Talk:Canid hybrid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Dogs
Dogs Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page)

Umm, I'm not sure what the section on Coy-dogs was meant to say, but something tells me that "human sperm" is a mistake. If not, I'm going to be seriously skeeved by coy-dogs from now on.

Note that Dingoes are Wolves.

What is a "pure-bred wolf"? Nature isn't a dog show.

Contents

[edit] Long quote

I Wikified the Darwin quotes. I know it's public domain, but it seems long for an encyclopedic entry. Perhaps an expert would like to sumarize it. --malber 18:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The Darwin quote is not particularly helpful. Darwin wrote more than 100 years before DNA analysis established dogs are domesticated wolves. This article needs serious editing. --Michael Johnson 05:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge Sulimov dog into #Jackal hybrids

The info in the Sulimov dog page is not sufficient to keep it as a separate article, but it would neatly fill out the Canid article.

Two main points here: one, the "dogs" are not yet a breed, and two, they probably never will be given an implied fertility problem [1]. In brief, 35 hybrids since 1975 -- 31 years -- implies a fertility problem.

If there are any Russian language readers/speakers who can access Russian references and correct my assumption, please do so. Gordon | Talk, 19 October 2006 @12:55 UTC

[edit] The Merge

There having been no discussion, the merge has been done. Gordon | Talk, 29 October 2006 @05:25 UTC

[edit] Colors?

Is there a specific reason for the different colors (red/green) in the synoptic table? If so, can the reason be stated? Or the colors be removed, as they are confusing/distracting/non-standard? Rockdozen 22:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] INCORRECT ASSUMPTION

While extremely rare, dog/fox hybrids are possible. Here is an article from Fox News that says DNA tests confirmed this on a dead hybrid.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208683,00.html

Erm... That article states that the animal was a wolfdog, not a dog/fox hybrid. --Beatfox (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poor article

This article needs significant improvement.

1. It needs to distingish between hybrids between subspecies, and between species.
2. While hybrids between subspecies are unremarkable, hybrids between species need to be verified by something more than news reports. How about some serious scientific references?

--Michael Johnson 05:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


You want serious reference? How about the department of genetics at the University of Wisconsin? see here: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-8424%2819490815%2935%3A8%3C468%3ACOAFH%28%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

You cannot state with absolute certainty that this is not possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.161.250 (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove yellow jackal from Jackal hybrids section

Since the jackals Canis aureus, adustus, and mesomelas have 2n=78 chromosomes [2], shouldn't the "Yellow Jackal" (What is the latin name? Is it one of the South American canides with 2n=74 chromosomes?) be removed from or moved out of the jackals' section?

Lemgo 11:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There is evidence that the domestic dog is a separate species and not a sub-species of canis lupus. See the following aticle: http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006/10/controversial-origins-of-domestic-dog.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.6.47 (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that evidence. I'm not completely finished with this article but there are certain flaws which doesn't fit. At first the whole "they revert back to being wolf-like in appearance" or "back to the wild form". Horses have become feral again in many places of the world and they don't look like their ancestors and wild wolves don't look alike no matter where you go. Arabian wolves are much smaller and look more jackal-like, than their relatives in middle europe or North America. There are a lot of domestic dogs, who look pretty wolf-like and I don't know what the author calls "wolf-like", a dingo looks pretty wolf-like in built. And just because a breed gets feral again, doesn't mean it will become wolves again. If they can, they will adapt in an amoubnt that is neccasary and not more. It seems as though the author claims to know exactly how evolution works. And all the "wolvesd don't make good pets" is no good argument either. Wildcats also don't make good pets and no one questions, that they have been domesticated. By the way, the wild cat populations in germany also don't mix with the domesticated ones and that's due to climatic reasons (different mating seasons) and not genetic diversency. And at last: The first archeological evidence of a domestic dog is more thann 10 000 years old. The wolves than could have been much different than the ones today. I recommend: try "The dog" from Erik Zimen on that matter; in that books he also gets rid, with the whole "pariah-like ancestor" stuff. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


"I wouldn't call that evidence. I'm not completely finished with this article..."

Rather closed-minded to dismiss an article without even finishing it. How do you know there might not be evidence presnted of significant diversity in the parts you failed to read? Falange (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Dox description

As far as I can tell, there have been no confirmed crosses of dogs and foxes. Therefore, I changed the description of a "dox" from future tense to past tense: most likely, if you cross a dog and a fox, what you will get is absolutely nothing. This is not to say that a "dox" is impossible, but if most crossings of dogs and foxes produced live offspring I suspect one would have been confirmed by now. If this description of a "dox" is accurate at all, it must be describing the animals that people have claimed (but not confirmed) are dog-fox hybrids, and therefore should be stated in the past tense. A citation here would sure be nice though!Revdrace (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)