Talk:Dingo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Dingo has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
September 6, 2006 Good article nominee Listed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dingo article.
Article policies
Flag
Portal
 Dingo is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota.
Assessment comments
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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
A section of this article is within the scope of the WikiProject Etymology, an attempt at improving etymologies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article's etymology section is incomplete or unreferenced.
This article is ranked 2 on the priority scale.

The trouble here is that dingos are widely treated as if they are a separate species (a subspecies of Canis lupus, the wolf) when, IMO (and Tannin's) they are in fact just a wild breed of Canis familiaris (given the ease with which the two "species" interbreed). So I really don't know what to do at this point. Perhaps the hybrid table will do for now. --mav

Canis lupus and Canis familiaris are the same species anyway. The most sensible classification would be to have the domesticated dog classified as Canis lupus familiaris, and to keep the Dingo as it is.
I invite an expert on the Australian Dingo to come and fix this page up. The Australian dingo is a distinct breed, at the very least, which only appears on the Australian mainland, and probably has none but token connection to Asian dingos, as it is widely accepted that Australian dingo descended from domesticated dogs brought from Asia around 5,000 years ago. gwhitescarver at yahoo dot com
The dingo can be considered a distinct species as their DNA is sufficiently different from dogs and wolves, even though they can interbreed. i.e. dingos, dogs and hybrids can be easily told apart by their DNA alone. It's a slightly different definition of species, but is often used in biology and genetics. --Pengo 08:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just like a German Shepherd and a Labrador. That proofs nothing. Dingos and domestic dogs intebred and interbreed far too often to be considered two species.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Plurality

Sort inspired from a series of edits at Thylacine.

I always thought the plural of Dingo was Dingoes, but now I see it is Dingoes.

Other articles, such as octopus have a section explaining the "odd" rules of plural spelling, would someone with the knowledge be able to contribute a similar segment to this page.--ZayZayEM 02:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I thought it was Dingos until i looked it up on Dictionary.com, which sites the The American Heritage® Dictionary as saying it's Dingoes (which is why I used that on the Thylacine article. However, a more authorative source for this word, The Concise Australian Macquarie Dictionary, has both Dingos and Dingoes listed. We should mention both form and standardise on one form. I prefer Dingos. --Pengo 08:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The plural of dingo is dingoes, not dingos, which sounds like some Greak bloke who got bullied at school for having a stupid sounding name.

[edit] capitalisation (or -zation if you prefer)

What's with the capitalisation of animal names? It seems like binomial nomenclature gone crazy. According to Naming conventions there is only a weak case for capitalising mammal names. Especially as there is no ambiguity about what dingo (lowercase) means. I notice other animals seem to follow this crazy capitalisation scheme, such as Blue Whale, but not all, eg Horseshoe crab. What's with this? I guess this debate has occurred before. But dingo (lowercase) makes more sense to me, and the Macquarie Dictionary lists it with a lowercase d too. Thoughts? --Pengo 08:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd suggest that a great many people simply aren't clear on capitalisation in English, and they tend to overcorrect as a result, not just here but in general. Dingo is clearly a common name for a type of dog, and thus shouldn't be capitalised. The only breed names that would be are those with an adjectival portion which is itself based on a proper name - Jack Russell terrier, for instance, or Welsh terrier - and the search for perceived consistency there is probably a big source of the confusion. In some cases the usage seems to have changed to the point where it's simply a variant for of English - Border Collie seems almost never to be written without caps, for instance. (As a side note, treating dingo as a species name would in fact demand that it be lowercase, since species names are never capitalised.) - toh 22:13, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
This is a subject that has been argued here many, many times over the years. In the dog breeds section, we decided that the convention should be that breed names are capitalised and this consensus has held for a long time now. So it's Border Collie and Welsh Terrier. The dingo is a slightly different case in itself because it is usually regarded as a sub-species rather than a breed - and mammals usually are in the non-capitalised form (unlike, for example, birds - where the agreement on Wikipedia is to capitalise) so this one is down to the conventions of the tree of life wikiproject rather then the dog breeds wikiproject. -- sannse (talk) 12:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Backing Sannse up, but also pointing out that another reason the Dingo is a special case is because the ANKC has in fact recognized the Dingo as a breed. Quill 09:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yep, I meant to mention that, thanks Quill -- sannse (talk) 11:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More on species names

My most recent dog breed books count the Dingo, the Carolina Dog, and the New Guinea Singing Dog as dog breeds, not as separate wild dogs.

