![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Your comments on the New Guinea Singing dog page were correct. Whereas many times you see bias in editors that I don't, in this case, you're right. Let me explain.
Years ago, there was at that article an almost legendary battle between fans and promoters of the dog that has been called "the New Guinea Singing Dog War". I stumbled onto it and tried to stay out but was heavily lobbied to join both sides against the other, which I resisted. The animosity was great and spilled over onto my talk page where much can still be found if you're interested.
That's why that article looks so tattered and strange and fought over.
However, there is a legitimate problem with articlizing that referent, because what is it, really? A landrace, a breed, a feral dog, a wild dog, a subspecies of dog, a species of canid descended from a wild dog? It's an odd case not quite like practically any other I can think of.
Years later, "The Great Wikipedia New Guinea Singing Dog War" seems to have died down, and maybe it's become editable. It would be great if you were to take it on, but I recommend playing it extra "Mr. Spock" in light of this history. Chrisrus ( talk) 06:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I glanced over your sandbox page, and saw you had listed a source (about Greenland wolves) apparently in Danish, for something you want to work on. I can help you translate parts of that, if you are unable to, as it happens to be my first language. FunkMonk ( talk) 10:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Are there any dire wolf skeletal mounts on Wiki commons that come from the C. d. guildeyi locality and time period? I'd like to do another reconstruction. Mariomassone ( talk) 13:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Harris- Thanks for your help on the article on the Paleolithic Dog. I couldn't figure out how to respond on your Talk Page so I used edit mode. I do understand your point about the Goyet Dog's fuzzy genetics but I still don't understand how it could NOT be Canis Lupus as it is relatively recent and can only be a wolf or dog both of which are Canis Lupus. The Cave Wolf and other ancient wolves are considered Canis Lupus right- how logically can such recent fossils as the Goyet Dog and the Altai Dogs be anything but? Canis Lupus the species is 700,000 years old or so- correct? Anyway- thanks for your help, Jeff Thurston (Makumbe) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makumbe ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
AshLin ( talk) 11:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
In the edit summary that accompanied my change to Dire wolf, I quoted chapter and verse of the MoS. Now you don't need to bother going there as I quote it here: "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary)". The MoS is quite clear, so please restore my correction in that article. Chris the speller yack 14:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
William sorry for my comments on the Dire Wolf page a few days ago I was in a crappy mood. Your a great guy for these contributions, you are the essence of what makes the Internet, and people for that matter, great. I shouldn't have put those comments in there and feel ashamed. Sorry again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.178.106 ( talk) 00:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on the above article, it was a most interesting read! Xyzspaniel ( talk) 20:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Central Asia 1879 By Keith Johnston.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 13:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
A lick from Holly |
I read your dog evolution article last week and the wolf one you suggested this week - so impressed that I'm sending over my youngest Springer Spaniel Holly so she can lick your face - go raibh mile maith agut!
Xyzspaniel (
talk) 23:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
|
Hello User:RHaworth, I call upon your advice once again. The issue above this message is now fixed, however the image file:Dog skull dorsal.jpg should be renamed to file:Wolf skull dorsal.jpg - is that possible or would I need to tag it for deletion and then re-upload it under the correct name? Regards, William Harris | talk 23:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello User:RHaworth, the list provided by the bot (above) offers: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:File_copyright_tags/All#Creative_Commons with the option of {{ cc-by-sa-3.0}}. If that is incompatible with Wikipedia and Commons, perhaps it should be removed as an option. I did not select {{ pd-old}} for the uploads today, to the best of my understanding. Thanks for your advice. Regards, William Harris | talk 03:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I was going to send this just before you made the last change. See Russian conquest of Turkestan#1879-1885: Turkmenistan: Geok Tepe, Merv and Panjdeh and Pandjeh Incident. To the best of my knowledge: 1. Geok Tepe was captured in battle. The elders of Merv submitted and the place was then occupied, not captured. 2. During Anglo-Russian discussions over the northwest frontier of Afghanistan, Russia captured a new, advanced Afghan fort at Pandjeh, provoking the incident proper. When the frontier was finalized Russia kept Pandjeh and land to the west and south.
Now 1. capture of fort came first, annexation after. 2. 'Mir' is probably Merv. I don't know if Khiva ever claimed the area of if Merv was ever a Khanate. Benjamin Trovato ( talk) 01:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to apologize for my overly hostile tone on Talk:Dog. Frankly, I just reread my comments and was shocked at how hostile and abrasive they sounded. By contrast, your response was measured and mature. Allow me the conceit of blaming the flu virus I am currently battling, and know that you do not have to expect such hostility from interactions with me in the future. Cheers! Jtrevor99 ( talk) 19:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Harris - This is Jeff Thurston (makumbe). Thanks for your message - I am looking into the dog/human co-evolution hypothesis I found on one of the dog pages. You'll hear from me soon - Thanks much, Makumbe ( talk) 02:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Dire wolf you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Adam Cuerden --
Adam Cuerden (
talk) 11:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, William!
We need a cladogram of the Modern human family tree:
We need a reader-friendly cladogram based on this type of thing: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/221860094_fig2_Figure-3-Complete-mtDNA-phylogenetic-tree-of-haplogroup-B4'B5-This-schematic-tree-is or http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7314_nsGxkU/UfrlVzgqgSI/AAAAAAAAI_I/zGmoi0R5-Jw/s1600/F2.large.jpg turned into
Do you have any thoughts or advice?
I ask because you have experience with making such cladograms from figures in published papers, and I'm having difficulty.
Thanks!
Chrisrus ( talk) 16:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Modern human lineages |
Proposed split of the Khoisan matrilineal lineage from everyone else between 150-90 thousand years ago. |
![]() |
The Writer's Barnstar |
I don't think you didn't get enough credit for your hard work on Evolution of the wolf. An exceptional article that left me extremely impressed. You definitely deserve this barnstar for your tireless contributions. Have a good day! Burklemore1 ( talk) 06:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks for uploading File:Assumed path of Beringian wolves from Beringia to Wyoming.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 03:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello M, thanks for the "Thanks" on Red Wolf. Now to make things even more interesting, a German team looking at the mDNA of ancient dogs in Germany (not released yet) has (1) supported Skoglund's mutation rate as that of their dogs matched the Taimyr wolf, which pushes dog/wolf divergence out to between 40-50 thousand years ago, (2) rebutted the recent proposal of a dual domestication of dogs in both Europe and East Asia with the European dogs being replaced by East Asian dogs because the descendants of their ancient German dogs were alive and well in Germany, and (3) their phylogenetic tree shows the "Great Lakes Wolf" to be basal to the Mexican wolf and the Yellowstone wolf samples! The whole Red wolf and Great Lakes Wolf debate continues to rage unabated, which is why I tend to keep out of it. Happy New Year! William Harris • (talk) • 11:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello William!
What's a good term for "sub-sub-specific cladogram"? How many do we have? For example, there are some out there giving delails of the "Ovis aries" breeds. They'll probably mostly be for domesticated animals, don't you think? The last one I saw of the dog was https://www.dovepress.com/cr_data/article_fulltext/s57000/57678/img/fig3.jpg and the other one from that same paper.
Recently we talked about some information we couldn't find a perfect place for. I think the problem was the referent wasn't "dog breeds" nor "dog breeding" but rather "the dog family tree". It's not the same. The term "breed" is problematic because major branches like spaniel, sighthound, or molosser aren't breeds. As I recall, that information you had wasn't about dog breeding or breeds so much as the dog sub-sub-specific cladogram.
There's probably more than enough out there for horses, for example. People have done the work and published it, I bet, yet where would we put it? Chrisrus ( talk) 15:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not qualified to criticize that paper much, but I can see that they didn't test that many dogs. If they'd had a greater sample of dogs, I figure they might've tweeked the tree.
But just going by this diagram, I can say that it says that the last common ancestor(s) of Besenjis and all the other dogs in that study lived longer ago than the last common ancestors of the spaniels and hounds, terriers and herders, or any other such pairing you could find on that tree.
This does not mean, of course, that that ancestor was a Besenji. In all that time, the Besenji could have changed as much or more than any of the others. In fact, it's more reasonable to think that it has changed a lot than that it hasn't.
In fact, it's possible that that common ancestor wasn't even a dog. Chrisrus ( talk) 20:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
My comments appear against yours above. Regards, William Harris | talk 21:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Let's look at this cladogram for example, Origin_of_the_domestic_dog#Genetics.2C_archaeology_and_morphology, "Gray wolf divergence".
It says that the most recent common ancestors of Old and New World wolves lived longer ago than those of the Mexican and North American wolves.
Someone could claim that cladogram is wrong about that, but they couldn't rightly say that that's not what the cladogram says.
