User talk:William Harris/Archive 6

A year ago ...
history of the dog
	... you were recipient; no. 1688 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

This is an archive of past discussions with User:William Harris. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Recent article on dingo origins

Hi William, just found this, might be of interest if you have not previously seen it:

Who let the dogs in? A review of the recent genetic evidence for the introduction of the dingo to Australia and implications for the movement of people Melanie A. Fillios, Paul S.C. Taçon. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports Volume 7, June 2016, Pages 782–792

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X16300694

Full text available here: https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/44091564/Fillios___Tacon_2016_Dogs_JofArchSciRepts_corrected_proof.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1526433804&Signature=nsJYGhb%2BiAwex2%2FvgPOcGBG4xuo%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DWho_let_the_dogs_in_A_review_of_the_rece.pdf

(By the way, they use the name Canis dingo in that article).

Not sure if it contains anything new, but you never know. Cheers - Tony

Thanks Tony - I am across that one, and "Professor Paul" has been most helpful to me with the Origin of the domestic dog article. He provided me a personal copy of his "Dogs make us human" article when it was not available online anywhere, because the magazine that it was originally published in went defunct. Later, online copies became available and I linked them. His theme was similar to that of Wolfgang Schleidt in Austria, both released around the same time - refer: Origin of the domestic dog#Human adoption of some wolf behaviors Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Dog - Analysis of the canid Y-chromosome phylogeny

Hello all watchers, the latest:

Analysis of the canid Y-chromosome phylogeny using short-read sequencing data reveals the presence of distinct haplogroups among Neolithic European dogs

Looked at Y-chromosome (male lineage) rather than mDNA (female lineage). Key findings:

Dog male lineage split from the common ancestor 60,000-115,000 years ago!
The one Great Lakes wolf looked at showed a surprising genetic divergence from gray wolf and coyote
The ancient fossils of the Herxheim, Kirschbaum, and Newgrange dogs could be divided into one of two distinct haplogroups!
4,500 year old dog from Kirschbaum, Germany shared common ancestor with today's Indian wolf

William Harris • (talk) • 10:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Sep 2017 paper by Jackson et al. on dingo status - have you seen it?

Hi William, just wondering if you have seen this:

The Wayward Dog: Is the Australian native dog or Dingo a distinct species? STEPHEN M. JACKSON, COLIN P. GROVES, PETER J.S. FLEMING, KEN P. APLIN, MARK D.B. ELDRIDGE, ANTONIO GONZALEZ, KRISTOFER M. HELGEN - Zootaxa 4317, September 2017

The paper is here: http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4317.2.1

Here's a link to the full text: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319470485_The_Wayward_Dog_Is_the_Australian_native_dog_or_Dingo_a_distinct_species

(their conclusion is that the dingo is a subspecies of domestic dog and is included within Canis familiaris).

Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I already have it covered in the first sentence of Dingo. The taxonomy you have been going through largely comes from the Taxonomy section of Dingo. If you have a look through there, the jury is still out on what the Dingo is. In my OPINION, the dingo is a genetically divergent dog whose lineage split from the dog lineage not long after the dog split from the common ancestor that it shares with the holarctic gray wolf. In Australia, it has adapted to the local conditions and has followed its own evolutionary trajectory. A dog cannot survive in the Australian outback by itself, and neither can a gray wolf. Therefore, it can be argued - under the Evolutionary Species Concept - that it is a separate species. I just need some top evolutionary biologist to state that so that I can cite it - it is only a matter of time. Cheers, William Harris • (talk) • 08:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

(PS: I am more of a Delta Blues on Lap steel guitar man myself.......)

Hi William of Delta Blues fame, I fixed all or most of the errant authorities on the page dingo but not on the page Dingo_(taxon) where much of the same phraseology is repeated, but there is more in the taxobox there etc... I can have a go at that too, but am mildly concerned that the same text appears on multiple pages and is hard to keep the corresponding sections in synch for that reason - I don't suppose it can be consolidated further in the interests of maintenance? (hint hint) Tony 1212 (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually I erred in my statement above RE Jackson et al.'s (2017) conclusion: they did *not* support subspecies status for either the dingo or the New Guinea singing dog, but considered them as "breeds or varieties of C. familiaris. Furthermore, as feral domesticates, neither variety can be recognised taxonomically as a subspecies, irrespective of whether or not they can be diagnosed by any combination of morphological, behavioural and genetic characters." Tony 1212 (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree about the Dingo/Dingo taxon articles. It is my intention to move the entire Dingo "Taxonomy" over to "Dingo (taxon) "Taxonomy", thereby reducing the size of Dingo and consolidating what is under Dingo (taxon). However, I would prefer to wait a few months until the "flagship paper" on the origin of the dog and wolf is released - refer to the note "I am around" at the top of this page. My much beloved Origin of the domestic dog and Evolution of the wolf are on hold as well, although more work should be put into those now. The report - after all these years, 4,500 ancient specimens sequenced or 3d morphometricaly scanned, and researcher centres across the globe - is in draft and being negotiated by the key stakeholders. I expect many questions to be answered, and even more raised. However, all of the major players in this field are involved, so whatever they agree to will become "gospel".

The dingo articles developed to where they are now through a complex history. Given that Wozencraft placed both the Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo into what he referred to as the "domestic dog clade", there were several of us who had tried to fight that battle in the past and have them related on the dog page, however W was not completely clear and other editors invoked WP:PRIMARY TOPIC to have only familiaris represented in the dog article and the dingo was completely removed! Then the "dingo pack" removed the dog from the Dingo article! Around 2 years ago I attempted to do some major edits on Dingo but these were reverted! (This is how people behave on Wikipedia, and no help was forthcoming.) The article Dingo (taxon) became my base for developing material. Then, over the past 12 months, I have slowly rewritten the Dingo article down to just before the "5. Communication" section along the lines of how I think they should be, whilst maintaining a WP:NPOV (which draws criticism from time to time), and worked the dog back into the dingo under the Taxonomic debate. I worked the dingo back into the Dog article under Taxonomy. I would like to lift the quality of Dingo from C class to B class, but it is going to have to be by patience and stealth rather than a quick, front-on assault. One of my colleagues from those days has just put the dog back in the lead of the Dingo article. "Steady as she goes".

PS - I have allies who watch this page. They to are eager to make some changes on the dog and dingo related articles - one or two brutally so. The time is not yet right, and as I have advised them in the past: "We wolves watch, and we wait." William Harris • (talk) • 09:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine, thanks for the background, and certainly it would be best for the duplicated (or semi-duplicated) taxonomic/nomenclature stuff to maintained only in one place, for sanity of the maintainers if nothing else. Cleaning up the incorrect brackets and small errors of fact (e.g. around Blumenbach non-relevance) on the main "Dingo taxon" article can be done now or later, I guess, so long as it is done some time (smiley face). I can leave these to you, no problem, so long as you are across the relevant issues, and maybe I will encounter the result in a while (with any matters arising!) - plenty of other things to do! Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

PS I maintain a database of over 2 million taxonomic names, http://www.irmng.org, which is why apparently small things like incorrect use of brackets are a bit more immediately noticeable to me than they might to someone else (although all of my data comes originally from somewhere else so is not without its own errors and internal inconsistencies). Tony 1212 (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have elaborated further. I am more than happy for you to sort out the brackets etc on Dingo (taxon). I await the finding on Blumenbach - we may find that in the first few lines of the Gothic text that he believes that it is a subspecies of the dog, without using the Latin. I can translate that Phillip thought it was (I cannot make this out), that White thought it was a wolf, and Blumenbach believed it was (I cannot make this out) and perhaps there is some reference to the Jackal. (My German is somewhat rusty, and the translation of the Gothic script is best left to those born and raised in the German-speaking lands.)

