort. What “scientist” is to say there determination is correct? Science always changes due to new perspective/determinations. But go ahead and steal my thoughts if that’s what you intend to do. ~PassiveBluffing~
Hey, can't we all just get along!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.139.86 ( talk • contribs)
These are hardly "new theories". The genetic comparison of red wolves to grey wolves and coyotes, as well as the debate of the legitimacy of red wolf species classification, goes back for several years. There are multiple papers detailing the lack of mitochondrial genetic differentiation, all peer-reveiwed and published. What does not belong on Wikipedia is political positioning to craft science into a justification of a political action. IE: The Red wolf status on endangered lists. I've twice seen references to legitimate research in this article removed, for no apparent reason than that they disrupted the presentation of the red wolf as a distinct species.
The presentation of the red wolf as a distinct species is not supported scientifically. At best we are unsure, as there is no genetic support for this classification.
I've added about half a dozen references, some from both sides of, and am trying to get them to link into the article itself. Someone please help with this. I've also removed a large amount of very emotionally biased wording, replacing it with references to peer reviewed research.
Since the works cited aren't 40 years old, I don't see your point. And it doesn't seem unlikely at all. Does it seem unlikely that africans and caucasians are genetically the same species? I'd say not. They are not genetically identical any more than a borher and sister are, they are genetically the same species.
The bibliography page on the Red Wolf Recovery Program's web page has a rather extensive list of legitimate peer reviewed scientific publications. It is located at http://www.fws.gov/redwolf/biblio.html. The Red Wolf is not identical to either the Gray Wolf or the Coyote, but it is closely related to both. As to the comment about humans and their relationship, I see that as rather badly expressed and in poor taste. In the first place, people from Africa are not all of the same race, religion, culture or ethnic background. Secondly, humans are far more closely related to each other and have far less genetic variation between them than do most other species. The earliest genetic testing that confirmed the close relationship between Red Wolves and the other two species was published in the mid 90s. The original authors proposed this supported the theory that they were hybrids. Genetic testing has progressed substantially over the last decade and more recently published studies indicate both mitochondrial and nuclear genetic testing suggests the Red Wolf genome appears older than that of either of the other two species. This seems to support the theory that the Red Wolf is the origin of both other species rather than a hybrid of the two. Though generally rare, there are hybrids of both Red Wolves and Gray Wolves with Coyotes in the wild. These tend to be exclusively from a cross involving a male wolf and female coyote. Observations indicate female wolves (both Red and Gray) do not tend to be receptive to coyotes. When the female coyotes are not in heat the male wolves are generally not tolerant of their presence and, along with other pack members, will frequently actively pursue and kill them. CharmsDad ( talk) 06:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
According to Smoky Mountains National Park "The red wolves are not pack-oriented like the gray wolf. Red wolves give birth to five to seven pups in April, but a few usually die. Parents raise the family together. As the pups mature, the family may remain together and appear to make a small pack."
Is this accurate? The Wiki page doesn't really say but it gives the impression that the young don't typically stay with their parents to form a "pack". You can find my source here. It is the second-to-last section.
Gatorgirl7563 ( talk) 22:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
See here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#The_Case_of_the_Red_Wolf Chrisrus ( talk) 18:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to add a 'synonym' section to the taxonomy box like the black bear has for Eurctos, but it's not working. I tried to paste this "| synonyms = Canis rufus" which was cut from the bear page. Can anyone fix it? Also, it'd be nice to add where the 3 subspp. were from, I'll see if I can find it. Would the trinomial authority still be the same as the old binomial we've got listed? Shouldn't it be the updated person who suggested we lump them? -- Paddling bear ( talk) 01:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I see now why my attempt didn't work! After more thought, I think the species authority does just translate to the new level, now as the subspp. for the red wolf. What happens to the 3 subspecies of red wolf though? Perhaps if we had more of teach of the 3, we'd be able to resolve this taxonomy debate more clearly. However, taxonomists back then were splitters, there were something like 28 subspp. of 'grizzly' bear in the US at one point, some of the type specimens were from the same area but one was older and male and the other younger and female, so later people decided they were not valid. The old literature isn't always correct (I wonder about the NY trapper records, how do we know where they trapped them? Another reference said PA was the northern limit). Lots of curiosities with this animal. Paddling bear ( talk) 04:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
At the beginning of this article the classification for the red wolf is listed as Canis lupus rufus (gray wolf subspecies). In the rest of the article where I noticed the classification seems to be listed as the more commonly accepted Canis rufus (separate species). While there continues to be some controversy around these animals, the most widely held opinion still seems to be to consider them as a unique and separate species. As such, shouldn't the correct listing for the classification be Canis rufus? CharmsDad ( talk) 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
MSW3 comments: "Provisionally includes rufus, (recognized by Paradiso, 1968; Paradiso and Nowak, 1972; Atkins and Dillion, 1971; Paradiso and Nowak, 1972; Nowak, 1979, 1992, 2002) although this problematic group (rufus, floridanus, gregoryi) should probably be best listed as incertae sedis. The widely used name C. niger is invalid (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1957a). The validity of rufus as a full species was questioned by Clutton-Brock et al. (1976), and Lawrence and Bossert (1967, 1975), due to the existence of natural hybrids with lupus and latrans. Natural hybridization may be a consequence of habitat disruption by man (Paradiso and Nowak, 1972, 2002). All specimens examined by Wayne and Jenks (1991) had either a lupus or latrans mtDNA genotype and there appears to be a growing consensus that all historical specimens are a product of hybridization (Nowak, 2002; Reich et al., 1999; Roy et al., 1994, 1996; Wayne et al., 1992, 1998). Hybridization between wolf and coyote has long been recognized (Nowak, 2002). Two recent studies make the strongest case for separation. Wilson et al. (2000) argued for separation of the Eastern Canadian Wolf (as Canis lycaon) and the Red Wolf (as Canis rufus) as separate species based on mtDNA, but see Nowak (2002) who could not find support for this in a morphometric study. Nowak (2002) in an extensive analysis of tooth morphology concluded that there was a distinct population intermediate between traditionally recognized wolves and coyotes, which warranted full species recognition (C. rufus). The red wolf is here considered a hybrid after Wayne and Jenks (1991), Wayne (1992, 1995), and Wayne et al. (1992). Although hybrids are not normally recognized as subspecies, I have chosen as a compromise to retain rufus because of its uncertain status. Also see Roy et al. (1994, 1996), Vilá et al. (1999), and Nowak (2002) who provided an excellent review of the situation." -- Paddling bear ( talk) 01:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Uther, I'll admit that I don't understand your example. Your example of a synonym shows one distinct taxon being moved to a subpopulation of another, how is that different from C. rufus being a distinct taxon but being moved to a sub of C. lupus? Either way, I'm not arguing over it. The quotation from MSW3 had nothing to do with this 'arguement' that I didn't know was happening. I noticed most of the edits were years old, and one mentioned that more details were needed to clear up the debate over C. rufus vs. C. l. rufus. I thought posting it here would help people add parts as they could.because I know I don't have time to really work this over. I do think that genetics is causing a lot of debate and rethinking over taxonomy when the genetics don't fit the older morphometrics or other methods used to classify animals. Policy doesn't change fast either. Genetics can tell us things are MORE related than others, but there is not code that says 'species'. Paleontology finds evidence that red wolves were here before grey wolves crossed from Asia, so we need a theory that matches all evidence. Perhaps what the fossil evidence shows isn't clearly understood. I've