Let's look at one of these circular ones: http://www.orthomam.univ-montp2.fr/orthomam/html/images/omm_v9_43taxa_ref_tree.jpg
It says that the most recent common ancestor(s) you share with Koko lived longer ago than last common ancestor you share with Kanzi, but not as long ago as lived your common ancestor with Chantek.
It's also clear that the common ancestor of USER:William Harris and any given lesser ape lived longer ago than that, and so on backwards through time to your most recent common ancestor with Old world monkeys, New World monkeys, tarsiers, prosimians, each common ancestor having lived before the other.
Your common ancestor with your doglived longer ago than that you have with rabbits and rats , but not as long ago as your most recent common ancestor a sloth, even though that wasn't as long ago as the last common ancestor you share with Jumbo, which lived earlier then that you share with Skippy the Bush Kangaroo, but none of these lived as long ago as your ancestor with a platypus. The cladogram does claim a William Harris/platypus common ancestor did exist, but it doesn't say that creature was a platypus any more than it would claim it was a person.
http://www.orthomam.univ-montp2.fr/orthomam/html/images/omm_v9_43taxa_ref_tree.jpg does not say, however, which lived first, your common ancestor with any of those, or the common ancestor of a dog and a cat. We'd have to get that information elsehow.
Similarly, | this cladogram says that the most recent common ancestors of the besenji and all other dogs lived longer ago than the most recent common ancestor of spaniels, scenthounds, and poodles.
Indeed, it says they lived even earlier than the most recent common ancestor of akitas, chows, dingoes, shar peis, Malamutes, and Siberian huskies.
You could say that the cladogram is wrong to make that claim. But you can't rightly say that's not what the cladogram says.
That cladogram says that the last common ancestor of the basenji and the other dogs in the study lived longer ago than the last common ancestor of any two others.
You can say that's wrong. You can ask what about the Greenland dog, that's not included, why not.
I personally would ask that about the Telomian first. If I had to suggest a dog which might have a more distant most recent common ancestor with all other dogs than the basenji, I'd urge them to include data from a Telomian. Big glaring hole there. I suppose they couldn't find one.
You can say say that cladogram is wrong to say that about the other dog/basenji last common ancestor. You can look at the evidence in the text and say that that what the cladogram says is not what the text says or that the conclusion is not justified based on that evidence.
You could say that it's not what the cladogram should say for some other reason.
You can't rightly say, however, that that is not what that cladogram actually does say.
That cladogram says that the last common ancestor of the Basenji and all other dogs in the study lived longer ago than any other most recent common dog ancestor on the cladogram.
Rightly or wrongly, that's what that cladogram says. Chrisrus ( talk) 06:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
If I ask you: Does this cladogram, http://www.orthomam.univ-montp2.fr/orthomam/html/images/omm_v9_43taxa_ref_tree.jpg, say which lived longer ago, my most recent common ancestor with a sloth, or my most recent common ancestor with an elephant? May I assume you will answer yes, it does. The answer is "elephant".
According to that, my most recent common ancestor with an elephant lived longer ago than my most recent common ancestor with a sloth.
It is not correct that the one from the dog genome project produced by not just VonHoldt but many, many other experts all around the world "was not drawn to depict time in any way".
As long as you keep going in one direction, they display what happened before and after what. The VonHold + many, many others diagram shows that the last common ancestor of the American cocker spaniel and the English cocker spaniel didn't live as long ago as that of the springer spaniel. It shows that the common ancestor of spaniels and scent hounds didn't live as long ago as the common ancestor of, on one hand, spaniels and scenthounds, and poodles on the other. The most recent common ancestor of spaniels, scent hounds, and poodles, on the one hand, and schnauzers lived longer ago than that. And so on. We can't tell from this, however, whether the common ancestor of deerhounds and wolfhounds lived longer ago than that of beagles and bassets, because that would entail following the line down and back up again. So long as you go one direction, that diagram does "depict time" in a particular way. All cladograms do. That's their nature.
Chrisrus ( talk) 17:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
None of them "came first" - it is measuring the degree of genetic divergence. The Ibizan Hound is the most genetically divergent of that selection. We assume that this is because its lineage was more mixed with wild gene-flow from wolves in the past. Even more so the Saluki, and least so the French Bulldog, Chihuahua and the Boxer. Once again, that is why I am reluctant to do anything with that cladogram on Wikipedia. Regards, William Harris | talk 19:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello Mariomassone and Chrisrus. You both have an interest in using phylogenetic trees here on Wikipedia, so I would like to introduce you both to editor Jts1882, a small sample of who's work can be found here: Caniformia and quite stunningly here: /info/en/?search=User:Jts1882/phylogeny/Felidae.