Dingo (taxon) consolidation with Dingo needs, in my opinion, to wait just a little longer. Because Dingo (taxon) is not a contentious article - it has one North American editor who watches over it and who is very reasonable to work with - you might be interested in helping me to "knock it into shape" now so that we can prepare for the consolidation. You might also run your eye over the related taxonomy section of the New Guinea singing dog.

Very impressive list of publications, Doc. I think you would be an asset to the higer-level "Wikipedia wolf pack", if only we can get them to all run in the same direction at once - that does happen on the odd occasion, more so than making sense out of the "domestic dog" group. We may find the taxonomy/lineage for the dog, dingo, gray wolf, red wolf, eastern wolf, coyote and some Pleistocene wolves going off in some very novel directions shortly. (Or maybe not!) William Harris • (talk) • 21:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, one thing I would suggest is adding "Canis familiaris", with/without subspecies, to the list of scientific names used for the dingo, as per https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/Canis_familiaris (following Jackson et al. 2017 I guess) and others. Lead sentence would then be e.g.:

The dingo (Canis lupus dingo,[..] Canis familiaris dingo,[..] Canis familiaris (as variety with no scientific name distinction),[..] or Canis dingo [..]) is a type of feral dog native to Australia...

On the other hand maybe I should just let well alone... Tony 1212 (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

In the world of taxonomy - an alien place to me - does Jackson's view on C. familiaris amount to a (proposed?) taxonomic classification worthy of the lead? And if so, do I go with C. familiaris Jackson 2017 or the original C. familiaris australasiae Desmarest 1820? William Harris • (talk) • 08:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi William, "does Jackson's view on C. familiaris amount to a (proposed?) taxonomic classification worthy of the lead?" - I would say yes, it is one of four taxonomic positions "out there" (in the modern literature) and also is (notionally) the current one of the relevant Australian government agency (as represented in the Australian Faunal Directory), within whose jurisdiction the dingo occurs. Since australasiae Desmarest 1820 is predated by dingo Meyer, if a taxonomists wishes to treat the dingo as its own species or subspecies, then the latter name i.e. dingo is the correct epithet since its only older alternative, antarticus Kerr, 1792, was suppressed by ICZN ruling as you know.

To recap, the four alternative positions that have been argued by recent workers are:

(1) The dingo is a valid species distinct from dogs and wolves, hence Canis dingo Meyer, 1793

(2) The dingo is a subspecies of the dog, and the latter is a a valid species distinct from the gray wolf, hence Canis familiaris dingo Meyer, 1793

(3) The dingo is a subspecies of the wolf, as is the dog, hence Canis lupus dingo Meyer, 1793

(4) The dingo is a variety/breed of the dog with no separate taxonomic status (position of Jackson et al.), hence Canis familiaris Linnaeus, 1758 (same as dog, no subspecies recognised)

There is also (potentially) a (5) and (6) but I have not seen them argued in the literature (but logically they could exist):

(5) The dingo is a variety/breed of the dog with no separate taxonomic status (position of Jackson et al.), however the latter is regarded as a subspecies of the wolf, hence Canis lupus familiaris Linnaeus, 1758 (same as dog)

(6) The dingo is a variety/breed of the dog with no separate taxonomic status (position of Jackson et al.), however the latter is regarded as a conspecific with the wolf, hence Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758 (same as dog, no subspecies recognised)

(4) and (6) accept Jackson et al's contention that a domesticated animal cannot be a subspecies of the equivalent wild form, however this is open to debate it seems; also that the dingo's origin is via domestication prior to its returning to the wild (which does seem to hold water).

Since (1) to (4) all have their adherents (and especially since (4) is close to the current "official" Australian position) I would say it is correct to cite them all in the lead. Also useful for query expansion in searches of literature by scientific name - although searching just for "Canis familiaris" would be less than helpful; in fact this is one of those cases where the common name is definitely more useful than the scientific name for search purposes. Just my opinion of course, after a day or three's moderate consideration. Tony 1212 (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the full explanation, Tony. I will be actioning this on the Dingo, Dingo (taxon), and New Guinea singing dog articles tonight. (This may stir things up a little on Dingo.....) I never knew that this existed:https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/Canis_familiaris I would be grateful if you would have a look at the taxoboxes for these articles and tweak them if necessary. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi William, I checked the revisions you made and they look fine; also took the opportunity to remove all the incorrect parentheses around authorities for synonyms on the page Dingo (taxon) since I am presuming all of the names were originally within the genus Canis (for any where this turns out not to be the case, they should be reinstated but I am not expecting this to be so).

One other thing for now, I believe the sentence "Johann Friedrich Blumenbach gathered together a collection from the Cook voyage and was the first to classify the "New Holland dog" as Canis familiaris dingo (Blumenbach, 1780)." in the "Taxonomy" section is based on inaccurate info and should simply be deleted. I got some responses to my query on Taxacom and no-one has found a use of the name by Blumenbach prior to 1799, by which time Meyer's name and description were already in existence. (It may need to be deleted from equivalent sections on other pages as well, which I will leave to you). You can see the Taxacom correspondence on the relevant thread as listed here: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/2018-May/thread.html Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice work on the blog, Tony, an impressive network of professionals operate from there. Regarding Blumenbach, I will follow up. William Harris • (talk) • 10:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine tuning

Hello Tony, I have done further work on the Dingo (taxon) and Dingo articles. All good so far, so next stop the (always contentious) Dog. Based on the info you supplied above, it would appear that where I have said:

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach gathered together a collection from the Cook voyage and classified the "New Holland dog" as Canis familiaris dingo Blumenbach, 1799

that would be incorrect taxonomy. The correct term should be Canis familiaris dingo Meyer, 1793. If this is the case, then I will simply shorten the sentence to end with Canis familiaris dingo, else our average readers will become confused. You already have it listed in the taxobox. You may have an interest in Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. William Harris • (talk) • 09:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi William, so far as I can ascertain, Blumenbach's use of Canis familiaris dingo occurs first in the 6th, 1799 edition of his "Handbuch der Naturgeschichte" (Handbook of Natural History), not in the context of any particular work on the Cook voyage; also he uses the name without attribution, although modern practice is to attribute the name (whether used as a full species or subspecies of something else) to the earliest available published use (author and year) which in this case is that of Meyer. So it would be preferable to say, e.g.:

Subsequently in 1799, in the 6th edition of his work Handbuch der Naturgeschichte, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach treated the dingo as a subspecies of the dog Canis familiaris, thus introducing the usage Canis familiaris dingo for Meyer's taxon.

Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, I shall action. Your wording looks better than mine, and I will use it the next time I have a series of edits on the Dingo and Dingo (taxon). Dog was a much simpler amendment. This has been an education for me! Regards, William William Harris • (talk) • 10:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Further

Hi William, just looking at the dog page and it says this:

In the same year, an application was made to the ICZN to reclassify the dingo to Canis lupus dingo because it was proposed that the wolf (Canis lupus) was the ancestor of dogs and dingoes, however the application was rejected.[38]

This looks distinctly odd to me. ICZN rules on epithets (e.g. "dingo", "familiaris") (what they call species-group names, either at species or subspecies level), genera (genus-group names), and families (family-group names), but not in what combinations they are used (e.g. Canis lupus dingo vs. Canis dingo) - that is the practice of taxonomic opinion, which is outside the remit of ICZN so they would never be asked to rule on this. The info is sourced from "Smith, Bradley (2015). "Chapter 1:The Dingo Debate". In Bradley Smith. The Dingo Debate: Origins, Behaviour and Conservation" but still looks erroneous - perhaps a misunderstanding. I looked at that work and it merely cites MSW first edition, 1982 at this point. That chapter is also misinformed when it says that "the official taxonomic name of the dingo is Canis dingo". It is not; ICZN in effect ruled that that the *epithet* dingo is to be used as the approved available name for the dingo, as originally proposed in the combination Canis dingo Meyer, however it is not restricted to that combination (which is a taxonomic, not a nomenclatural, assertion). So Canis dingo, Canis familiaris dingo, and Canis lupus dingo are all in accord with that ICZN Opinion, and (as stated above), the ICZN would have no position on which is "correct" or "official". Just letting you know... Tony 1212 (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

You are correct, the ICZN is all about the names. Opinion 451 secured the specific name dingo as the oldest available name, but of course they never rule on how it is used, i.e. in combination as species or subspecies. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Opinion 451 Use of the Plenary Powers to secure that the specific name dingo Meyer, 1793, as published in the combination Canis dingo, shall be the oldest available name for the Dingo of Australia (class Mammalia) (source) The ruling suppressed antarcticus. Unfortunately, these rulings often get misinterpreted as declaring it a species. The Jackson et al (2017) Wayward Dog article explains this clearly. Jts1882 | talk 06:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Also note, the ICZN Opinion only concerns the epithet dingo IF that taxon is recognised in the classification in question. If a taxonomists prefers to merge dingos into dogs or wolves with no recognition at subspecies level, then the ICZN Opinion is not called upon; so, it is equally correct to say that Canis familiaris (no subspecies) or Canis lupus (no subspecies) can be the "correct" scientific name for the dingo if that is the view of the taxonomist in question... e.g. AFD (Australian Faunal Directory) https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/Canis_familiaris classifies dingoes as Canis familiaris at this time, which is perfectly correct (or even "official") according to that particular taxonomic view (that of Jackson et al., 2017). Tony 1212 (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Good After-dinner, Tony. I have been re-reading through Jackson 2017 only today, so your message is most timely. I entirely agree. I am still learning about the nomenclature/taxonomy divide, and as a Wikipedia editor I must work with what the expert secondary sources say (as you state, these may be in error). I have done a thorough search in the past for the "submission" to the ICZN mentioned in Smith but could not find it on the ICZN website. Smith cites Corbett 1995, who stated it in his book without a reference. He also cites Honaki 1982 - MSW1 - and I found NO mention of it in there. I intend to remove the Smith statements completely.

Also in the back of my mind is the re-engineering all of this in the Dingo article more in line with Jackson, who provides a compelling argument as an expert secondary source. William Harris • (talk) • 09:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Another little niggle- the quote from MSW 1 mentions "Canis familiaris has page priority over Canis lupus, but both were published simultaneously in Linnaeus 1758." The reference to "page priority" is also spurious; that concept does not exist in the present ICZN Code :) it may once have existed in an an old (1948) version of the Code for a specific use within the period 1948-1953 (type species of 2 genera shown to be the same), but that does not apply in this case. If it's in the quote, I guess it stays, but as I say it is based on a misconception... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The page priority also doesn't matter because of ICZN Opinion 2027 on use of first available names for the wild animal even when the domestic animal name would normally have priority. Why even quote MSW1 for something that is no longer relevant? Jts1882 | talk 16:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

That would be the most elegant solution, JTS, now actioned!

I had developed Dingo taxonomy - later rolled out in part to Dog taxonomy - to remove the threat of certain parties entering into edit wars over Canis dingo vs Canis lupus dingo. Since I did that the article has "settled down". With the history laid out for readers it is not a simple argument one way or the other. Although nowadays Professor Jackson is most persuasive with the dog - a direction the article was hinting with the Fan 2016 whole genome finding. I await Greger's "flagship" report on the origin of the dog and wolf which is due for release later this year; no doubt the dingo and basenji will get a special mention as well. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

More misinformation

More misinformation I'm afraid... from the current Dog page, and probably elsewhere:

In 1926, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) ruled in Opinion 91 that the domestic dog Canis familiaris be placed on its Official Lists and Indexes of Names in Zoology.[3]

Not true. In 1926, Opinion 91, The ICZN placed Canis on the Official List of generic names. It was not until 1955 (Direction 22) that familiaris, Canis was added to the Official List, in a ruling that added type species of a number of mammal genera to the List, see here: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/34652714 . In this case, this means that Canis familiaris is the recognised type species for Canis and that any other competing names for the same taxon are unavailable.

Now that is also interesting for another reason (as well as meaning the quoted text is incorrect) - it means in effect (my reading) that if C. familiaris and C. lupus are considered synonymous at species level, then C. familiaris takes precedence, i.e. C. lupus should be a synonym of C. familiaris and not the other way around.

Because this is contrary to current practice e.g. in MSW, I may have to ask my Taxacom colleagues for their considered opinion - unless you have info on this that I do not from your prior consultations?? Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You are correct again, my Jedi friend. Please consult your "Elders of the Illuminati" and see what that turns up before I make the amendments - we may wish to elaborate further!! Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No, C. lupus is the correct species name because of Opinion 2027 (see link above), which takes precedence over earlier Opinions. Opinion 2027 stated that in the case of a number of domesticated animals named by Linnaeus, the first name for the wild species should be used, regardless of the earlier name for the domesticate. This applies to the dog, cat, and a number of other common domesticated animals. Jts1882 | talk 12:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I consulted the Elders of the Illuminati and they said there is no problem with familiaris being included under lupus, see here: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/2018-May/132063.html , so I guess that is OK :) Just remains to change the date and reference for familiaris being put on the Official List (details as above). Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully we have it correct now, thanks all! (That Francisco knows a thing or two....) William Harris • (talk) • 11:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, however instead of type specimen you need type species :) - then all should be OK, I think...

On the other hand, turning to the page Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus#List_of_extant_subspecies there are again issues with the manner that authorities are cited - first inconsistencies (no commas before years in the "Authority" column - they are optional but it is better to be consistent; they are present in other articles we have been discussing), and second, lots of unneeded brackets in the "synonyms" column. I could fix these if the page is not protected, if you like... Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. Only those articles that face consistent vandalism are locked down - the dog is one of these few on Wikipedia. The article Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus is not restricted. Feel free to amend. I will place a watch in place for "riding shotgun" on it. William Harris • (talk) • 10:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, have made the required corrections to Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus#List_of_extant_subspecies. I have not checked to see whether or not there are other pages that need similar attention :) Tony 1212 (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Now that I am aware of it, I shall make changes as I visit the various Canis-related articles over time. Thanks for your guidance and work. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! Tony 1212 (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Corinne †

Hello @FunkMonk:, @Mariomassone:. I just learned about Corinne's passing after dropping into her Talk page to say hello. Additionally, her favorite contact on grammatical matters, User:Rothorpe who had larynx cancer, has not been active on Wikipedia nor heard from since last year. Very sad news. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I only noticed by looking at the copy edit request page not too long ago. Dilophosaurus was the last of my articles she copy edited (in January), and I did not even know she had passed during its FAC, which feels sad. She gave me a great introduction to unit conversions once[1], which I still rely on today. I guess I had activated her teacher-gene with this comment:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

We also had Dr Chris Sherwin (aka User:DrChrissy) pass away in the middle of last year. We disagreed more often than we agreed. He had spent some time working here in Australia. It was a tragic loss. William Harris • (talk) • 09:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It is fortunate that in these cases, Wikipedia has somehow been notified. I suspect many editors have passed without anyone realising it, simply assuming they left the project... FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Wolf event

Hello M, if that was your proposal earlier today on the Talk page of an article, I am not committing to any new undertakings on Wikipedia at present, even though I generated 3 FA-level wolf articles last year. The "flagship" report on wolves and dogs is due before November, so I am not taking on new commitments until it has been released and integrated onto Wikipedia. To set the scene for it, Freedman and Wayne have jointly authored a summary of all the research - and its shortcomings - up to the end of 2016 here. Additionally, Thalmann and Perri have summarised the genetic evidence up to this year in a secondary source here. These 2 writings set the scene for a future study that would use ancient DNA sequencing across a large number of widely dispersed specimens and a knowledge of ancient human migrations. That would be Larson. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Wolf issues

Hello @Oknazevad: and @Mariomassone:. You both have an interest in the two wolf matters below, and the 3 of us have been around Canis long enough to seek each others advice or provide further explanation - we tend to agree more than we disagree on many matters. (I shall never forget that after vonHoldt 2016 was released - "the wolf is a coyote is a wolf" - and raised on the redwolf page, 5 minutes later you were both engaged in a "dog-fight" with one of the locals over on the coyote page.)

Himalayan wolf

When I first read this article, it was clearly badged Canis himalayensis, both in text and in taxobox (with a bunch of hard-cores keeping it that way.) As Woz made no mention of himalayensis in MSW3, I did some research on the taxonomy of the wolves of the Tibetan region. As a result I did the following:

Created the Mongolian wolf (chanco) article and developed its taxonomy
Rebadged the Tibetan wolf article as filchneri, relocated all chanco material from it to the Mongolian wolf article, made an entry for filchneri on "Subspecies of Canis lupus", and developed its taxonomy.
Rebadged the Himalayan wolf as filchneri, developed its taxonomy, and deleted its taxobox as I have mentioned on its Talk page. However, someone keeps putting the taxobox back, but as long as it remains as filchneri I do not have an issue. I will not accept himalayensis in that article.

Off the top of my head, the following have found the "Himalayan wolf" to be a "distinct lineage" (evolutionary biologist-speak for a different species or something close to that): Aggawahl 2003, Sharma 2004, Aggawahl 2007, Leonard 2007, Pilot 2010, Koepfli 2015, Werhahn 2017. The massive work of Thalmann 2013 ("the dog is the descendant of an extinct Western European cave wolf domesticated in the time of hunter-gatherers") refused to include his two Himalayan (or Tibetan) wolf specimens as not being representative of lupus. We have secondary sourcing in Miklosi 2015 and at least one of Larson's summary papers acknowledged them. No researcher has disputed that this is a unique lineage, as opposed to the red wolf or the eastern wolf which remain debated. The DNA phylotree does not depict species, it depicts DNA lineages. These lineages on the whole happen to coincide with species (but there are some other odd ones, the "Indian grey wolf" comes to mind). Wikipedia has an article on the Himalayan wolf (I await the day that I can roll it under the Tibetan wolf, but not just yet...) and I believe that it would be remiss of us not to include the Himalayan wolf in the phylogenetic tree of wolf-like canids. It is not as if the wolf does not exist, nor that no research has been done. At no time have I called for the recognition of the Himalayan wolf as himalayensis, by my actions I have done the opposite.

Where does this leave us?

It is not clear if the divergent lineage can be found just in some haplotypes that exist only in the Himalayas, or whether it is filchneri wide i.e. across the "Tibetan wolf". We do not define species genetically, we base it on phenotype, but if there is a slight phenotype difference - e.g. anthus and aureus - then genetics can help be persuasive.
The range of filchneri is not clear. DNA samples are reported from Mongolia and to the north. One proposal is that genetically, "chanco" does not exist - in eastern Mongolia there exists filchneri DNA and in western Mongolia there exists C. l. lupus DNA. (Plus some Beringian wolf descendants or relatives running around out there, but that is a separate exercise......) This needs to be ascertained.
Based on the research, the "Himalayan/Tibetan" wolf female lineage is anthus, the male lineage is something before the Holocene gray wolf came into being. We need whole-genome sequencing which may shed further light on this one, but it will be near-impossible to match if what we are looking for is extinct and a sample cannot be found. (First up, someone needs to match its genome to Skoglund 2016's "Taimyr wolf" that predates the gray wolf/dog divergence).

Once these issues are attended to, then we may have some idea of what we are dealing with. I have left the Himalayan wolf in the DNA phylotree - if either of you still have an issue with this then please let me know your views and we can develop a compromise.

Red wolf & Eastern wolf

Another study on the red wolf. Despite its title, it is a full review of its history and there is an advanced academic copy available here: https://academic.oup.com/jhered/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhered/esy020/5034846?guestAccessKey=ab4a2828-6103-4bb3-a099-0bc09ad1155c

You both will have noticed that I have put a bit of effort into redwolf taxonomy and the taxonomic debate. I am not sure how to progress from here. The remainder of the section "Genetic evidence" from vonHoldt 2011 onwards is convoluted and perhaps incorrect in parts, with more "he said, she said" accounts. The future debate will centre on whole-genome analysis, and currently that section of the article is up to date. My options for the rest of the "Genetic evidence" section are:

Leave it as is.
Put in briefly what vonHoldt 2011 found and add that it led to further debate, then simply list the references for the following studies as I have done for the pre-year 2000 paragraph. In this way, readers can find the abstract - or the whole paper - and read for themselves what the various researchers propose.
Flesh out further the studies that appear in this section, possibly adding several more paragraphs to it.

I would like to hear your views on what next. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Neural crest in dog domestication

Hello all watchers, this huge step forward in the process of dog domestication has finally been released:

Our results identify genes that act early in embryogenesis and can confer phenotypes distinguishing domesticated dogs from wolves, such as tameness, smaller jaws, floppy ears, and diminished craniofacial development as the targets of selection during domestication. https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-018-0535-2 William Harris • (talk) • 22:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Golden Jackal - TFA

Hello @Mariomassone: there are some nice wolf icons appearing on articles within my strategic interest; many thanks. No canines have appeared in Wikipedia:Today's featured article for some time, and so it is approaching time for Golden jackal to be able to make its appearance there. It would be nice to pick a preferred date for publishing that might be related to the article in some fashion. If you have any preference then please let me know, else I shall progress with the nearest available date in April. William Harris • (talk) • 07:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

A date? Well... 17 August would be an idea, as it would be the third anniversary of the publication of the discovery of Canis anthus. @William Harris: Mariomassone (talk) 07:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mariomassone: That was the one that first came to my mind when I looked through the article for a meaningful date, although it does relate more to anthus than to aureus. However, it also highlights the uniqueness of the Eurasian-only aureus. As we have both considered it, let us run with it - 17 August it will be! I will nominate in July, however I will be in Canada/Alaska come 17 August, so it might be up to you, Corinne and Funkmonk to defend the battlements against the barbarians that it will no doubt attract. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Mariomassone:, I have nominated Golden jackal early, for the 17th of August. I have chosen the image above because it has a higher level of free use than the article's lead pix, which may have led to administrative issues and delays. William Harris • (talk) • 10:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Thank you for the Lessons from Corinne, above! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Gerda Arendt:. I compiled it while she was still editing - and yes, she did correct its grammar! Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

She gracefully looked at every FAC I nominated, and for sure the one nominated after she died didn't make it. Will keep the advice in mind and write by it, thinking of her. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for sharing. Kind regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for today's Golden jackal, "a Eurasian canine that is similar in appearance to a small gray wolf" --

Golden jackal scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that I've scheduled Golden jackal to appear on the main page as today's featured article on 17 August 2018. If you need to make tweaks to the blurb, it is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 17, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Dingo

Please join the discussion on the article's Talk page. Insisting that your version of the article is correct without doing so is vandalism. HiLo48 (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:VANDALISM has a definition on Wikipedia, and this is not included. You were wrong about that, just as you are wrong about a number of things. You invent mistruths and then you start believing in your own verbal constructs.

You have removed two CURRENT, EXPERT, AUSTRALIAN, WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY sources that support each other - including the authors of the text Taxonomy of Australian Mammals - from the English-speaking world's online encyclopedia because you happen to disagree with them. I do not deal with sociopaths - farewell! William Harris • (talk) • 10:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not the topic. You are abusing the word "expert". And seemingly ignoring everything I wrote. HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Beringian wolf!

@Mariomassone: - its on! Modern wolves trace their origin to a late Pleistocene expansion from Beringia. We cannot use this yet, it is a Biorxiv preprint for peer review. Signed off by Larson himself! https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/07/18/370122.full.pdf And yes, the Himalayan wolf and the Indian grey wolf both cannot be included with these; further work needed. William Harris • (talk) • 12:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I just saw this, and wondered if you had heard about it:[3] I'm sure there are English language sources about this too, a mummified juvenile ice age wolf was just announced... Exciting! FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks FunkMonk for thinking of me. I saw it yesterday. The wolf pup was found in 2016 and has just gone on display; I assume the gene-sequencers have been running overtime since the find. The scientist in charge of this here was also the scientific consultant for the new Alpha (film), which is released down here at the end of the month. William Harris • (talk) • 09:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow, hadn't heard of that film! Best ice age film since Quest for Fire (film)? FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

FunkMonk, I never saw that movie! One thing this movie will do, and that is remove for all time the theory of dumpster-diving wolves hanging around rubbish dumps during the dawn of agriculture (11,000 years ago). We now know that dogs were with hunter-gatherers at least 14,700 years ago Origin of the domestic dog#Bonn–Oberkassel dog, and so we were running with the wolves well before then. William Harris • (talk) • 09:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, seems the film comes out here in two days, and even has a bunch of Scandinavian actors. I wonder if the film will attract attention to the relevant Wikipedia articles? I can recommend Quest for Fire too, it is pretty gritty, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Good forecast. We had better brace ourselves for both the visitors and the vandals! William Harris • (talk) • 09:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Red Wolf article on Bio-archive

Hello Red Wolf aficionados @Mariomassone: and @Oknazevad:. There is a new article undergoing peer review - Rediscovery of red wolf ghost alleles in a canid population along the American Gulf Coast: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/09/18/420356

Briefly, there have been found canids - largely coyote - on Galveston Island, Texas with redwolf alleles (gene expressions) left from a ghost population. These are from a different population to the redwolves in the captive breeding program. More importantly, the evolutionary biologists propose these expressions can be bred back.

L. Rutledge and RKW have argued over the nature of the enigmatic North American canids for the past 20 years. In 2016, B. vonHoldt and RKW told us that based on whole genome sequences, the red wolf was a recent coyote/lupus hybrid. Rutledge and team immediately rebutted it. Now take a look at the authors of this paper on Canis rufus. It would appear that BvH has "dispersed" from the RKW-pack to become alpha for the L.R.-pack. (This may indicate that she has changed her mind on rufus or else both parties are now moving towards a combined position, which would be most helpful right now.) William Harris • (talk) • 10:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you recognise the source?

I came across this image file (File:Cerdocyon timeline.png) and wondered if you recognised it. It looks like it is a clip from a published paper rather than the uploaders own work and probably violates copyright.

While looking I found an article (Zrzavý et al, 2018) which has a comprehensive combined morphological and molecular phylogenetic analysis of extant and extinct canines, including a variety of Canis species. The topology is quite different to the schemes in Evolution of the wolf. Jts1882 | talk 07:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jts1882 - the image violates copyright as it was taken from Tedford 2009. I have removed similar pix from Canis a few years ago. I was aware of Zrzavy 2018, and am waiting to see if a reputable secondary source will run with it. Once again, somebody wants to split the African jackals off from Canis, in addition to the extinct Canis subgenus Xenocyon and its modern representatives Cuon and Lycaon (well, that is the theory anyhow). The genetic analysis is limited because although it recycles Lindblad‐Toh 2005, I am not aware of anyone being able to extract dirus DNA (which would help confirm or reject my thought that dirus IS lupus with cranio-facial adaptation to prey on megafauna). Nonetheless, it draws on other reliable sources and is a sterling effort - if it is accepted then it has advanced science. William Harris • (talk) • 08:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

As I expected, both it being a copyright violation and that you would know. Do you want to flag it, as I'm not sure what to do? Or perhaps I should learn. Jts1882 | talk 10:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Jts1882 - I simply removed them from the articles. I did not flag them, although that is probably a good idea - there is a cluster of them sitting on Commons here. Perhaps you might learn to do it and be our resident expert within Canidae, as you are with phylotrees? You could short-cut things by approaching User:Anaxial who has a track record for deleting non-complying images, or User:Nikkimaria who is the image guru for FAC candidates. William Harris • (talk) • 10:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

we all have our problems

no spell check or grammar check at eucla, last time I went through JarrahTree 10:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

JarrahTree, over here in the South, we have little else to do! Cheers mate. William Harris • (talk) • 10:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

actually, your user page/brag sheet might offer a clue - apart from intense personal frustration with the projects set up as if primary school children in the states created wikipedia (ships, trains etc etc) - I am fascinated the illiterate idiots who tag projects (heheh, we in the west are always self deprecatory...) - never got around to ever tagging the category area of - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Parasites - I think that the whole parasitic untagged category realm because of across living items - might even be too large a process than something as specific as biology - as there are things that are behaviours as well as biological processes - I ask as (I remain a descendant of a vet scientist who was heavily into genetics), and although I get bad behaviour from taxonomists for my project tagging at times... I thought I'd ask :) - - 'biology' as a project to tag for most untagged parasitic categories? assuming ti can accomodate processes as well as biological realities? JarrahTree 10:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

JarrahTree where do you get the time to even notice these things? Agreed that we must operate on the "American" Wikipedia, although I do take great joy in pointing out to some from time to time that this is the English-speaking world's Wikipedia, and enjoy applying definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary.

I note that https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Parasites itself is tagged by WikiProjects Ecology and Medicine, however I would have thought that WikiProject Biology would have been the first to badge it. I believe Biology would be the most reasonable choice for the parasites, including processes. If others can come up with a more-focussed WikiProject then they should feel free to add it. That should keep you entertained for a while. William Harris • (talk) • 10:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

ta for that - there are some very strange beasts in some of the dark corners of this place, (not just self...) JarrahTree 11:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Strange indeed! :-) William Harris • (talk) • 08:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, William Harris. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy Wolfenoot!

Happy Wolfenoot to you! -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy Wolfenoot to you too, Roger - I hope that it catches on! I have not forgotten the help that you gave me in getting my first short article up on Wikipedia. For your information, just about every day is Wolfenoot at our place - woof! William Harris • (talk) • 20:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Gopalakrishnan, 2018

@Mariomassone:, interesting stuff, it reminds me of Wilson's 2000 diagram at Red wolf#Genetic evidence. You know that Greger has not officially published his wolves from Beringia study yet, but he did promised me "more soon". Given that he is attempting to track down both where the dog AND the wolf came from, I will give him a couple of months to deliver. Else, I may be in need of either (a) your canid icon with the question mark on it, or (b) your development of something that resembles being between a dhole and a grey wolf! (This stuff never ends.....) William Harris • (talk) • 09:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Mariomassone:, you may not be aware but the team that brought us Gopalakrishnan 2018 also did Sinding 2018 over at Red wolf, basically knocking its species status on the head. Both done under Marcus Thomas Pius Gilbert, an associate of Mr Larson. Let us see where they are going with this. William Harris • (talk) • 00:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Gopalakrishnan 2018 - part 2

Hello @Mariomassone: and @Oknazevad: (and JTS, Dodger, and any others who also watch this page). Thanks for your support in getting the eastern wolf and red wolf pages sorted out.

1. I have been working slowly over the past year - so as not to "spook the horses" - to bring the eastern wolf and the red wolf back into the lupus/latrans camp. This has now been finalized. I expect that there will be some disruptive editing on the red wolf over the next few months. Is there a third canid from eastern North America? No. Should the red wolf be recognized as a separate species? I agree with one of Bob Wayne's past comments: it is a hybrid, but one so unique it is worth preserving. Perhaps it should be recognized as a lupus/latrans ancient hybrid that has given rise to a new species, and we call that species C. rufus. Nobody has proposed that yet, and I will leave the evolutionary biologists and taxonomists to debate that one. vonHoldt has a new paper (see above section "Red Wolf article on Bio-archive") - it will be interesting to see if it is published in its current form after the findings of Sinding 2018.

2. So with the wolf/coyote camp now tidied up, the path is now clear for the Wikipedia wolf-world to reflect a much bigger picture, the findings of Gopalakrishnan 2018 (see section above "Gopalakrishnan, 2018") who is fairly much the same team from Sinding 2018, who also earlier mapped the wolf reference genome (along with Mr Larson). Where to start - most of the extant Canis has been admixing, some of them may be hybids of the others, and have admixed not just within their current ranges! Leaving the wolf/coyote camp aside, shortly I will place the findings across the other Canis species, which are comparably straight forward.

3. Early next year, by which time the eastern wolf/red wolf should have settled down, I will address the ancestral wolf/coyote lineage that has been admixed with a ghost population of an extinct canid that is described as being "close to the dhole". The coyote retains much of the more ancient mitogenome of this canid than the wolf, and this is why mitochondrial DNA sequencing shows the coyote basal to the wolf.

4. The Gopalakrishnan 2018 team was no doubt aware of the yet unreleased Larson-team article sitting on Biorxiv - the Holocene grey wolf came out of Beringia at the close of the Pleistocene and replaced all other lupus across its range (except for the Himalayan wolf, which may be an ancient survivor or admixed with something more basal, with further specimens and work called for). As there is no evidence of a coyote ancestor outside of North America, the authors assume that the "ghost canid" may have existed in North America, even hinting controversially at perhaps the American dhole (whose only fossil has been found in San Josecito Cave in northeastern Mexico, showing how scant the fossil record is - Tedford 2009) or the dire wolf! No DNA has been extracted from these two yet.

5. Let me suggest a third player (my conjecture only). We know that Gopalakrishnan 2018 indicates gene flow from the dhole into the African hunting dog. We also know that the ancestor of both (plus the extinct Sardinan dhole) is believed to be Xenocyon#Canis (Xenocyon) lycaonoides - we would expect to see its signature in the mDNA of both the dhole and the African hunting dog. We also know that it visited Beringia and northern Canada (Tedford 2009). Its timing would be right to meet the coyote/wolf ancestor around the second last glacial maximum (120k years ago). I propose that the ghost is lycaonoides. This would mean that Mario's recent sketch of lycaonoides and his work on the Sardinian dhole takes on a higher importance.

Let us watch how this new game unfolds. William Harris • (talk) • 21:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, it does seem that our understanding of the interrelationships between the subspecies of C. lupus and the other members of Canis is undergoing some rapid change based on the newest genetics-based studies. At least the conclusions that seem to be arising are fairly consistent with each other and are trending in the directions that studies over the past decade or so have been pointing towards. Such consistency is usually the hallmark of actual fact. Science is, after all, repeatable. And the use of genetic basis is also inherently superior, as anyone can easily note that the C. lupus genome is fairly plastic in its nature, so morphology was never really a good basis for taxonomy of the subspecies. Too many cases where minor differences were exaggerated to subspecies status while also splitting some subspecies into separate species where such splits are unneeded. (Indeed, I'd say morphology is not a good basis for taxonomy in general thanks to convergent evolution, which is itself more dependent on environmental factors, but I digress.)

In terms of the articles here, I've begun to make changes in respect to the "main" wolf article, using the material at eastern wolf as a basis. (Hooray copy-and-paste! And hooray for having well-written summaries in articles to copy and paste. Credit to you William for that!) the follow up to that, which I noticed while briefly glancing at other articles, is there's many subspecies articles that repeat the now-removed contrast between the "gray wolf" vs the "eastern wolf" as we now can state flatly the the eastern wolf is (a particular subspecies of) the gray wolf, and separateling them like that is not accurate. So that's something we have to keep an eye on in order to have consistency between articles in the series. oknazevad (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd go as far as rewriting the lycaon and rufus introductions by referring to them as populations of coywolves, as that is the most obvious implication of the most up to date information, but maybe that term is exclusive to F1 hybrids. Mariomassone (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I admire your boldness; I recall that you had already proposed that on Talk:Red wolf when vonHoldt 2016 came out. If the admixture is "ancient" - as Sinding 2018 puts it and vonHoldt 2016 hints at - then we are dealing with genomic introgression rather than hybridisation - these admixed wolves are breeding "true" and have done so for centuries. Additionally, apart from the Greenland wolves and the Mexican coyotes, all of the other wolves and coyotes are admixed as well!! I would prefer to wait until this matter plays out further. I do not expect the pro-Lycaon team to rebut Sinding 2018 because its fairly conclusive and they are out of ammunition. I am not so sure about the new - and most unlikely - vonHoldt/Rutledge alignment on the redwolf and where they might be headed. We have taken some major steps recently in bringing some balance back into these two articles and so we can afford a little more time. I anticipate some disruptive editing over on redwolf in the coming several weeks. Then in the new year, I will be mentioning admixture in the first paragraph of both of those two articles. (We wolves watch, and we wait!) William Harris • (talk) • 10:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Plus I am not going anywhere near Evolution of the wolf for a while - the whole subject is caught in a maelstrom right now! The phylotree that will need to be constructed from Gopalakrishnan 2018 is mind-boggling, and we have the Beringian origin article to be released soon. William Harris • (talk) • 11:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

An interesting read. The whole Canis species complex is quite unusual, but I wonder how much this is just due to them being a well-studied group. The size of wolves and their wide ranging and adaptability helps make it more complicated than say in for smaller cats (less wide ranging) or big cats (usually more specialised to a ecological niche; although there is some introgression in Panthera cats).

Canis

	Canis lupus

	Canis familiaris

	Canis latrans

	Canis rufus

I can help with the phylogenetic trees if you need it. I would love to be able to find a way of overlaying intogression on the clade system tables, but I haven't been able to think of anything. Wikipedia is keeping away from embedding SVG on pages. Jts1882 | talk 13:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if some sort of highlighting might work. For instance if you hover the mouse over the wolf or coyote in the cladogram to the right. Could introgression be indicated in such a way. Jts1882 | talk 17:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello JTS, I was wondering when we would hear from you. It is becoming clear that genus Canis is a super-species. All of its members are capable of admixing, which indicates in genetic terms incomplete linkage-sorting i.e. they have yet in genotype to become separate "species", even though they are different in phenotype. This includes the two old Canis (Xenocyon) members the dhole and the African hunting dog. The hover method you have demonstrated is fascinating. I will give it some thought over the coming weeks. I may need to develop something off-Wikipedia and upload it via Commons.

And just to make things intriguing, the key phylotree - found in Supplementary diagram 2 from Gopalakrishnan 2018 - treats the dog as a separate species - woof! Their samples come from India, the Middle East and Africa including the Basenji. The researchers were possibly anticipating this to be the key admixture region and wanted the "local" dogs included to help identify any dog/canid cross-mixing. William Harris • (talk) • 20:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Himalayan wolf

Hello @Mariomassone: Some 18 months ago we finally got the Himalayan wolf-Tibetan wolf (filcheri)/Mongolian wolf (chanco) sorted out as per Wozencraft. Now our friend Werhahn 2017 has just released Werhahn 2018. The genetic findings are that the Himalayan wolf/Tibetan wolf is the one beast, the wolf to the north of the Tibetan Plateau is the "Holarctic grey wolf" (this includes an arc stretching from Mongolia to the sea), the Himalayan wolf diverged from the ancestral lineage well before the Holactic wolf, and that several wolves tested in the mountains of Kyrgyzstan to the north-west are Himalayan/Holarctic hybrids. For its name, I quote: "Canis chanco Gray 1863 is the first valid name proposed for this wolf lineage and hence has priority over the names used in the past." Just when we thought we were on top of things!

I intend on using both Werhahn studies as a basis on which to "roll" the Tibetan wolf article under the Himalayan wolf article, but still badged as filchneri for now. William Harris • (talk) • 08:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the Himalayan wolf (including Tibetan wolf) is on its way to species status.

Perhaps it is still lupus, just not the more recent Holarctic lupus. Else, it could be another species. There is a much larger piece of work in the pipeline - in 1 test it fell within the Holarctic wolf clade, on 2 it did not, with a call for a more detailed review with more samples to be undertaken.

I'm confused about the names. If the Himalayan and Tibetan wolf is one taxon, why do they choose chanco over laniger as the latter is the earlier name given for the Tibetan wolf (in their table 1). The subspecies of Canis lupus article also gives laniger as a synonym for Tibetan wolf, although it prefers the newer filchneri. On the other hand, Canis laniger redirects to Indian wolf, although the article makes no mention of it. Is there a reason why laniger is ignored/rejected? Jts1882 | talk 11:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I have just dealt with the redirect. I am responsible for the subspecies entry. It gets down to nomenclature vs taxonomy. What Filchner described will always be filchneri and what Laniger described will always be laniger under nomenclature. Wozencraft badged laniger as a synonym of filchneri as one taxonomic grouping - and has been proved by DNA to have been damned right! Why isn't it called by the earlier laniger? I do not know, I have believed all along that this should be its name. Laniger described it first! William Harris • (talk) • 11:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The odd thing is that Werhahn 2018 show the names and dates in the table and pick the second oldest without explanation. If they used laniger then the Mongolian wolf could keep chanco which would avoid a confusing game of taxonomic music chairs. I assume there is a reason such as an invalid description or the type specimen being found outside the range of the Himalayan wolf. Jts1882 | talk 11:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser. In the book version of MSW3, Wozencraft has laniger as a synonym of filchneri (link), but the web version has both as synonyms of chanco (link). The latter also says laniger is preoccupied (link). This would explain the choice in Werhahn 2018. Jts1882 | talk 13:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Possibly. One should always choose the reliable secondary source (printed book MSW3) rather than a website. William Harris • (talk) • 22:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I would pick the one that is most reliable and up to date. A printed book retains errors, while a website based on the book can be updated. Here it is not clear which is newer. Both book and web site say they follow Ellerman & Morisson-Scott (1951), Mech (1974) and Hall (1981) for the synonyms. Both follow the former with the addition of dorogostaiskii (Mech drops the nom. nud. ekloni). Unfortunately, I can't check Hall, although I wouldn't expect a book on North American mammals would be revising Asian wolf taxonomy. It's strange the website and database are different (I haven't seen any other differences).

Anyway, the MSW3 website says laniger is preoccupied. The entry for chanco in Ellerman & Morisson-Scott 1951 gives laniger as a synonym: 1847. Lupus laniger Hodgson, Calcutta J.N.H. 7: 474. Tibet. Not C. laniger H. Smith, 1840. The earlier description by Smith is presumably why laniger is not a valid name, which answers our question. Jts1882 | talk 09:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Unclear what the website is on about, Woz in MSW3 text was quite specific: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=JgAMbNSt8ikC&pg=PA576&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

I cannot find Ellerman & Morisson-Scott (1951) listed here.

The publisher has jumped the gun! The taxonomists on this project are still not agreed, and we will need to await the final paper. Geraldine says "So at the moment I cannot tell you which Latin name will be assigned to the Himalayan wolf in the end. Currently we can consider Canis himalayensis, laniger and chanco as synonyms all used to describe the Himalayan wolf lineage." William Harris • (talk) • 18:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Does this mean Canis anthus should be renamed Canis chanco anthus? I recall that study linking the African and Himalayan wolves closely. Mariomassone (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

An interesting proposal. Given that the ancestor of Canis arose in North America, and expanded from eastern Asia, and that extant wolf-like canids have colonised Africa from Eurasia at least 5 times throughout the Pliocene and Pleistocene (Koepfl 2015), we should assume that all of the Canis (and cousin Lycaon) all arose in Eurasia at one time. Who knows what sort of hybrid mixtures that has given rise to.

We must keep in mind that the researchers used very short reads of DNA, and have proposed doing longer lengths. The article is accepted and published online in the original manuscript form, but I am awaiting the final PDF version. That might tidy up some English. The link between the two is not completely clear. I await the final copy where this may be clarified. The Larson team also identified the "wolves of southern Asia" - including the "Himalayan wolf" - for a future study. William Harris • (talk) • 20:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Well Jts1882, the article is now published (for real), and the authors have skillfully avoided the classification issue with: "The formal taxonomic classification of the Himalayan wolf is pending; the valid Latin taxon will be assigned according to taxonomic priority ruling." That ends this episode. William Harris • (talk) • 10:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The Velvet Claw

I was just reading the companion book of the 1992 BBC series The Velvet Claw[4] (about the natural history of carnivora), and reached the canid chapter, and of course thought of your articles. Ever seen it? Here is the canid episode on Youtube:[5] I watched it all on TV as a kid, one of the things that got me hooked on extinct mammals too and not just reptiles... It recreates extinct carnivores through drawn animation, which is pretty unique, compared to all the cheap CGI garbage these days. Maybe mariomassone is interested too, the entire series seems to be on Youtube. FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I have the book, and have seen the episodes more than twice. Mariomassone (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hehe, I imagined so! I only started reading the book a few months ago, though. I wish it was on DVD... FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for considering me, I have never watched it and look forward to it. William Harris • (talk) • 08:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

"The cats came to ground, and made killing their art" William Harris • (talk) • 10:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

On this note, I just saw this PBS Youtube video[6] about dire wolves, which seems to be heavily based on the Wikipedia article, at least in the image department! Some of Mario's images are also used there. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It is long past time when our talented paleo-artists received Youtube exposure. A few years ago somebody ripped off the Beringian wolf article for their 4 minute "presentation". It may be a new marketing strategy for your business operations - pick a dinosaur and do a Youtube presentation on it based on Wikipedia content, displaying some of your work. William Harris • (talk) • 19:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hehe, it's the easy way of doing "homework", i. e. research... Just funny when "respectable" channels like PBS do it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi William Harris, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 19:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The Dark Roses

Just a friendly heads up on The Dark Roses. You might want to review A7, which only requires that there be a claim of importance, which is a lower standard than notability. For notability issues, you'd need to use PROD or AfD.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Pix colour, please?

Hello @Mariomassone:. It is going to be another "champagne" year for the dog/wolf story. If you go to my Sandbox page, section titled First cut - current at December 2018, are you able to create a version of File:The American Museum journal (c1900-(1918)) (Canis dirus).jpg with the blue background to match the other lupus pack, please? William Harris • (talk) • 23:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry man, I don't know how to do svgs. :( However, the others were done by this user here. Give him a ping Mariomassone (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks; I thought the trail might lead to Jts.William Harris • (talk) • 07:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Jts1882:, are you able to assist with the above undertaking, please? The blue shading are Canis lupus canines, as best we know. William Harris • (talk) • 07:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with SVGs (that's another type of image format). What you want is a transparent background so the background colour on the page shows through. I know I did a batch of them for the Canidae cladogram using Photoshop. The question is whether I can remember how. There was also the matter of uploading them with proper attribution, which I didn't get quite right. I'll have a look. Jts1882 | talk 08:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Is this suitable?

Jts1882 | talk 09:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Brilliant, thankyou! Once Loog 2019 is published, the cladogram will be going across all of the wolf-like canids. (They also find the Tibetan wolf branching 250k years ago - which gives me some confidence - and provide a figure of 120k for the Indian plains wolf.) William Harris • (talk) • 11:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !!!

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

wild dogs

I'm trying to access the original source for this, but I read a great story about a bad mob of dogs or dingos. When the author first heard the story she was not told what the concern was about sleeping in a particular remote site, because they did not want her to be afraid of every dog or dingo. She was told to build two fires and sleep in between, or be dragged off into the night, the 'reason' was initially said to be some form of local water monster. I suspect these were sealer's dogs, or pastoralist's escapees, introduced before the colonies were founded, but where they originate may be anybody's guess. I'll keep you apprised if this piques your interest. cygnis insignis 08:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I would be interested, thankyou. Don't be concerned about the edit warning - I wear it as a battle honour. William Harris • (talk) • 10:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I prefer not to view it that way, and thought that at least gave you an option to restore or ignore. I stubbed Wozencraft, not sure if I missed anything at our sister sites version, the link in template for MSW3 is also lit up now. It's a great story, the swamp monster, and I may be able to confirm with language evidence the id for the dogs. BTW, is dingos introduction really that late, is there no evidence of their earlier appearance? Regards, cygnis insignis 11:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a quick piece of transfer from the German site. Nonetheless, we should not need to do it as we were within the guidelines, however we are dealing with a sociopath. Based on fossils, around 3,400 years ago - nothing older has been found. Based on DNA, possibly around 8,000 years ago - we are not quite clear on that. I have asked the genetics researcher (Kylie C.) if she might carbon date a fossil that was once assessed at 8,000 years old based on the sediment that it was found in, but then reassessed later because it was felt the sediment layer had been disturbed. A carbon date might confirm either way.

(My days on Dingo draw to a close, I have had it with sociopaths on Wikipedia - they draw to it like moths to a candle.) William Harris • (talk) • 11:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Ro Thorpe

Hi,

I see that you left me a message some time ago about something concerning Ro Thorpe. He and I knew each other for a number of years at Citizendium, the poor man's Wikipedia, where both of us shared common interests. I have checked my personal email account, and I see that he and I exchanged maybe 700 messages over the years *outside* of Citizendium. For the last six months or so, however, Ro has been totally quiet, and has not replied to any messages from me. I, and others at CZ, fear the worst, as I know that his health was not of the very best. Do *you*, by any chance, happen to know anything about him and his present circumstances? Thanks, and all the best! Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Hayford, thanks for writing to me. User Corrine (top of this page) assisted me with English expression in 3 FA articles, and when a usage was complex she would confer with Ro. According to his user page, he had cancer of the larynx and lost his voice - not a good indicator. When long-time contributors cease contributing, it may be that they have grown tired of Wikipedia. When they do not reply to personal emails, I assume the worst. Another light has gone out in the world. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 05:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you confirm my fears. I've notified the CZ community. He seemed to be a very kindly, courtly, and gentlemanly person, living modestly with his Portuguese wife and never complaining about his ills. RIP. And the very best to you! Hayford Peirce (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Best regards to you too, Hayford, and thanks for your concern for Ro. William Harris • (talk) • 09:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

New (?) paper by Smith et al., Zootaxa: "Taxonomic status of the Australian dingo: the case for Canis dingo Meyer, 1793"

Hi William,

FYI in case you have not seen it (appeared via my Facebook feed, published last week): https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4564.1.6/20622 Not sure what it affects in Wikipedia land, I will maybe leave it to you if still interested... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Tony 1212, