Talk:Canidae/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

THE PAGE NEEDS HELP!

There are a lot of words in there I don't recognize that are not linked. Since I majored in biology (environmental - evolutional) that's a bad sign. I am so out of time or I would certainly do it.

--John Meghly ("Magely")Xgenei 04:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Syntax help also needed

The current text has:

The Domestic Dog is listed by some authorities as Canis familiaris and others (including the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists) as a subspecies of the Wolf (i.e., Canis lupus familiaris); the Red Wolf may or may not be a full species; and the Dingo, which is variously classified as Canis lupus dingo, Canis dingo and Canis familiaris dingo

What is the end of the clause about the Dingo supposed to be? It could be, "is extinct," or maybe "is meaner than a bear." Those are probably guesses, but readers should not be forced to guess. Whoever wrote it should finish the job. P0M 05:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Photo of dogs copulating

I removed this link (some anon removed it once before)

I didn't think that linking to an individual picture seems apropriate, someone should upload the picture instead (although the license on that photo is questionable) This website derives income from ads, and the deep linking avoids the popups and banners (WHICH IS GOOD IMHO!), but the site owners probably do not appriciate it. - Trysha (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That photo, incidentally, has been around the 'net a couple dozen times. The license is beyond "questionable"; it's simply impossible to identify an original source now. For what it's worth, though, the image is rather fuzzy. Perhaps someone with proper license to a good sequence of photos could kindly donate them to Wiki? --Zetawoof 11:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Canines

Some time ago I posted a note at Category talk:Canines that the category should probably be called Category:canids instead since it's in reference to the family Canidae not the subfamily Caninae. Recently there has been a bit of a resurgence of discussion there so I thought I'd mention it here. --Aranae 03:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I also said on that talk page, I strongly support the proposed change too. --Arny 21:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Transfer a portion of the article?

I think that the section of this article concerning copulation should be moved to the 'Notes on Particular Species' portion of Non-human animal sexuality. There's no reason to go into such graphic detail here; I can't find another family article that does it. --JesseBHolmes 06:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I'm sure it was put here as some kind of joke, a subtle(?) form of vandalism. I'm moving it. --Shyland 18:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

...I'm not sure the information is totally accurate anyway, at least for some species of dogs. The penis seems to be WAY too far forward on the underside of many dogs I've seen, to allow them to get ass-to-ass. But I'm transferring it unchanged just the same.--Shyland 18:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: The sections on different animals in the Animal Sexuality article were about observed sexual behavior (gay/straight, sex-related behavior etc.) not mechanical details. So this information didn't seem like a good "fit" (haha.) So the net result is this section is deleted, not transferred. You can find it in History if you can think of a good place to put it. --Shyland 18:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Text retrieved and merged into canine reproduction. The information is relevant to canids, and seems accurate, it's not a "joke" as such. Will put into edit summary format though; not essential to have it in depth here. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Vulpini

While I know this is an encyclopedia, and thus has no room for opinion, I have a deep interest in the connection between Canines and Vulpines. I personally believe that foxes and dogs are related, but not as closely as sharing the family of canidae. Are Vulpines a subdivision of Canidae? How recent is the research into the clades of Canini and Vulpini? Please, if anyone has any information, please update! AKismet 05:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The dog genome paper (Lindblad-Toh et al., 2005, Nature 438:803-819) contained a dog phylogeny that had three clades of dogs. The first contained Urocyon, the second the classic foxes, and the third contained two subclades. The first of these subclades contains the South American dogs and the other Canis dhole, and cape hunting dogs. Raccoon dog and bat-eared fox are a bit enigmatic, but represent fairly early splits tied to either grey or Vulpes foxes. --Aranae 03:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The Canidae family split into three major branches about 40 mya: Hesperocyominae (40-15 mya), Borophaginae (34-2.5 mya) and Caninae. The first two are extinct, so it is more proper to refer to the Caninae lineage. Foxes, jackals, coyotes and then dogs all branched off from Caninae. The subfamily Caninae started with Leptocyon, an ancestral species the size of a small fox. It first appeared in the early Oligocene (34–32 mya) and persisted through the late Miocene (12–9 mya). Wolf-like canids, including domestic dogs, gray wolves, coyotes, and jackals; red-fox-like canids of the Old and New World, including red foxes, kit foxes, bat-eared fox and raccoon dog (all have a long, separate evolutionary history), but the fossil record and genetic distances indicate that their divisions began about 10-7 mya (Wayne, 1993). By the late Miocene (9–5 mya), fox-sized species had a wide range in North America after the extinctions of all small Borophagines. The true fox clade, Tribe Vulpini, emerged at this time and diversified into both Vulpes and Urocyon (their extinct relatives). Vulpes species were widespread in Eurasia during the Pliocene (Wayne, 2004). Dogs evolved from Caninae wolves about 10 mya but then bred back to wolves more than one time throughout their history as they sometimes do today. There are at least four major dog clades. See: http://www.nhm.org/expeditions/rrc/wang/documents/Wangetal2004canidclassificationCAP_000.pdf
Vulpines are a subdivision of Canidae but more proper, a subdivision of Caninae. Phylogenetic chart at: http://www.nhm.org/exhibitions/dogs/evolution/Canid%20evolution_files/Phylogenetic%20tree.htm Valich 17:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Relationships between North American Canis species

