Talk:Wolf

IUCN Status Change?

Gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes region of the United States (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) have once again been added to the Endangered Species Act. Should this necessitate a change from Least Concern of the IUCN status?

Updating taxonomy

I will be updating the Canidae taxonomy and common names to match Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed, 2005) as follows:

• • • Family Canidae
      • Genus Vulpes
        • Vulpes lagopus - Arctic Fox (4 subspecies)
        • Vulpes macrotis - Kit Fox
        • Vulpes pallida - Pale Fox (5 subspecies)
        • Vulpes bengalensis - Bengal Fox
        • Vulpes cana - Blanford's Fox
        • Vulpes chama - Cape Fox
        • Vulpes corsac Corsac Fox (2 subspecies)
        • Vulpes ferrilata - move Tibetan Fox to Tibetan Sand Fox (includes ekloni)
        • Vulpes rueppellii - Rüppell's Fox (5 subspecies)
        • Vulpes velox - Swift Fox (includes hebes)
        • Vulpes vulpes - Red Fox (45 subspecies)
        • Vulpes zerda - move Fennec to Fennec Fox
      • Genus Atelocynus
        • Atelocynus microtis - Short-eared Dog
      • Genus Canis
        • Canis adustus - Side-striped Jackal (6 subspecies)
        • Canis aureus - Golden Jackal (13 subspecies)
        • Canis latrans - Coyote (19 subspecies)
        • Canis lupus - Grey Wolf - (37 subspecies, including dingo, familiaris and lycaon)
        • Canis mesomelas - Black-backed Jackal (2 subspecies)
        • Canis simensis - Ethiopian Wolf (2 subspecies)
      • Genus Cerdocyon
        • Cerdocyon thous - Crab-eating Fox (6 subspecies)
      • Genus Chrysocyon
        • Chrysocyon brachyurus - Maned Wolf
      • Genus Cuon
        • Cuon alpinus - Dhole (3 subspecies)
      • Genus Dusicyon
        • Dusicyon australis - Falkland Islands Wolf
      • Genus Lycalopex
        • Lycalopex culpaeus - Culpeo (6 subspecies) was in Pseudalopex genus
        • Lycalopex fulvipes - Darwin's Fox was in Pseudalopex genus
        • Lycalopex griseus - South American Gray Fox new article
        • Lycalopex gymnocercus - Pampas Fox (5 subspecies) was in Pseudalopex genus
        • Lycalopex sechurae - Sechuran Fox new article
        • Lycalopex vetulus - Hoary Fox was in Pseudalopex genus
      • Genus Lycaon
        • Lycaon pictus - African Wild Dog (5 subspecies)
      • Genus Nyctereutes
        • Nyctereutes procyonoides - Raccoon Dog (5 subspecies)
      • Genus Otocyon
        • Otocyon megalotis - Bat-eared Fox (2 subspecies)
      • Genus Speothos
        • Speothos venaticus - Bush Dog (3 subspecies)
      • Genus Urocyon
        • Urocyon cinereoargenteus - Gray Fox (16 subspecies)
        • Urocyon littoralis - Island Fox (6 subspecies)

I will hold off for a few days for comments. Since I'm posting this in multiple places, please contact me on my talk page if you have any concerns. I'll wait a week to give folks time to comment. -

Wolf Awareness Week

October 12th-18th is National Wolf Awareness Week. If you want more information check out this link: [[1]National Wolf Awareness Week]

Taxonomy

The article should describe the traditional division of dogs and wolves into different species, and why DNA testing has changed this, and whether the DNA testing (probably just mtDNA) is actually conclusive (compare Red Wolf).

Problem statement on interspecific breeding

This statement in the Interspecific Hybridization section is not supportable:

"Wolves and coyotes can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, a fact which calls into question their status as two separate species.[100]"

The notion that different species can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring is a popular misconception due to the mule. All sorts of different species like lions and tigers can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Even the camel and llama can interbreed. The primary issue is number of chromosomes, not degree of SNP divergence.

Wolf Howl

It would be awesome if someone could add a sound byte of the timber wolf howl. --24.119.32.80 (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, its on the infobox below the picture..Mariomassone (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You can also find some howls on the wolfscience web page. http://www.wolfscience.at/english/support/donate.html, different ages of timber wolves. --Slartibertfass (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wolf v. timber wolf

• The lede starts: "The grey wolf or gray wolf (Canis lupus), also known as the timber wolf or simply wolf,". Not all wolves are grey and not all are timber wolves. There is also the barren grounds wolf which lives on the Arctic tundra and tends to be white. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this a joke??