seen a paper that estimates how long ago American black bears split from Asiatic black bears, which fits the fossils and the known opening of the Bering Strait pretty well. I don't know the wolf literature that well, but from reading the links, it's not that clear cut. We don't have many (or any) samples of pure red wolves, even the 14 they used to start the captive breeding project might have been hybrids of some level. I want this page to be clear about the debate so that it doesn't have to be edited every time a new paper comes out with a new viewpoint. Nature is a continuum while humans are trying to put distinct labels on things. All species originally start out as a population only slightly different than the parent group, something interupts the frequency of interbreeding and time builds up diverging genes until even if they could breed (like lions and tigres) they don't, in the wild. I agree with what Uther writes below, MSW3 is showing that the evidence is equivacal, and more data and analysis will be needed to clear it up. mt-DNA only shows the direct mother's line and y-chromosomes only show the direct father's line, we don't know what happend to the father's mother or the mother's father, etc. Are the wolf genes not from their common ancestor? I don't understand what humans have to do with the hybridization of wolves and coyotes. From the fossil evidence, I assumed the suspected hybridization of eastern wolves and coyotes happend a LONG time ago (fossils suggest coyotes were in the E. North America 10,000 years ago, but not in historic times). I could be wrong on the time that the geneticists were hypothesizing since I didn't read all the scientific literatuer, just some of the links. I surely didn't mean to start any arguement. I just know that there is a lot of room for debate on what the genetics mean, especially when the data is corrupted (as our source for red wolves are), that is why so many publications still debate it. If it was clear, it'd be over and we'd just site the final publication. I agree with Uther's problem with pigeonholing exactly. I don't think we are that far off. Paddling bear ( talk) 04:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know a citation for the 3 subspecies? I've left it as it was, reather than adding it with the taxonomy, because the debate doesnt' seem to be at that level. Since 2 are extinct, I don't know if the 3 will be lumped under C. lupus rufus or if they'll all be equal subspp. of C. lupus. Does any of the pubs you guys have read even touch on that?-- Paddling bear ( talk) 05:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I mean it is not 50-50 wolf/coyo. It's 80% coyo. It IS a coyote for all effective purposes. you can't even tell the animals apart. HAve to kill them and dissect the brains and make some judgement off of that initial study on differences there.
If anything, it should be called a gray coyote, not a red wolf. Or just a coyote. ;-)
The whole breeding program with efforts to prevent coyote interbreeding seems kind of odd too when you realize the animals are indistinguishable in appearance from the outside.
64.134.168.97 ( talk) 16:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I removed a chunk of text that was so out of policy as to be worthless. It attempted to rebutt the cited study published in May 2011 about the genetic relationships of red wolves to coyotes and gray wolves. It had not one cite and read as a though it were one editor's opinion on the study, a clear and utterly unacceptable violation of WP:NOR. I commented it out, and tagged all the problems in it (i.e., every sentence). If it's salvageable, it needs citations aplenty and to actually summarize those citations, not to introduce original thought. oknazevad ( talk) 16:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
According to California Wolf Center, the red wolf is in a class by itself. Not a subspecies for the gray wolf. I think more research needs to be done before stating as fact. http://www.californiawolfcenter.org/learn/wolf-facts/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.25.62 ( talk) 17:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there any data on whether Red Wolf-Grey Wolf/Coyote hybrids are in fact fertile or not? If some info on that could be found, it could shed some more ligh on the problem: If they are fertile, that could mean they're of the same species; if not, they would probably be of the same genus but not the species. -- Arny 21:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The research that I have read indicates that all Red Wolves are in fact hybrids. This research is not final (as far as I know) but Red Wolves are fertile. The fact that they are fertile, however, is not dispositive of the species question. There are many examples of inter-species hybrids that are fertile. Wolves and Jackals reportedly produce fertile offspring as well as dogs and wolves producing fertile offspring. The real question is if they are a hybrid of two species rather than a n independant species themselves, do they warrant protection. Right now our conservation regulatory structure is not set up to protect a hybird no matter how rare. I will find the cite for the research-- Counsel 22:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I added a reference to genetic research on diversity of canis by Roy, but can't get it to link. Someone please help.
The info that's referenced as "more recent" and cited as evidence that the red wolf is a coyote/gray wolf hybrid is over twelve years old. The ability to interbreed with gray wolves and coyotes does not reasonably establish an argument that it's a hybrid between the species. Coyotes and Gray wolves can produce fertile offspring but nobody argues that they are two distinct (but closely related species). Why then is it surprising that red wolves and coyotes and red wolves and gray wolves can produce fertile offspring? I read an article that I have to find where they found fossil evidence that indicates that red wolves have been around in the southeastern USA for thousands of years as a distinct species. Also, the kind of hybridization between gray wolves and coyotes that would be required to produce red wolves is pretty fantastical based on their respective behaviours. -- TaeKwonTimmy 08:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Twelve years old is reasonably recent in light of the wikipedia publishing policy. Also this is not computing. In Biology twelve years is a recent change in theory. The fossil evidence you quote falls back again to morphological evidence, which has not been at the forefront of species categorization for a number of years now.
Yet the cross breeding potential that is mentioned is poor evidence. Many species can cross breed, but that doesn't prove they aren't distinct species or even subspecies. As I said earlier, all wolves and coyotes can interbreed and produce fertile offspring but that doesn't mean wolves and coyotes are the same species. -- TaeKwonTimmy 20:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Just like gulls and waterfowl, members of the genus Canis can interbreed very freely. The only practical criterion for species in this group which retains the interbreeding concept at all is whether the level of interbreeding is low enough to keep the group distinct. By the pure rule that "if the hybrids are fertile, they're all one species", there would be only one Canis species, and waterbird and gamebird taxonomy would be destroyed (where inter-generic hybrids are not particularly rare, and even inter-familial hybrids (yikes!) are possible) . 24.167.74.103 02:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Kep in mind that the definiton of species includes those animals that don't normally breed, but SOME can. The definition includes those that don't breed not only because they can't, or produce infertile offspring, but those that don't because of behavior, different habitats, etc. In the real world, it can get messy. Tigers and lions have fertile offspring, but in wild don't interbreed. Polar bears and brown bears can interbreed, and are fertile, in fact recent work suggests polar bears split and descended from brown bears, so we call them separate species. Zoos often find out by accident which species can interbreed, but that is nor a normal situation. Note on red wolf being just a hybrid, this is highly contentios still, even the wolf experts are still undecided and arguing the points. Just cause a new paper comes out doesn't mean it's accepted and correct.-- Paddling bear 18:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Again these are hardly "new" papers. In some cases the refutations of species status are decades old. Just because it goes against what you'd like to believe doesn't mean it's not accepted. Red wolf status as a seperate species has much more to do with politics than science. Also interbreeding is not the main indicator of the papers cited. The papers cite Genetic evidence. Interbreeding has not been the standard for species for some time. Genetics has taken the place of old, yes i mean OLD, standards of breeding and morphology. Genetically Red Wolves are not a seperate species. Get current and quit talking about all this "new" research that is largely over a decade old. Perhaps we should base all computing articles on twenty and thirty year old science as well. 74.188.22.225 20:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
American Bison and domestic cattle can also interbreed and produce fertile offspring. That does not make them the same species. Red wolves and coyotes can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. In the wild these are almost exclusively male wolf/female coyote crosses since female wolves are not inclinded to breed with coyotes. At the Alligator River Preserve this has been managed by producing buffer zones around the red wolf experimental population area. In the interior area coyotes are captured and permanently removed. In the surrounding buffer zone coyotes are captured and sterilized then returned. As the control area for the red wolf population has expanded the buffer zones have expanded as well.
Genetic studies continue to be ongoing. When both coyote and gray wolf markers were found in the earliest studies the theory proposed was one of hybridization. Subsequent studies have suggested the red wolf genome is older rather than younger than that of the other two species - suggesting the red wolf is the origin of the other two rather than a hybrid. Opinions do vary, and both the discussion and research are ongoing, but the most widely held view is of the red wolf as the originating species. CharmsDad ( talk) 19:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
CharmsDad is correct - the definition of species is now rather holistic, I'd say mostly genetic but with serious consideration to behavior, morphology, etc. This is extensively reviewed in Chambers et al - one of three recent USFWS authors with an extensive review in North American Fauna late 2012. Based on their comprehensive and lengthy review of the genetic studies, two adding mitochondrial DNA and Y-chronomose haplotype DNA to the Von Holdt 2011 48,000 SNP study, and behavioral and morphological studies, the updated consensus is that the red wolf is an independent species. I just spoke with Don Smith at the Smithsonian and his next edition of Mammals of North America won't be out until 2016 but he agrees the red wolf is an independent species with likely origin from a North American ancestor to both coyotes and red wolves. This may explain why gray wolves, which originated in Eurasia, don't breed with coyotes, but red wolves with a North American origin, do breed with coyotes. The latter occurs now because the red wolf was so decimated and its social/pack structure so weakened that the desperate remainder started interbreeding with coyotes. Whether the eastern wolf is Canis rufus or Canis lycaon leans towards the latter now (again see Chambers et al) but I think we need to wait a bit longer before we change it from Canis lupus lycaon to Canis lycaon. Meanwhile I have updated the red wolf page to Canis rufus, and the Texas red wolf page to Canis rufus rufus, although Chambers does not think there is enough evidence for the three red wolf subspecies. If you want a PDF of Chambers I have embedded the links in the refs, or go to my talk page and ask me to email you a copy. Schmiebel ( talk) 18:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I will have to disagree with many of the edits that have been popping up with the statements that grey wolves and coyotes have never hybridized. There have been cases of hybridizations in the southern states between coyotes and Mexican Grey wolves.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003333
Also, in one "chupacabra" case, analysis conducted by the UC Davis team confirmed that the male animal was a coywolf sired by a Mexican wolf and born out of a female coyote.
While not related to the Red wolves in the north, I do want to note that it's POSSIBLE that some of those apparently "distinct" regions in the Red wolves and Eastern wolves are likely wolf/coyote mix regions caused by hundred of years of interbreeding between the grey wolf/Pre-Columbian eastern coyote hybrid populations. Because the population of Eastern wolves and red wolves have been separated from the pure animals for many years, their genetic materials may have evolved into a form that makes them appear more distinct from both the pure coyotes and other subspecies of the grey wolves. I also disagree with the statements that grey wolves did not arrive in the eastern provinces and states until more recently. The Newfoundland and Labrador subspecies have been living in the Atlantic Canada for centuries. In fact, it's possible the Labrador wolf subspecies may represent what's left of the original population of eastern grey wolves before the others hybridized with the coyotes and formed the eastern wolves and red wolves. Nosferatuslayer ( talk) 16:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
MSW3, the citation we use for the taxon, http://www.vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/taxon_browser.cfm?msw_id=11374 says it's Canis lupus rufus, not Canis rufus rufus, noting that Canis lupus "...provisionally includes rufus, (recognized by Paradiso, 1968; Paradiso and Nowak, 1972; Atkins and Dillion, 1971; Paradiso and Nowak, 1972; Nowak, 1979, 1992, 2002) although this problematic group (rufus, floridanus, gregoryi) should probably be best listed as incertae sedis."
Despite this, it was recently change to Canis rufus rufus.
Question: Should we change it back? Chrisrus ( talk) 04:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Something about this doesn't feel right.
First, this article said they were a distinct Canis species like any other.
Then, it said that all extant individuals had been tested and they were all coywolves; part lupus and part latrans, and so therefore a problem for taxonomy but we understood the situation well as they'd all been tested and the conclusions were in, a hybrid species that bred true like the eastern coyote, which breeds true, or the whole "Canis soupus", if you pardon the term of art borrowed from experts, for the fuzzy areas along the continuum between the Eastern Coyote fading northwest into the pureblood Eastern Wolfves and southwest into real coyotes, which is supposed to be dynamic, in flux, and confusing.