DNA studies show that the Red and Eastern Candian Wolves are related to each other, forming a two-species clade. Genetics have yet to reveal to relationships among the Gray Wolf and Coyote.

Wilson, P.J., S. Grewal, I. Lawford, J. Heal, A. Granacki, D. Pennock, J. Theberge, D. Voigt, B. Chambers, P.C. Paquet, G. Goulet, D. Cluff and B.N. White. DNA profiles of the eastern Canadian wolf and the red wolf provide evidence for a common evolutionary history independent of the gray wolf. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78: 2156-2166.

Which DNA studies, published where? — Catherine\talk 19:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Some of the Red Wolves are hybrid species. The same with coyotes. Male wolves sometimes interbreed with female coyotes, but not vice versa because the male coyotes are smaller than the female wolves. Valich 17:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

CTVT: Species of Single Celled Canines... ?

There was a study published this year that proved that the cancerlike canine disease canine transmissible venereal tumour (CTVT) is actually single cancer cells from some ancestral canid that left that individual and now exist as single-celled parasitic organisms using other canids as hosts:


http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9713


So, in my interpretation, this can only represent a newly discovered animal species which is genetically a type a canine and should be included in the canidae phylogeny.

That it is a chordata with no spinal chord, a mammal with no milk, and reproduces asexually, incidentally, means the entire concept of animal classes has to be reworked so that things like spinal chords are only an optional alternate phenotype for chordata, milk is optional for mammals, etc., and all these classes can alternately exist in a single celled variant (just as bluegreen algae can exist monocellularly or colonially).

Hmmmmm.

The article you cite is about the possible genetic transmission of cancer cells in dogs. The Wiki Canidae article does not address dog health, although there is an article on Canine cancer detection where reference to this information might be appropriate. The above article states that the CTVT cancer "probably originated from a cancer in a single wolf, or a dog closely related to a wolf, which lived between 250 and 1000 years ago." No new Canidae species has been identified. Valich 17:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Chupacabras

Why was my edit removed that the chupacabra is a member of the canidae family? If you go to the extremely legitimate chupacabra wikipedia page, it specifically says that the chupacabra belongs to the family (and links to the page). Discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.188.240 (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

Theres "I ROCK YALL STINK" on the top of this page (right above contents box) and I cant find it in the wiki code. Should be removed User:Mdavidbaird Mdavidbaird (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Found it and removed... Mdavidbaird (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Cladogram

Shouldn't the Lycalopex entry in the cladogram actualy be Pseudalopex? DaMatriX (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Urocyon as basal taxon

Should Urocyon really be lumped in the same 'tribe' as the true foxes?

See:

Lindblad-Toh et al., 2005, Nature 438:803-819

Wayne, Robert K., “Molecular evolution of the dog family”, Theoretical and Applied Genetics, v. 9, 1993

i think this is still pertinent. Uther, you revised per MSW3 -- what say ye? is Urocyon considered Vulpini? - Metanoid (talk, email) 18:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

consensus phylogeny?

does anyone know what the experts' consensus is on evolutionary relationships here? i know that the wolf-like species and south american species are in the canini; Vulpes is obviously vulpini.... but i've seen several different trees proposed in the past 10-15 years based on genetic data; there's wayne 1997, bininda-edmonds 1999, and wang 2004, each of which largely agree on the points above. but wang has Vulpes basal to Otocyon and Urocyon in the vulpini; wayne has Urocyon basal to the whole family Canidae, with Nyctereutes and Otocyon basal to Vulpes etc, and all of these basal to the remainder of the fam; and bininda-edmonds has Canidae split into a very clear vulpini and canini, with the s. american types, Nyctereutes, and wolf-like canids in the latter, and the former containing Otocyon and Urocyon basal to Vulpes. have i missed anything? - Metanoid (talk, email) 17:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

fiksed. - Metanoid (talk, email) 03:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Dogs eaten in Canada?

Under the 'Classification' heading, the first line reads thusly: 

Note that some dogs in canada are being eaten right now...

Excuse me? The fact that Canada should be capitalised aside, I really don't see how this is relevant to the classification of Canids! Ailahusky 05:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism; fixed. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we are getting far from the known truth. Even with rats, there are some that are eaten and some that are not. The same with dogs: In Asia, preferrably China, yes they eat dogs, but not all dogs. There is one I know, Chinese Chowchow, it's one dog they eat not the Hounds, Pomeranians, Poodles or other of such kind. Another edible dog is the Mexican hairless dog, so when one comes to such issues, let us be fully informed before we start attacking people on issues not fully known even to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnjoromora (talk • contribs) 07:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

New photo(s)?

The only photo with this article is currently a "head shot" of a coyote. It could use more, at least a picture showing the animal's full body. --Shyland 19:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the picture of the gray wolf used in this article would give readers a much better impression of what canids are all about. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Canids and humans section?

Would a short section on the relations of canids and humans, including domestic dogs, human hunting of wild canids, canid predation on humans, canid endangered species, etc. be okay in this article? Or would it be out of the range of animal family articles? Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to add the section and see what people think. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Caribbean dogs?

I noticed: Genus Indocyon† Indian Mute Dog, Indocyon caribensis † (also called Caribbean Dog) Genus Cubacyon Cuban Dhole, Cubacyon transversidens †

These sound like breeds of domestic dogs kept by the native people of the Caribbean islands. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Hagenbeck Wolf also seems to be questionable. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

reference to human predation

I don't have sources to check, but I suspect the statement about only gray wolves known as having preyed on humans is a modern reference. Wouldn't earlier, extinct canines have possibly been predators to earlier "homo" species? DavidH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.152.214 (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Mostly competitors; enemies, I'd assume, for early sapians. But the further back you'd go, it've been more them preying on us, sure. Both of us were opportunistic, so neither of us would've passed up an easy meal at any point back in the day. The Indian or Iranian wolf seems to be the most regular maneater in recent times. And then of course there's the dog. But more to the point, what are you saying about the article? If you mean that if you could find a source that speaks to this, would it be helpful for the article, I'd say definately probably: go for it! Chrisrus (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Carolina Dog

Anyone know whether the Carolina Dog has been determined to be its own species or subspecies, a la dingos, vs simply a feral line of domestic dog? Elf | Talk 23:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

And how about New Guinea Singing Dog? Thanks again. Elf | Talk 00:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe both are feral dog lines, but dingo's are as well, and they are placed in a seperate subspecies. So I do not know what the best is for singing and carolina dogs. DaMatriX 17:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I remember reading something about the Carolina dogs (I'm a relatively new resident in N.C.), and I believe that while there may be some feral dogs of that breed (there certainly are plenty of other feral dogs that were probably bought at a pet shop and then turned loose to fend for themselves, breed among themselves, etc.), there are also plenty of them that live nice domestic lives. Maybe Googling them would turn up some responsible reporting on where they came from, how long them have been a recognizable breed, etc. I've seen pictures of them and seem to recall that they are generally yellow or light brown, of medium size, and carry their tails arching over their backs. I've never heard of them being a problem anywhere in North Carolina, and I got the feeling from the newspaper article that people generally like them. P0M 05:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I did a whole bunch of googling and wasn't able to find a good answer. Maybe someone else with cleverer search criteria would have more luck. Elf | Talk 18:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Both are considered domestic dogs, either Canis lupus familiaris or Canis lupus dingo. Boosters for the Carolina dog want it to be accepted as C.l.dingo, but is still thought of as familiaris, and the boosters for the New Guinea Singing Dog want it not to be either, but want it to be its own taxon, but this has been rejected by the Mammology societies, who consider it to be "Canis lupus dingo". Chrisrus (talk) 07:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Indian Mute Dog?

Why is Indocyon referred to as the Indian Mute Dog when all that is known of it is a jawbone? Aside from mute testimony to its existence, how is this canid associated with muteness? 153.2.247.32 (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any proof of it in Mammel Species of the World, nor for the entire subfamiliy system. MSW says "There are considerable questions regarding the validity of the South American genera (Wang et al., 1999...", so why are we using Wang? Let's go with MSW, as long as this "Wang" is thought of as contraversial. Thanks for bringing this to our attention; it looks like there is no such thing as the Indian Mute Dog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs)
This particular controversy doesn't have much to do with the South American genera; Indocyon and Cubacyon were both based on misidentified domestic dogs. See Mammals of the Caribbean and Morgan, G.S. and Woods, C.A. 1986. Extinction and the zoogeography of West Indian land mammals. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 28:167–203. Ucucha 11:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Re-reading this after a few months, if I recall correctly the "mute" part is because early European explorers reported that the Indians of the Greater Antilles had mute dogs. Ucucha 17:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Figure Title Edit