Found this note on the web[1] (it was just phrased well; this is probably a more definitive site although it prefers c .f. dingo):

This site uses the scientific name of Canis lupus dingo rather than Canis familiaris dingo, because the latter ignores the new scientific data that makes the nomenclature C. familiaris archaic; it is now known that the domestic dog is indeed the same species as the grey wolf and read as C. l. familiaris. Some even classify the dingo as a sub-subspecies of dog, Canis lupus familiaris dingo
However, there is still scientific debate over the classification of the dingo, and a standard needs to be set for this species

Elf | Talk 21:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Given the supposed interbreeding rate of dingos with domestic dogs, that won't be problem any longer.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inevitable extinction vs. secure conservation status?

In the conservation status space in the sidebar, the dingo is labeled as secure, but one of the last things mentioned in the article is that the dingo's extinction as a distinct breed is considered inevitable. That seems contradictory to me. LeoO3 22:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

There are lots of dingos, so you cannot say they are endangered. However, the majority now have some genetic material from other dog species.dramatic 01:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


Anyone have a better photo than the one shown? That has to be the least "dingo looking" dingo photo I've seen.

there are some great photos of various dingos at : http://www.dingosanctuary.com.au/sponsors1.htm most dingos these days are dog-dingo hybrids. thats why some seem to have almost akita-like features. i do agree the main photo is a poor example of a dingo.

My one in the taxobox? Go complain to Taronga Park zoo - they said it was a purebred. (pic taken in 2000, so that dingo may no longer be around). dramatic 09:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Origin

Not a huge deal, but this page referred to a study done (now cited), but had the year about 1000 years off. I also removed the bit about the Great Pyramids; it seems irrelevant to provide that as a time-scale.--Scrondor 08:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Characteristics

"Unlike the domestic dog, Dingos breed only once a year, generally do not bark, and have erect ears."

i was under the impression that captive dingos or "domestic" dingos will eventually learn to bark from other real dogs. they don't make a habit of it and it is a very rare occurance but they will in fact learn how to do it. is that correct?

another dingo characteristic i heard was that NO dingos are born with rear dew claws. whereas in domestic dogs some are and some aren't... but MOST are born with them (and then clipped at birth?)

Barking is a neotenic feature of the domestic dog, displaying excitement; or uncertainty as to the appropriate action and a call for a more "senior" pack member (eg: human) to do something about the problem. Wolves, dingoes, foxes etc don't do it after puppyhood. OK, yes they do, but only in extreme circumstances. Gordon | Talk, 20 October 2006 @12:30 UTC

That's also not entirely true, foxes in suburbs of London were reported to great people they know with barks.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I've never heard that most domestic dags are born with Dew Claws. In all my life I can only remember to have seen only two dogs who had such claws (a Muensterlaender and the second some kind of shepherd-mix I think) and the claws aren't even mentioned in most books I read. And it's unlikely that the purebred dogs had the dew claws clipped because thats forbidden in germany (as long as there is no medical justification for that). So where did this data come from, what's the source?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The source is linked immediately after the statement. Feel free to check it out.Dark hyena (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current thinking on dog domestication

The article states: "Current thinking suggests that modern dogs are a mixture of several separate domestications of wolves at different times and in different areas." Actually, this is a disputed idea. Molecular dating suggests that dogs originated from one population of "camp follower" wolves as early as 135,000 years ago (though this is controvertial). DNA comparisons between dogs and wolves appear to show that dogs were not in fact domesticated from different subspecies of wolves at different times--in fact, it suggests just the opposite. Of course, as everything related to molecular datings and the like are highly controversial, and indeed all things paleontological are often fraught with controversy, it's hard to argue that this article is wrong....