Nice work Jts1882, and I respect a volunteer! I tried your new file in edit mode on Canidae (for coloured background) and Evolution of the wolf (for white background) and can vouch that it works. There is an easier way to do this, so let us try an experiment. Open the original icon provided by Mariomassone File:Dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes (Plate XXII).jpg. Where it says " This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below" click on the description page there, which will take you to its file on Commons. At the bottom of the section titled "File History" is a link to "Upload a new version of this file." Click on that and follow the instructions, ensuring that the file you upload has exactly the same name as the original. The file you load will then update across Commons and Wikipedia. Let us try just this file and see how it goes. I am sure Mario won't mind - it will provide him with some flexibility in design elsewhere. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 20:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
As I recall, based on what I've seen, looking back at it all now, the simplest answer to the question "What does "dingo" mean?" is:
The dingo is the native dog of Australia.
Unlike dogs in some other places, like, say, for example, southern China, dogs in Australia, before the introduction of other dogs from elsewhere, and still to a significant extent today, are quite uniform.
Early on, the dog was considered a species of the general dog type, not a subspecies of wolf. So early taxonomists used to name each major type of dog that they knew of, including dog breeds like dachshunds and so on, so they of course gave subspecies status to the dingo.
Soon, however, they gave that practice up, and all the taxa for types of dog fell off the bottom of traditional taxonomy and ended up as taxonomic "synonyms".
All except one: the taxon "dingo" survives to this day but my general impression is it seems to be on the way out.
It's interesting to me to ask why this happened. I can't cite this, but it seems safe to say it has to do with the common observation of dingoes living more as wolves than as domestic dogs, even feral ones.
Recently, however, the extent to which this is true, and for how long, has been questioned. Many experts nowadays seem to be saying that dingoes are more dependent on people than we tend to think, and that dingoes are just not just ecologically lupine, but often, rather, just pariah niche dogs, village dogs, and so on.
However there may be another force at work. There seems to be a fear that, if experts say that the dingo is just a dog, they would not be valued by people and therefore mistreated somehow or something.
Backing up a bit, though, there was a movement in the other direction. The Australian government paid experts to study the ecology of the dingo and it's relationship to the Australian livestock economy. These experts found it useful to call it "Canis dingo" so that they'd have room below to divide them into at least three "subspecies" that they learned to distinguish. Then they noticed that the native dogs of Australia's neighbors seemed quite the same in important ways and called them dingo as well.
This was a big problem on the article because it expanded the scope of our article dingo uncomfortably. The article, it was argued, has plenty to do to cover the original, Australian dingo. Users searching for "d-i-n-g-o" didn't want to read an article about the entire dingo-related branch on the dog family tree. It was making the article too long and the scope was too wide. So, we made a separate article about the whole clade they were calling dingo and kept that information there.
I think the dingo article should just be about the Australian dingo, and most people seem to agree. The article about the taxon dingo should probably end up as a sort of "intellectual history", if you get my drift, a story about the evolution of thought on the subject and all the significant neighboring non-Australian dogs that have been grouped under that taxon and where we are in in our thinking about dingoes today.
I would hope that readers should come away with the impression that there are more than just one legitimate way of looking at these things. While experts are sometimes keen to say that one way is truer than others, we should't do that, because whether a branch on the Tree of Life should have this or that name is inevitably sometimes in the end arbitrary and simply a matter of context and point-of-view dependent.
Far too often, all over Wikipedia, we talk as if taxa were something more than an important, probably indispensable, practical convention for keeping things organized, rather than a physical reality. The individuals and their clades are what is real, and we should be clear about that.
So there's a tendency to want to use the dingo taxon to refer to a clade, probably that of the Austronesian diaspora, but to my knowledge that hasn't really become a thing among experts.
"Dingo" refers first, always, and foremost, to the native dog of Australia, but has also at times for reasons also referred to the native dogs of neighboring countries as well, and MAYBE sometimes to the entire Australasian branch of the dog family tree to which the Australian dingo belongs.
Sorry, "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte". Chrisrus ( talk) 06:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The article
Dire wolf you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Dire wolf for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Adam Cuerden --
Adam Cuerden (
talk) 01:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Your comments on the New Guinea Singing dog page were correct. Whereas many times you see bias in editors that I don't, in this case, you're right. Let me explain.