The last image on the page, 'Traditional English fox hunt', should be titled 'Elitist English fox hunt' or simply 'Fox hunt'. Fox hunting is not traditional of the English people and is a sport of elitist groups by definition. A small group of wealthy people with a short history (200+ years) is not descriptive of an entire ethnicity. Keep ideological opinion out of titles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.39.184 (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to make an open request to those reverting the title to 'traditional' and claiming I am being bias: please explain how the activity of a small group of wealthy individuals represents the whole of the English people.

This is the tradition of a select group, not of the English culture and I see nothing to prove my statement wrong. I am the one being neutral; I never stated the image/title should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.39.184 (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the term "elitist" is that it is a POV term and therefore not suitable for a caption in Wikipedia. And a "tradition" does not necessarily have to be one followed by the whole of a group. Removal of the word "traditional" from the caption might, in fact, be acceptable; replacing it with a POV term is not. Note that you are also very close to breaching the 3 revert rule, and should be careful with future edits. Anaxial (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

An edit war is merely an arguement and that takes two, so do not try to pin that excuse on others. Elitist means it is performed by an elite group of people who have exceptional power over others and this is a sport conducted by elitists. Their power comes from a higher birth right due to them being nobility which entitles them wealth to project that power. The average English person is not at the same status as these people, therefore it is not the tradition of the subaltern/masses (those being the English). What other term would you use to describe a small group of people with considerable power over others who engage in an activity that the vast majority of the same group without power do not? 'Traditional English' is not correct and - by your editing of it to that - it is using an opinion to describe an acitivity. 'Elitist' is a proper description and any emotion that term creates for you or others is not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.39.184 (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely with Anaxial. I have no sympathy with foxhunting, but there is no reason to bring up the issue in this article. TomS TDotO (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Untitled comment

This article is a very wrongly false article. Do you actually think that dogs evolved millions of years ago. That is practically impossible - give me some evidence that this is true. There is none.JoJaEpp (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)JoJaEpp

Get over it. You can't cite it, don't alter it. Calabe1992 02:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Prehistoric Canidae

Not sure this is a sensible section heading. Surely most, if not all, of the extant species originated in prehistoric times? The article even says that 'Canis Lupus' was fully developed by 0.3 Mya, which, by my reckoning, is certainly prehistoric!

The current entries in the list all died in prehistoric times (although the Dire Wolf almost made historic times). Perhaps it might be better to change this to 'Extinct Canidae'? [And then move down the Falklands Wolf (and Cozumel Fox)?]

Why have we bothered putting the 'extinct' sign by most of the entries when they are all extinct? My suggested change to the Section Heading would mean we could remove all these signs.

I find it rather confusing that with some entries we say how long it has been since they became extinct, whereas for others we say how long they have lived for (this is actually calculated from the range of fossil remains for the species/genus). I believe it would make more sense to say, for example, that 'Paratomarctus euthos' lived c. 13 Mya, while 'Aelurodon stirtoni lived 16.3-10.3 Mya. [Instead of using 'Ma', 'mya' and 'million years' in the list, I suggest we use 'Mya' as per the main body of the article].

Some of the date ranges in the current calculations look dodgy. In particular, the Genus Epicyon has only been around 2 Ma (12-10), yet the species 'Epicyon saevus was around for 11.4 Ma (16.3-4.9)!Glevum (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Longevity of a Species

The, in some cases, large date ranges shown for prehistoric animals raises a philosophical question: can any species truly exist for umpteen Ma? 1. Following recent genetic studies, some living animals previously considered closely related due to morphological similarities are now considered more distantly related; whereas others previously considered only distantly related, now appear much closer. If we can not trust morphological data to accurately ascertain the relationships between living creatures when we have complete skeletons, how can we rely on it to determine that two animals that lived millions of years apart were the same species when, in many cases, we only have partial remains? 2. Just because the body plan does not change over a long period does not mean that the genome hasn't changed. Given long enough, sufficient differences will accumulate in the genome to prevent fully successful interbreeding (that is to say the production of healthy, fertile offspring), thereby effectively creating a new species. Even within a species, the appearance of a new antigen can cause problems - cf the human Rhesus factor.Glevum (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Updating taxonomy

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

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. -

-In English, Dog is considered distinct from Wolf. Thus I have rendered Canis lupus as Canis lupus instead of Gray Wolf, to correspond with English usage. In any case, Canis lupus includes Timber and Arctic Wolves, not just Gray Wolves.24.108.61.172 (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem there is two-fold, IMO. Firstly, timber and Arctic wolves are subspecies of grey wolf, not distinct and separate things. This is indicated at the article gray wolf, and is supported by the use of the term "grey wolf" here, for example. Secondly, the primary article about the species is, it seems to me, clearly gray wolf, and that should be what the species name links to. Anaxial (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Principal photograph: Omit the raccoon?