Now, I am happy to hear from you the advance inside information that you have personally heard that the experts in charge of the next edition of MSW plan to call the referent of this article Canis rufus rufus and to have all other subspecies into just that one, no mention of latrans nor lupus nor lycaon nor gregoyi nor floridianus. I'm glad they've got it all sorted now for here on out everyone's going to agree that's the perfect name for this odd type of creature in a system designed before Darwin, even with no provision for hybrid species that breed true.
But let's wait until it's published to change the taxobox and primary lead subject complement and the rest of the articles on Wikipedia, an extensive system which is still MSW3. I want to know how they are going to include the word latrans in the trinomial for the red wolf, for example. Because I don't see how they can. I want to see what they put in the comments next time, about what we might be advised about, if there are any further provisos they want to issue, and which taxa are best incertae sedis and why, and everything else in the next edition. At least as far as the taxobox goes, and our system all through Wikipedia, which will have widespread ramifications for many articles. Say all you want in the body, in the taxonomy section. But let's go with what MSW3 says until the next one is actually published at least in the taxobox and all the other articles. Chrisrus ( talk) 03:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Very well. Let's close this thread and turn our attention to the significance in this change in taxonomy on all the articles that link here. Done.
Chrisrus (
talk)
22:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
What is the significance of this change in taxonomy on articles that link here, such as Subspecies of Canis lupus, Canis, Coywolf, Texas red wolf, and so on? Chrisrus ( talk) 22:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Although Chambers et al N. Amer. Fauna 2012, in their extensive holistic review of the latest genetic, behavioral and morphometric studies, opines that the eastern wolf is an independent species (at least the Algonquin Provincial Park wolves are not hybrids) and recommended the taxonomic change to Canis lycaon. However they also raise the possibility that the eastern wolf species is synonymous with the red wolf Canis rufus. I communicated with Don Wilson at the Smithsonian about this also and the argument for what the correct species is for the eastern wolf (perhaps today better described as the eastern Canadian wolf) is controversial, although it is not a gray wolf-coyote hybrid in Algonquin PP. Great Lakes wolves appear to be hybrids between gray wolves and eastern wolves/eastern wolf-coyote hybrids and only when you get to Algonquin Park does the pure eastern wolf strain seem to persist. East/southeast of the Great Lakes are eastern wolf-coyote hybrids aplenty so all this is quite complicated. The status of science for red wolves seems more advanced and settled, with established genetic tests developed to screen red wolf scat to test for hybridization with coyotes. Although the eastern wolf story literature is evolving rapidly, it is not clear that it is an independent species or that Canis rufus is represented by the eastern Canada wolf at the north part of its range and the red wolf of the U.S. southeast in the southern part of its range. Therefore, I do not yet favor changing the Canis lupus lycaon designation to Canis lycaon for the eastern wolf, until more publications emerge and a clear consensus forms, as it has finally for the red wolf. Just one person's opinion though. Schmiebel ( talk) 21:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately this debate on the species status of the Eastern wolves is still ongoing. Contrary to popular belief, it has not ended yet. The reason for this is due to the fact that some of the outdated researches made suggestions that the Grey wolves did not arrive in the east until a few hundreds of years ago and that the coyotes only arrived here more recently when they in fact had migrated into Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, and other parts of the Atlantic regions of Canada long. Some of the wolves may have been here much longer before the first wave of Pre-Columbian Eastern coyotes arrived. The Labrador wolf may be the LAST pure Grey wolf subspecies left in the Atlantic region since all of the Eastern wolves in Canada are known to have varying degrees of coyote genes in them but the ones around the Great Lake and the Atlantic regions are predominately Grey wolves due to backcrossing with either the Great Plains wolves or the Labrador wolves respectively. The Algonquin Park population which is said to be the most genetically distinct population of Eastern wolves had been separated from all of the other Grey wolves and coyote subspecies for hundreds of years but the 2011 research conducted by Roland Kays of the New York Museum suggests that around 600-900 years ago the Eastern wolves may have been pure Grey wolves before they hybridized with the Pre-Columbian eastern coyotes. Overtime, these Coywolf hybrids migrated all over the east and backcrossed with other Grey wolves or other Pre-Columbian coyotes but the Algonquin Park population in Ontario was very much separated from all of the other populations and over generations of interbreeding within their population became more genetically distinct much like how the Island wolves in Vancouver and the Mexican Grey wolves are more genetically distinct from the Rocky mountain wolves even though these wolves are still Grey wolves.