Years ago, there was at that article an almost legendary battle between fans and promoters of the dog that has been called "the New Guinea Singing Dog War". I stumbled onto it and tried to stay out but was heavily lobbied to join both sides against the other, which I resisted. The animosity was great and spilled over onto my talk page where much can still be found if you're interested.
That's why that article looks so tattered and strange and fought over.
However, there is a legitimate problem with articlizing that referent, because what is it, really? A landrace, a breed, a feral dog, a wild dog, a subspecies of dog, a species of canid descended from a wild dog? It's an odd case not quite like practically any other I can think of.
Years later, "The Great Wikipedia New Guinea Singing Dog War" seems to have died down, and maybe it's become editable. It would be great if you were to take it on, but I recommend playing it extra "Mr. Spock" in light of this history. Chrisrus ( talk) 06:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I glanced over your sandbox page, and saw you had listed a source (about Greenland wolves) apparently in Danish, for something you want to work on. I can help you translate parts of that, if you are unable to, as it happens to be my first language. FunkMonk ( talk) 10:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Are there any dire wolf skeletal mounts on Wiki commons that come from the C. d. guildeyi locality and time period? I'd like to do another reconstruction. Mariomassone ( talk) 13:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Harris- Thanks for your help on the article on the Paleolithic Dog. I couldn't figure out how to respond on your Talk Page so I used edit mode. I do understand your point about the Goyet Dog's fuzzy genetics but I still don't understand how it could NOT be Canis Lupus as it is relatively recent and can only be a wolf or dog both of which are Canis Lupus. The Cave Wolf and other ancient wolves are considered Canis Lupus right- how logically can such recent fossils as the Goyet Dog and the Altai Dogs be anything but? Canis Lupus the species is 700,000 years old or so- correct? Anyway- thanks for your help, Jeff Thurston (Makumbe) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makumbe ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
AshLin ( talk) 11:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
In the edit summary that accompanied my change to Dire wolf, I quoted chapter and verse of the MoS. Now you don't need to bother going there as I quote it here: "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary)". The MoS is quite clear, so please restore my correction in that article. Chris the speller yack 14:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
William sorry for my comments on the Dire Wolf page a few days ago I was in a crappy mood. Your a great guy for these contributions, you are the essence of what makes the Internet, and people for that matter, great. I shouldn't have put those comments in there and feel ashamed. Sorry again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.178.106 ( talk) 00:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on the above article, it was a most interesting read! Xyzspaniel ( talk) 20:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Central Asia 1879 By Keith Johnston.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 13:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
A lick from Holly |
I read your dog evolution article last week and the wolf one you suggested this week - so impressed that I'm sending over my youngest Springer Spaniel Holly so she can lick your face - go raibh mile maith agut!
Xyzspaniel (
talk) 23:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
|
Hello User:RHaworth, I call upon your advice once again. The issue above this message is now fixed, however the image file:Dog skull dorsal.jpg should be renamed to file:Wolf skull dorsal.jpg - is that possible or would I need to tag it for deletion and then re-upload it under the correct name? Regards, William Harris | talk 23:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello User:RHaworth, the list provided by the bot (above) offers: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:File_copyright_tags/All#Creative_Commons with the option of {{ cc-by-sa-3.0}}. If that is incompatible with Wikipedia and Commons, perhaps it should be removed as an option. I did not select {{ pd-old}} for the uploads today, to the best of my understanding. Thanks for your advice. Regards, William Harris | talk 03:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I was going to send this just before you made the last change. See Russian conquest of Turkestan#1879-1885: Turkmenistan: Geok Tepe, Merv and Panjdeh and Pandjeh Incident. To the best of my knowledge: 1. Geok Tepe was captured in battle. The elders of Merv submitted and the place was then occupied, not captured. 2. During Anglo-Russian discussions over the northwest frontier of Afghanistan, Russia captured a new, advanced Afghan fort at Pandjeh, provoking the incident proper. When the frontier was finalized Russia kept Pandjeh and land to the west and south.