Under Dietary habits... "With prey of equal or lesser weight to the wolf, such as lambs or small children..." I had to read this sentence three or four times to be sure I wasn't imagining it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3hgecko (talk • contribs) 08:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It is referenced. The one on children is accessible online and gives description on hunting patterns wolves display in India against small children.Mariomassone (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Unproven facts

{{editsemiprotected}}

I've taken notice of a few times the word evolution is used. I don't mean to be a broken record, but there is absolutely no proof of evolution anywhere. I do not think I am wrong, but if you can show me one single proof of evolution being real then I will take back my complaint. Until then, this is wrong and should be edited. Say soemthing else like adaption or something, not evolution. I do not like being told facts that I'm pretty sure are not real.

There's also no proof of the the earth being 300,000 years old either, so that's another issue. If ya'll believe in evolution then that's fine, but make accurate accounts to go with it or wikipedia's is just a way of forcing another's opinion down one's throat.

Thank-you.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia does not attempt to determine truth, but to accurately reflect the positions of relevant reliable sources. So if reliable sources describing the Gray Wolf take evolution as a given, then so does the article. Wikipedia's three content policies (WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and WP:OR) explain this concept in more detail. You might also be interested in The TalkOrigins Archive, which describes how the overwhelming majority of people knowledgable in natural history came to accept evolution by natural selection as the origin of biological diversity. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand the above reasoning, but could the wording be changed? Such as, "according to the theory of evolution" or something of that sort. Stating essentially the same thing without stating the truth of evolution as a fact. There are plenty of sources that could be found for several of the other origin theories. It is a choice of sources if you argue it that way. Thanks! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no proof? What? If you don't want to debate, don't make such ridiculous claims.

Do you have a problem with any specific claims in this article, or just evolution in general? If the former, please list them; if the latter, why did you pick this article specifically?

See also Age of the Earth. There is proof, it's not an issue. Jlaire (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

So basically, you'd like to add creationist argument that states that wolves were once vegetarians?Mariomassone (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not what I said and I think you know that. While that is a part of the creationist belief, it has absolutely nothing to do with my request. I will not argue creation/evolution with you. My reasoning stands that evolution is only a theory as is creation, so it could be worded a little less strongly. Now, are you looking for a fight, or are you going to do something productive about it? PrincessofLlyr (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Evolution is a fact, not "only a theory". And creation is obviously not a theory. Again, if there are some specific strong statements with no sufficient evidence in the article, just list them. Jlaire (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you implying that there are other peer reviewed explanations to the wolf's origins? Please enlighten me. I am a carnivora fanatic myself, and as far as I've seen, no book on the subject ever talks about wolves being designed or anything other than having evolved.Mariomassone (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if I seemed confrontational. However, I think it would be beneficial if you read the article on Italian Wall Lizard. This is a species which has been well documented to evolve rapidly in recent years.Mariomassone (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Moved.
— V = I * R (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

---

• Gray Wolf → Gray wolf — As per MoS. — SlamDiego_←T 10:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, per MoS.  Skomorokh  13:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This should not have been moved. Every other Wolf article I'm aware of has Wolf capitalized (eg, Iberian Wolf, Italian Wolf). Article on plants and animals often have both words capitalized. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mammals#Capitalization. In short, Grey Wolf is how it was, so that's how it should have stayed. Gimmetrow 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna): "In general, common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in lower case" --Cybercobra (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's "in general". It also says "each WikiProject can decide on its own rules for capitalisation". Gimmetrow 14:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Mammal WikiProject section you cite doesn't support your proposal either. Could you please cite something that does? --Cybercobra (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What part doesn't? Until a month ago, all Wolf articles had all words capitalized - which is a pretty good indication that's how the project wanted it. This is now the exception to the established pattern. It should not have been changed. See also Talk:Gray_Wolf/Archive_3#Capitalization_issues. Gimmetrow 05:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"The issue of the capitalization of the common names of mammal species is unresolved on Wikipedia and our pages are inconsistent. A large majority of reliable sources do not capitalize and thus there is a strong descriptive argument against doing so. Additionally, species names are common nouns, so capitalizing them goes against the normative use of upper case in formal English prose." --Cybercobra (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Respect the original or primary authors (from WP:MAMMAL) and All Wolf-related articles use capitalization for the entire name, so it should be kept there unless the standard changes as a whole (from this article archives). Gimmetrow 05:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(dedent) Well, you can of course propose to move it right back then. I will however just note that the first quote was prefixed with "In the absence of consensus:" (not that the recent move had sufficient input to solidly determine it); and also that consensus can change; so it's not entirely automatic. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wolf articles consistently capitalize Wolf in the title. That's enough of an argument. Do you agree to stand aside? Gimmetrow 13:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This move was incorrect and the article should be moved back. Please see Wikipedia:FA#Biology, with such entries as Giant Otter, Killer Whale, Fin Whale, and all of the birds. This capitalization has long been standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite the traditional monthly reignition of the argument, the only consensus regarding whether to capitalise mammal articles or not has been that they should not move from the title given by the original or main author. Somebody move it back and then anybody interested can adjourn to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Capitalization, be handed a link to the reams of previous discussion, and spiral around in ever-decreasing circles accompanied by the faint background noise of the articles slowly crumbling. Yomangani^talk 15:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(headdesk x 8). My preceding person right above me summed it up..Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My main problem is that this seems pretty ad-hoc; this convention doesn't seem to be clearly documented anywhere. At best, we're indirectly interpolating/inferring that there's a rule; and even then, there seem to be a few exceptions looking at the FA list. Meanwhile the general MoS guidance is fairly clear. I won't oppose, I'm just saying the "move it back" argument isn't slam-dunk. The naming conventions should be modified to codify this. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I also think this should be reverted back as non-consensus. I'd do it myself but the whole thing needs to be gone through as the body was lower case while the title was upper case.