The red wolves in the southeast have a much different origin which is why they are not considered to be the same as the Eastern wolves. There were three populations of Coywolves that gave rise to the red wolves. The Texas population which was later on captured and reintroduced into North Carolina MAY had been hybrids between the now extinct Texas Grey wolves and the southern coyotes. Some of these coyotes in Texas today are still known to have grey wolf haplotypes in them which may have been passed on to them by either the Texas Grey wolves or the Mexican wolves. The other Coywolf population that later on went extinct in the wild was the Mississippi Valley population with may have originated in the aftermath of Grey wolf exterminations back when much of the surrounding areas was being converted into human residents and industrial lands. The remnant Grey wolves would have been forced to cross with the coyotes migrating in from the west and most of the Coywolves backcrossed with other pure coyotes. Some of these Coywolves were later on extracted from the wild and mixed with the captive Texas red wolves. A third Coywolf population was the Florida Black wolves who may have originated from hybrids between the extinct Florida Grey wolves and coyotes from the second wave that migrated into the east. But sadly this population became extinct before it could be properly studied.
Overall, while the Red wolves and Eastern wolves are both known to have mix grey wolf and coyote markers making them both technically Coywolves, they are NOT the same "species" and have different theoretical origins. Nosferatuslayer ( talk) 20:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
That's wrong, it's concidered Canis lupus rufus, a subspecies of Gray Wolf with a certain percentage of latrans DNA. Please fix taxobox and text. Chrisrus ( talk) 19:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I have made some recent editing to include all three possibilities. Because of the fact that the debate between researchers over the classification and species status for the red wolf is still ongoing and probably won't be ending anytime soon, I decided that to satisfy all three sides, I've changed the description on the top from simply Canis rufus to the three possibilites tha the red wolf MAY be a distinct Canis rufus species, a subspecies of the Grey wolf being Canis lupus rufus, or a hybrid between the Grey wolves and the coyotes as many have suggested for a long time. More research needs to be done at present. Nosferatuslayer ( talk) 21:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
In "fossil and historic record", it says that bounties to Indians in New York proves that the red wolf lived that far north. However, I did some research on the sources that say that, and it doesnt say that red wolves lived there-it only says wolves. So should I edit out the part of the article that says that red wolves lived in new york? Here are some quotes to back up the fact that the records in the 1700s say nothing about red wolves living in NY, they only mention wolves, which could have very well been gray wolves.
http://eaglesbyte.blogspot.com/2012/01/eastern-new-york-state-timeline-1715.html
1720
State Apr 19
The approximate date pioneer Jacobus Stoughtenburgh arrives in the future Dutchess County, settles what will become Hyde Park. Area settlers begin paying Wappinger and other Indians bounties on wolves.
William Bartram said that Pennsylvania had gray wolves, not the smaller and lighter wolves of the southeast. So why does "range and habitat" say that red wolves lived in Central Pennsylvania? Which reliable sources prove that, and how do those source coincide with what William bartram, a historic source, says? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxedo Cat777 ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Tuxedo Cat777 ( talk) 13:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
1. Make new genetic findings more explicit (if it's been determined to be a hybrid, just say it, and give it more space on the taxonomy section).
2. Address fossil finds (don't they contradict recent origin?)
3. Every comparison made with a coyote or wolf should include the adjective "pure".
4. Address the impact of recent study on conservation efforts. I've already made my stance on the wording; I'd go ahead and just call it a variety of coywolf, but for now I'll let it digest a bit.
Mariomassone (
talk)
16:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
http://www.wolfsongalaska.org/red_wolf.html
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/7/e1501714
Turns out it's a hybrid after all. Mariomassone ( talk) 17:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
How about...
"The red wolf (Canis rufus[4]/Canis lupus rufus[5]), also known as the Florida wolf or Mississippi Valley wolf[6], is a hybrid coywolf species native to the eastern United States."
...where " coywolf hybrid species" would link to a section of the article coywolf separate from coywolves that are "one-offs" or something other than a naturally selected hybrid species that breeds true.
---? Chrisrus ( talk) 14:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
M's diagram, with some amendment (above) and if he has the time, could be put up under both red and eastern wolf articles if nobody has any objections, with a note in brackets that it is based on one recent finding and cite it. It does represent the research to date, even if the work is preliminary and raises other questions.
William Harris |
talk
23:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
As I read it, it seems to say that red wolf re-introduction efforts are doomed to failure due to genetic swamping with so many coyotes in North Carolina.
It would seem an important information to share with readers of this article. Chrisrus ( talk) 16:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I stumbled on this recent article on "coywolf" taxonomy: Comment on “northeastern coyote/coywolf” taxonomy and admixture by Tyler J. Wheeldon and Brent R. Patterson. I'm not sure it helps with any of the discussion above, although it does clearly state some issues of concern. Jts1882 ( talk) 16:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy allows enlarging maps and graphs in order to make them legible without having to click on them. This enlargement can be up to 500px.
Wiki guidelines also suggest making adjacent comparative maps the same size for ease of comparison and for article esthetics. Resizing of images for this purpose can be up to 400px, according to Wikipedia policy.
By the way, other specifically comparative-type adjacent images (such as the image with C. Rufus compared to C. Latrans) may also be enlarged, up to 4 or 5 hundred pixels in order to make comparisons easy, again without the reader having to click on the images.
173.66.140.144 ( talk) 11:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Just a comment on the current image/map size kangaroo action: I'd say for the maps the argument can be made that it's useful to have them at large sizes because details have to be taken in at a glance; for photos it's not a good idea, because they are primarily illustrative and not informative, and anyone wanting to check details can go to the full-size version. So keep the photos at standard thumb and have the maps slightly enlarged? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Taxonomy section includes "Texas red wolf (Canis rufus rufus) was also functionally extinct in the wild by 1980, although that status was changed to endangered when captive-bred red wolves from Texas were reintroduced in eastern North Carolina in 1987". I checked the ref (being used for that sentence) and the text doesn't mention Texas, but the "historic range" image ( https://www.fws.gov/southeast/images/pages/red-wolf-historic-range.jpg ) on that ref webpage includes "source population"/red-area which is in Texas AND Louisiana. Is it reasonable to add "and Louisiana" to the article resulting in "... captive-bred red wolves from Texas and Louisiana were reintroduced ..."? -- EarthFurst ( talk) 01:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello User:William Harris, looks like I got into an unexpected dispute. What should I not change/remove? Mainly I intended to elaborate a bit more on the Galveston canids and add some info on the Louisiana study. I did make a few extra changes as well, which seems to be the source of this dispute. Just tell me which changes I shouldn't make. -- Geekgecko ( talk) 18:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for presenting your position on the Talk page.
(Where did these ghost alleles originally come from? They are from wolf or coyote populations that no longer exist - that went extinct many hundreds, or even thousands, of years ago. Traces of their lineage exist in the ghost alleles (gene expressions) found in the study of the admixed canids found on Galveston Island, which do not match any wolf or coyote populations that exist today, as best we know.) William Harris • (talk) • 10:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I didn't have time to add this into the proper section of the article, but it is exceptionally important to include. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/there-was-actually-a-study-to-determine-if-red-wolves-are-wolves-the-answer-could-have-doomed-them/ar-BBVwJNW?ocid=spartanntp Have a good night. Mcelite ( talk) 04:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)