Now 1. capture of fort came first, annexation after. 2. 'Mir' is probably Merv. I don't know if Khiva ever claimed the area of if Merv was ever a Khanate. Benjamin Trovato ( talk) 01:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to apologize for my overly hostile tone on Talk:Dog. Frankly, I just reread my comments and was shocked at how hostile and abrasive they sounded. By contrast, your response was measured and mature. Allow me the conceit of blaming the flu virus I am currently battling, and know that you do not have to expect such hostility from interactions with me in the future. Cheers! Jtrevor99 ( talk) 19:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Harris - This is Jeff Thurston (makumbe). Thanks for your message - I am looking into the dog/human co-evolution hypothesis I found on one of the dog pages. You'll hear from me soon - Thanks much, Makumbe ( talk) 02:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Dire wolf you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Adam Cuerden --
Adam Cuerden (
talk) 11:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, William!
We need a cladogram of the Modern human family tree:
We need a reader-friendly cladogram based on this type of thing: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/221860094_fig2_Figure-3-Complete-mtDNA-phylogenetic-tree-of-haplogroup-B4'B5-This-schematic-tree-is or http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7314_nsGxkU/UfrlVzgqgSI/AAAAAAAAI_I/zGmoi0R5-Jw/s1600/F2.large.jpg turned into
Do you have any thoughts or advice?
I ask because you have experience with making such cladograms from figures in published papers, and I'm having difficulty.
Thanks!
Chrisrus ( talk) 16:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Modern human lineages |
Proposed split of the Khoisan matrilineal lineage from everyone else between 150-90 thousand years ago. |
![]() |
The Writer's Barnstar |
I don't think you didn't get enough credit for your hard work on Evolution of the wolf. An exceptional article that left me extremely impressed. You definitely deserve this barnstar for your tireless contributions. Have a good day! Burklemore1 ( talk) 06:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks for uploading File:Assumed path of Beringian wolves from Beringia to Wyoming.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 03:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello M, thanks for the "Thanks" on Red Wolf. Now to make things even more interesting, a German team looking at the mDNA of ancient dogs in Germany (not released yet) has (1) supported Skoglund's mutation rate as that of their dogs matched the Taimyr wolf, which pushes dog/wolf divergence out to between 40-50 thousand years ago, (2) rebutted the recent proposal of a dual domestication of dogs in both Europe and East Asia with the European dogs being replaced by East Asian dogs because the descendants of their ancient German dogs were alive and well in Germany, and (3) their phylogenetic tree shows the "Great Lakes Wolf" to be basal to the Mexican wolf and the Yellowstone wolf samples! The whole Red wolf and Great Lakes Wolf debate continues to rage unabated, which is why I tend to keep out of it. Happy New Year! William Harris • (talk) • 11:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello William!
What's a good term for "sub-sub-specific cladogram"? How many do we have? For example, there are some out there giving delails of the "Ovis aries" breeds. They'll probably mostly be for domesticated animals, don't you think? The last one I saw of the dog was https://www.dovepress.com/cr_data/article_fulltext/s57000/57678/img/fig3.jpg and the other one from that same paper.
Recently we talked about some information we couldn't find a perfect place for. I think the problem was the referent wasn't "dog breeds" nor "dog breeding" but rather "the dog family tree". It's not the same. The term "breed" is problematic because major branches like spaniel, sighthound, or molosser aren't breeds. As I recall, that information you had wasn't about dog breeding or breeds so much as the dog sub-sub-specific cladogram.
There's probably more than enough out there for horses, for example. People have done the work and published it, I bet, yet where would we put it? Chrisrus ( talk) 15:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not qualified to criticize that paper much, but I can see that they didn't test that many dogs. If they'd had a greater sample of dogs, I figure they might've tweeked the tree.
But just going by this diagram, I can say that it says that the last common ancestor(s) of Besenjis and all the other dogs in that study lived longer ago than the last common ancestors of the spaniels and hounds, terriers and herders, or any other such pairing you could find on that tree.
This does not mean, of course, that that ancestor was a Besenji. In all that time, the Besenji could have changed as much or more than any of the others. In fact, it's more reasonable to think that it has changed a lot than that it hasn't.
In fact, it's possible that that common ancestor wasn't even a dog. Chrisrus ( talk) 20:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
My comments appear against yours above. Regards, William Harris | talk 21:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Let's look at this cladogram for example, Origin_of_the_domestic_dog#Genetics.2C_archaeology_and_morphology, "Gray wolf divergence".
It says that the most recent common ancestors of Old and New World wolves lived longer ago than those of the Mexican and North American wolves.
Someone could claim that cladogram is wrong about that, but they couldn't rightly say that that's not what the cladogram says.