I edited the WP:MAM wording to better frame the common/proper noun debate. The whole point is not everyone agrees. As one writer put it: "To me a Lincoln's Sparrow is just as much a particular thing [proper noun] as a Lincoln Continental."[2] Hence the debate. Marskell (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Cyber doesn't seem to be objecting to a re-move, I've moved it. Gimmetrow 14:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is the conservation status "least concern"?

I have read some websites speaking about the grey wolf, and I highly am doubting about the conservation status.

First off, it seems impossible, because there aren't alot of wolf populations in Europe or in North America (Only in certain parts of Canada and mainly alaska or montana). In addition, many claim that the wolf should be of great concern because their population continues to drop from excessive hunting.

And what websites would those be? The Least Concern status is given by the IUCN.

"..there aren't alot of wolf populations in Europe.."

Whoah, you can stop right there. See the article List of grey wolf populations by country.

Portugal has a stable wolf population of 200-300 which is afforded full protection

Spain's wolf population is estimated at 2000 and growing

In Italy, wolves are a protected species, with current estimates indicating that there are 500-800 wolves living in the wild

Wolves migrated from Italy to France as recently as 1992, and the current French wolf population is said to be composed of 40-50 individuals and growing

Currently, there are around 35 wolves in 4 packs now roaming the heaths of the eastern German region of Lusatia, and they are now still expanding their range to the west and north

The number of wolves in Switzerland is uncertain, having been guessed at 1-2 individuals. Wolves are afforded protection

Scandinavia has a population of over 200 wolves

Finland has a stable population of 116-123 wolves

Poland has an increasing population of 700-800 wolves which are afforded legal protection except in the Bieszczady Mountains

Estonia has a quite stable wolf population of around 200

Lithuania has over 600 wolves which are increasing in number. The species is not protected

Latvia has an unprotected, yet stable population of 900 wolves

Belarus is home to an increasing population of 2,000-2,500 wolves

Ukraine has an unprotected, yet stable population of 2,000 wolves

The Czech Republic has a stable and protected population of 20 wolves

Slovakia has a stable population of 350-400 wolves which is protected, though with some exceptions

Slovenia has a population of 70-100 wolves and increasing. As of 1991, they are a protected species

Croatia has a population of 100-150 wolves and increasing

Bosnia and Herzegovina is thought to have a population of 400 wolves, though they are decreasing in number and are afforded no legal protection

The former State Union of Serbia and Montenegro has a stable population of 500 wolves, though it is unknown if they are afforded any protection

Hungary has a stable population of 50 wolves which are protected

Romania has an increasing population of 2,500 wolves which are granted legal protection

Bulgaria has a stable population of 800-1,000 unprotected wolves

Greece has a stable population of 200-300 wolves which are legally protected

The Republic of Macedonia has an increasing, yet unprotected population of 1,000 wolves

Albania has a protected population of 250 wolves which are increasing in number

Turkey has an unknown number of wolves thought to be as high as 1,000

Russia: 25,000-30,000, and are increasing

So basically, if you are pessimistic about the presented numbers and pick the minimum figures, the number still adds up to 41,732 wolves. It has been proven that 300 wolves are needed to maintain a good genepool (remember that wolves have no concept of political boundraries, and regularly cross nations to breed with other populations). The current population (if the minimum figure is accepted) is nearly 140 times greater than that. Mariomassone (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if you remove Russia, the number (16,732) is still ideal.Mariomassone (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Gray Wolves