The principal photograph of the page includes various canids, and it also includes a raccoon... This is the one and only instance I'm aware where a raccoon is included in the canidae family, and according to the Wikipedia page devoted to the raccoon, the mammal is rather a member of the procyonid family, and its fellows bare similarities to the raccoon. I work professionally with dogs and have read a number of books on the history of the species, and I'm inclined to believe that the raccoon isn't generally considered a canine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeletaylor (talk • contribs) 02:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

On the one hand, you're correct in that raccoons are not members of the Canidae, and there's no reason to have a picture of them on this page. On the other hand... there is no picture of a raccoon on this page, so I don't see a problem. You're not thinking of the fourth animal down on the right hand side of the taxobox pic are you? If so, that's not a raccoon. Anaxial (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Canine

The article talks about canines without really clarifying what those are. One section equates canines to the Caninae lineage, but the disambiguation page seems to suggest there's a lot more to the story. I know the article isn't about canines in particular, but with so many specific details about the various types, it seems right to place some information on what that common term means, especially since this doesn't appear to be taken up in any other Wikipedia article. DAVilla (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It does clarify; it says: 'the Caninae lineage, commonly referred to as "canines"'...—and I think that usage is fairly consistent in this article, at least. This includes all extant canids. I think there's some ambiguity when speaking informally here; wiktionary, for example, seems to imply that foxes are not canines, for example, while this article includes foxes. Not a great situation, but such is life. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

British English

The article had both 'estrus' and 'oestrus' spellings in use. Looking at the history, the first version was written by a South African, so I've gone for British English 'oestrus'. If people are happy with this assignment, we can tag the article with 'Use British English' and indeed mark this talk page as Brit also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Dental Formula

I think the dental formula here is wrong. It says 3/3 1/1 4/4/ 2/3 but the picture to the right (as well as many sources) say the molars should be 3/2 instead. Can someone solidify this?

What sources say 3/2 for the molars? I've checked three independent sources (including the one cited in the article), and they all say 2/3. This is also what is visible in the photograph of the wolf skull to the right of the section on dentition in the article. Given all that, we'll need a pretty solid source to confirm it as being otherwise, and, at best, we'd have to say it's controversial. Anaxial (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Dogs Evolved with Climate Change

Is this study worth incorporating into the article? --Jcardazzi (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi http://www.amnh.org/explore/news-blogs/research-posts/dogs-evolved-with-climate-change http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150818/ncomms8976/full/ncomms8976.html

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canidae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Canidae Family Tree

The cladogram pictured at the moment seems to be outdated or erroneous. It's lumping the wolf, jackal and dog apart, and relating foxes with the false foxes and others. According to existing Wikipedia articles on false (or South American) foxes and the "Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog" study referenced for the cladogram itself, the false foxes (lycalopex canids) and their relatives (all colored green in the genome tree in the study) branch out with dogs and wolves (in blue), not with foxes (in red), which are instead more remote. Who is like God? (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The cladogram seems to agree with the one in the 2005 study to which it is referenced. Are there more recent studies which contradict it? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
There was one different with the 2005 study. The South American clade is rooted by the maned wolf and bush dog so these should be inside the clade, not outside as the cladogram had it. I have fixed this. Jts1882 (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
To illustrate the groupings better, I have changed the clade to us a new clade template that I am developing and set the background colour according to the groups in the paper. This template, cladeN, offers a number of advantages over clade and cladex and will, if all goes well, replace them. The background colour styling is one new option. I'm not sure this is ideal here as the images don't have a transparent background, but I'll leave it for now. The branch lines could be coloured instead, but this is more laborious and needs to be set on every level. Jts1882 (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Canini Vs Vulpini

According to the article: "DNA analysis shows that the first three form monophyletic clades. The wolf-like canids and the fox-like canids together form the tribe Canini." Based on the above, could someone please explain to me how the Red Fox can be a member of two tribes, both Canini & Vulpini? --Mrodowicz (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes; that's wrong. I have changed the text to match the sourced info elsewhere in the article. Anaxial (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canidae/Archive_1&oldid=1194333038"