Let's look at one of these circular ones: http://www.orthomam.univ-montp2.fr/orthomam/html/images/omm_v9_43taxa_ref_tree.jpg
It says that the most recent common ancestor(s) you share with Koko lived longer ago than last common ancestor you share with Kanzi, but not as long ago as lived your common ancestor with Chantek.
It's also clear that the common ancestor of USER:William Harris and any given lesser ape lived longer ago than that, and so on backwards through time to your most recent common ancestor with Old world monkeys, New World monkeys, tarsiers, prosimians, each common ancestor having lived before the other.
Your common ancestor with your doglived longer ago than that you have with rabbits and rats , but not as long ago as your most recent common ancestor a sloth, even though that wasn't as long ago as the last common ancestor you share with Jumbo, which lived earlier then that you share with Skippy the Bush Kangaroo, but none of these lived as long ago as your ancestor with a platypus. The cladogram does claim a William Harris/platypus common ancestor did exist, but it doesn't say that creature was a platypus any more than it would claim it was a person.
http://www.orthomam.univ-montp2.fr/orthomam/html/images/omm_v9_43taxa_ref_tree.jpg does not say, however, which lived first, your common ancestor with any of those, or the common ancestor of a dog and a cat. We'd have to get that information elsehow.
Similarly, | this cladogram says that the most recent common ancestors of the besenji and all other dogs lived longer ago than the most recent common ancestor of spaniels, scenthounds, and poodles.
Indeed, it says they lived even earlier than the most recent common ancestor of akitas, chows, dingoes, shar peis, Malamutes, and Siberian huskies.
You could say that the cladogram is wrong to make that claim. But you can't rightly say that's not what the cladogram says.
That cladogram says that the last common ancestor of the basenji and the other dogs in the study lived longer ago than the last common ancestor of any two others.
You can say that's wrong. You can ask what about the Greenland dog, that's not included, why not.
I personally would ask that about the Telomian first. If I had to suggest a dog which might have a more distant most recent common ancestor with all other dogs than the basenji, I'd urge them to include data from a Telomian. Big glaring hole there. I suppose they couldn't find one.
You can say say that cladogram is wrong to say that about the other dog/basenji last common ancestor. You can look at the evidence in the text and say that that what the cladogram says is not what the text says or that the conclusion is not justified based on that evidence.
You could say that it's not what the cladogram should say for some other reason.
You can't rightly say, however, that that is not what that cladogram actually does say.
That cladogram says that the last common ancestor of the Basenji and all other dogs in the study lived longer ago than any other most recent common dog ancestor on the cladogram.
Rightly or wrongly, that's what that cladogram says. Chrisrus ( talk) 06:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
If I ask you: Does this cladogram, http://www.orthomam.univ-montp2.fr/orthomam/html/images/omm_v9_43taxa_ref_tree.jpg, say which lived longer ago, my most recent common ancestor with a sloth, or my most recent common ancestor with an elephant? May I assume you will answer yes, it does. The answer is "elephant".
According to that, my most recent common ancestor with an elephant lived longer ago than my most recent common ancestor with a sloth.
It is not correct that the one from the dog genome project produced by not just VonHoldt but many, many other experts all around the world "was not drawn to depict time in any way".
As long as you keep going in one direction, they display what happened before and after what. The VonHold + many, many others diagram shows that the last common ancestor of the American cocker spaniel and the English cocker spaniel didn't live as long ago as that of the springer spaniel. It shows that the common ancestor of spaniels and scent hounds didn't live as long ago as the common ancestor of, on one hand, spaniels and scenthounds, and poodles on the other. The most recent common ancestor of spaniels, scent hounds, and poodles, on the one hand, and schnauzers lived longer ago than that. And so on. We can't tell from this, however, whether the common ancestor of deerhounds and wolfhounds lived longer ago than that of beagles and bassets, because that would entail following the line down and back up again. So long as you go one direction, that diagram does "depict time" in a particular way. All cladograms do. That's their nature.
Chrisrus ( talk) 17:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
None of them "came first" - it is measuring the degree of genetic divergence. The Ibizan Hound is the most genetically divergent of that selection. We assume that this is because its lineage was more mixed with wild gene-flow from wolves in the past. Even more so the Saluki, and least so the French Bulldog, Chihuahua and the Boxer. Once again, that is why I am reluctant to do anything with that cladogram on Wikipedia. Regards, William Harris | talk 19:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello Mariomassone and Chrisrus. You both have an interest in using phylogenetic trees here on Wikipedia, so I would like to introduce you both to editor Jts1882, a small sample of who's work can be found here: Caniformia and quite stunningly here: /info/en/?search=User:Jts1882/phylogeny/Felidae.