If you can cite your sources, then please add this information to the article. It's fine to have articles that contain controversial information as long as the information is not original research. "Some scientists say XYZ because of ABC, while others say ZYX because of DEF." - UtherSRG (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
A source for the above is New Scientist magazine, issue 2558, dated 1 July 2006. It includes statements such as "in fact we now know that all breeds descended from one species, the grey wolf." It also states that the grey wolf was domesticated 15k years ago which is well before dingoes were introduced to Australia. I'm about to update the article with this info. 203.22.236.14 10:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Call of the Wild" by Jack London

So it's safe to say that Buck was a dingo or was in "dingo state"? (~PassiveBluffing~)


[edit] Dingo Photos

Just popped back for a look and saw the new dingo photos. Well done whoever found those shots, they are much better than the earlier one. --Phil Wardle 02:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Good Article on hold

I think this article is pretty well written and it seems factually accurate and neutral. However I felt that it was missing some important information:

  • How long do they live? added
  • Perhaps expand a little on the dingo attacks, right now the reader has to go to those other articles to find out anything about them.added more info and refs
  • this source tells me that they are protected in some national parks, maybe this deserves a mention. protection in various areas noted
  • My MS Word spell-checker set on UK English actually shows up dingos as a spelling error. I realise that this is one of the correct spellings, but you should mention dingoes as an alternative spelling as well (I see this was mentioned on this talk page already but never brought into action)

Once these issues are tended too I think it can be safely promoted to GA status.--Konstable 12:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it meets the criteria, I am promoting it to GA status. --Konstable 06:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
What's GA status? TeePee-20.7 16:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vocalizations

My family had a 1/2 breed Dingo who used to howl along with the Coyotes back home. She would bark, too. Usually when someone was at the door. Fiercly loyal also, moreso than an ordinary dog.

[edit] Discrepancy on longevity

The characteristics say 13 years in captivity with a normal life span of 3-7 years in the wild.EARLIEST EVIDENCE SECTION SAYS DINGOES CAN LIVE TO 20 YEARS.Someone needs to decide which is correct.Saltforkgunman 17:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This jumped out at me too; maybe the 20 year claim should simply be removed, as the other figure is sourced? The second figure is also in the wrong place in the article, breaking the flow. So if they do in fact regularly live to be 20 (which I doubt), this should be mentioned earlier. The age they live to has nothing to do with the earliest evidence whatsoever Steevm 00:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baby eating

The Relationship with Humans page ends with sentence: "Dingoes are known to eat human babies." Surely this warrants elaboration, or relating it to the Chamberlain disappearance linked several paragraphs earlier if that is all that is being implied. -BlackTerror 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the reference to baby eating, which had somehow made its way down to the References section. Until someone bothers to link to an article related to the Chamberlain incident, I don't think it is worth mentioning aside from possibly the enormous pop culture references. Jmullman 19:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment completed for Dingo


As per either a recent request at or because this article was listed as fully or partly unassessed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment I have just now completed a rating of the article and posted my results to this page. Those results are detailed above in the template box. Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, I am unable to leave detailed comments other than to make the following brief observation: article contributes a depth of knowledge about the subject

However if you have specific questions, please write to me on my talk page and as time permits I will try to provide you with my reasoning. Please put my talk page on your watchlist if you do ask such a question because in the case of these responses I will only post my answer underneath your question.

ALSO if you do not agree with the rating you can list it in the "Requesting an assessment section", and someone will take a look at it.--VS talk 10:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Nigger dog?"

What is up with the Nigger "dog" writen at the top of the article, is that a vandalization or what? Because if not that definately needs some explination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.245.194.253 (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC). sup im creg te he im a gangster

[edit] Shouldnt the Latin name be changed?

Seeing as the Indian wolf (the alledged anscestor of the dingo) is now known to be a separate species entirely to the grey wolf and is now known as Canis Indica, shouldnt the dingo be renamed Canis Indica Dingo?83.187.226.129 11:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Only if you rename all domestic dogs. Dingos and domestic dogs are definetely the same species. By the way "Indian Wolf" could also mean the "Canis lupus pallipes".--Inugami-bargho (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ROFLCOPTER

The term roflcopter appears at the bottom of "dingos as pets" section. This is a popular adolescent term and the article should be checked for accuracy as parts of this article may have been altered and may be invalid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.28.220 (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. This is an excellent article and well-referenced, but the lead is incomplete. It is an excellent start, but it should be a summary of the entire article, not just sections. I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Corvus coronoides talk 12:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)