Talk:Red Wolf
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Mammal-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
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. | ||
| 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. |
|||
+
Contents |
[edit] Eastern Canadian Wolf
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:
- Three subspecies of Red Wolf are recognised. Canis rufus floridanus has been extinct since 1930. Canis rufus rufus was declared extinct by 1970. And finally, Canis rufus gregoryi, now focused on in wolf recovery plans, became extinct in the wild by 1980.
- There are around 270 remaining Red Wolves; about 100 in the wild in North Carolina and 170 in captivity.
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."
[edit] Additions
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)
[edit] Hybridization
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)
- I'm 99% on this (that they are fertile) but we don't have a definite source, so that would be good until I track down one tomorrow (or next year...). Lupus (wolves) and familiaris (dogs) have fertile hybrids and I don't see why rufus and latrans would not. The whole lot of them can interbreed as far as I know. Indeed, the canines are a bad choice if you want to argue "species" = "intra-breeding only". Marskell 22:18, 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)
- "Not dispositive of the species question"--no indeed, and the assumption that non-inter-breeding indicates a distinct species (or that inter-breeding does) is a mistaken one. This is worth emphasizing with this genus particluarly. Marskell 22:47, 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)
[edit] Assimilation Sex Dominance
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~)
- Your beliefs are not what we put into the article. We document the relative (in this case) scientific literature on what this species is. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
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~
- No, what I'm saying is that Wikipedia is not a place for your own views. We maintain a neutral point of view and do not conduct original research. Wikipedia is a place to report on the information and research that exists. If you can show published works that include your theories (but not published works of your own), then you can put that information into the articles. I'm not saying you don't have a valid point. You may. But it is not what Wikipedia is about. Please read the links I've provided in this edit, as well as the links I've provided on your talk page so that you can better understand how to contribute in a productive manner. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, can't we all just get along!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.139.86 (talk • contribs)
- Remember: Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research, well reasoned or otherwise. This is from the Wikipedia editing article "This is also not the place for "original research"—that is, new theories, etc., that haven't been supported by peer review. For more details about what Wikipedia should include, see What Wikipedia is not, Criteria for inclusion of biographies and What's in, what's out (the latter is an early guideline of Wikipedia)."
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.
- Out of the blue - Doesn't it seem unlikely that the Red Wolf could be genetically identical to both the Gray Wolf and the Coyote? The source for this statement doesn't really stand muster either. There must be a more authoritative article than a 40 year old work on the art of Audubon. V —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.159.138 (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
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.
[edit] Capitalization
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 talkcontribs 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)
- All right; here are some examples.
- As for "where I got the idea," I was looking around at the external links for this website. As I stated before, the Red Wolf Coalition does not capitalize the name of the species; the red wolf entry on the ARKive doesn't, either. (Admittedly, in the Wikipedia entry regarding naming conventions of fauna, it is written that "[m]ammals are mostly capitalized." However, I take mostly to mean not required.) It seemed to me that it would make sense for Wikipedia to follow along these lines as well.
- That is my reasoning. But, if you dislike jumping onto the stylistic bandwagon that other websites have, I'll withhold my urge to lowercase everything!
- *trying to be nice* :P Switchercat talkcontribs 22:59, 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)
- That applies only to birds, however. Switchercat talkcontribs 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, WP:BIRD only applies to bird; I didn't say that that project can define how this article is named. However, the logic of the capitalization scheme layed out in WP:BIRD is sound. I've had WP:PRIM, WP:CEPH, and WP:MaM all point there for the rationale for why those projects are using the same capitalization scheme. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:36, 17 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)
[edit] Red Wolf Entirely as Gray Wolf/Coyote Hybrid, Not Separate Species?
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.
[edit] Two photos are better than one
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)