Nice work Jts1882, and I respect a volunteer! I tried your new file in edit mode on Canidae (for coloured background) and Evolution of the wolf (for white background) and can vouch that it works. There is an easier way to do this, so let us try an experiment. Open the original icon provided by Mariomassone File:Dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes (Plate XXII).jpg. Where it says " This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below" click on the description page there, which will take you to its file on Commons. At the bottom of the section titled "File History" is a link to "Upload a new version of this file." Click on that and follow the instructions, ensuring that the file you upload has exactly the same name as the original. The file you load will then update across Commons and Wikipedia. Let us try just this file and see how it goes. I am sure Mario won't mind - it will provide him with some flexibility in design elsewhere. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 20:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
As I recall, based on what I've seen, looking back at it all now, the simplest answer to the question "What does "dingo" mean?" is:
The dingo is the native dog of Australia.
Unlike dogs in some other places, like, say, for example, southern China, dogs in Australia, before the introduction of other dogs from elsewhere, and still to a significant extent today, are quite uniform.
Early on, the dog was considered a species of the general dog type, not a subspecies of wolf. So early taxonomists used to name each major type of dog that they knew of, including dog breeds like dachshunds and so on, so they of course gave subspecies status to the dingo.
Soon, however, they gave that practice up, and all the taxa for types of dog fell off the bottom of traditional taxonomy and ended up as taxonomic "synonyms".
All except one: the taxon "dingo" survives to this day but my general impression is it seems to be on the way out.
It's interesting to me to ask why this happened. I can't cite this, but it seems safe to say it has to do with the common observation of dingoes living more as wolves than as domestic dogs, even feral ones.
Recently, however, the extent to which this is true, and for how long, has been questioned. Many experts nowadays seem to be saying that dingoes are more dependent on people than we tend to think, and that dingoes are just not just ecologically lupine, but often, rather, just pariah niche dogs, village dogs, and so on.
However there may be another force at work. There seems to be a fear that, if experts say that the dingo is just a dog, they would not be valued by people and therefore mistreated somehow or something.
Backing up a bit, though, there was a movement in the other direction. The Australian government paid experts to study the ecology of the dingo and it's relationship to the Australian livestock economy. These experts found it useful to call it "Canis dingo" so that they'd have room below to divide them into at least three "subspecies" that they learned to distinguish. Then they noticed that the native dogs of Australia's neighbors seemed quite the same in important ways and called them dingo as well.
This was a big problem on the article because it expanded the scope of our article dingo uncomfortably. The article, it was argued, has plenty to do to cover the original, Australian dingo. Users searching for "d-i-n-g-o" didn't want to read an article about the entire dingo-related branch on the dog family tree. It was making the article too long and the scope was too wide. So, we made a separate article about the whole clade they were calling dingo and kept that information there.
I think the dingo article should just be about the Australian dingo, and most people seem to agree. The article about the taxon dingo should probably end up as a sort of "intellectual history", if you get my drift, a story about the evolution of thought on the subject and all the significant neighboring non-Australian dogs that have been grouped under that taxon and where we are in in our thinking about dingoes today.
I would hope that readers should come away with the impression that there are more than just one legitimate way of looking at these things. While experts are sometimes keen to say that one way is truer than others, we should't do that, because whether a branch on the Tree of Life should have this or that name is inevitably sometimes in the end arbitrary and simply a matter of context and point-of-view dependent.
Far too often, all over Wikipedia, we talk as if taxa were something more than an important, probably indispensable, practical convention for keeping things organized, rather than a physical reality. The individuals and their clades are what is real, and we should be clear about that.
So there's a tendency to want to use the dingo taxon to refer to a clade, probably that of the Austronesian diaspora, but to my knowledge that hasn't really become a thing among experts.
"Dingo" refers first, always, and foremost, to the native dog of Australia, but has also at times for reasons also referred to the native dogs of neighboring countries as well, and MAYBE sometimes to the entire Australasian branch of the dog family tree to which the Australian dingo belongs.
Sorry, "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte". Chrisrus ( talk) 06:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The article
Dire wolf you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Dire wolf for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Adam Cuerden --
Adam Cuerden (
talk) 01:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)