I am a student at High Tech High, and I was wondering why this page was locked. I am doing a project about the Gray Wolf Page. I have some information that I would like to share with this article. I would like to add information about how Canines are related and in most places of America, they are endangered. While in others, they are threatened. This is information I gathered from the U.S Fish & Wildlife Service Environmental Conservation Online System. The website is http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A00D I hope that I will be able to make changes to this page. Please consider the changes I wish to make. I will not copyright this information, I will simply put it into my own words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icekingman (talk • contribs) 16:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Icekingman, and thanks for your interest. The article is locked (technically, semi-protected) because it has a history of being vandalised. Template:Editsemiprotected describes one way you can suggest changes to this article. Though if your information is about canines in general, you might consider whether Canidae would be a better article to edit, if the information is not there already.

Good luck with your project, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Science

There is a brand news article published by the wolfscience center: "Explaining Dog Wolf Differences in Utilizing Human Pointing Gestures: Selection for Synergistic Shifts in the Development of Some Social Skills" see also http://www.wolfscience.at/english/research/blog/05September2009/ -- Slartibertfass (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Slartibertfass! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Adrian J. Hunter. Shall we add Explaining Dog Wolf Differences in Utilizing Human Pointing Gestures: Selection for Synergistic Shifts in the Development of Some Social Skills -- Slartibertfass (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Gray Wolf and Timber wolf

Gray Wolf article related question at Talk:Timber Wolf. --EarthFurst (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

subspecies

a list of all Canis lupus subspicies would be great at the end of the article. Here's a sketch taken from the portuguese wiki.

1. Canis lupus albus
2. Canis lupus arabs
3. Canis lupus arctos
4. Canis lupus baileyi
5. Canis lupus communis
6. Canis lupus dingo
7. Canis lupus familiaris
8. Canis lupus hattai
9. Canis lupus hodophilax
10. Canis lupus italicus
11. Canis lupus lupaster
12. Canis lupus lupus
13. Canis lupus lycaon
14. Canis lupus nubilus
15. Canis lupus occidentalis
16. Canis lupus pallipes
17. Canis lupus signatus

Who exactly is "building" wolves?

Resolved

The article is locked. Can someone please change the language: "Wolves are built for stamina". No one one is building wolves at an assembly line in Detroit off designs that engineers have created to increase stamina - or if they are, I would like to see a source. 207.69.137.25 (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Canid timeline

I inserted a canid timeline including Gray Wolf as highlighted. If you find this does not fit the article's parameters with respect to this wolf's history, go ahead and remove it. Thanks Noles1984 (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly worth including... but what's the original source? If the image is adapted from another that should be mentioned in the file description, and the original would have to be eligible to be in Wikimedia Commons. If you built the tree yourself there might be WP:OR issues, unless it's already been published. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Common ancestry - more detail please

The article says:

"the gray wolf shares a common ancestry with the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris)."

This is too vague to be meaningful. Humans share a common ancestry with the housefly. Only with extra info (e.g. about how long ago) does this become interesting. --Chriswaterguy talk 09:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit, I am surprised Wikipedia has fallen behind so far. Peter Savolainen, Ph.D. (Assistant Professor - Molecular Biotechnology - Albanova University Center) completed a mitochondrial DNA study which ties dogs to a wolf pack which lived near the Yangtze River about 16,000 years ago. It also reveals that the number of wolves involved in the transition to domestication were much higher than many people might think.

In addition: Robert Wayne, Dept. Biol., U.C., Los Angeles. is also active in the field of wolf and dog DNA.

“The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence... In comparison, the gray wolf differs from its closest wild relative, the coyote, by about 4% of mitochondrial DNA sequence.”

There is some conflict over whether it's possible to test a dog for "wolf markers." The U.S. Wolf Refuge contact Davis California in September of 2008 to offer DNA samples, but their website states that as of October 2008, there was no successful DNA test . In contrast, Methow Valley News published an article in July of 2008 which claimed that DNA confirmed two animals as being wolves . Howlcolorado (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Skip "gray" in the title

Why are we calling the wolf "gray wolf"? Is it because of the red wolf and the other fake wolves? Are we calling the tiger "striped tiger" too because of the saber-toothed tiger?--Buggwiki (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why yes, it is indeed because of the Red Wolf! That and other species listed at Wolf (disambiguation). "Gray Wolf" (and alternative spellings) is the common name for this particular species. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)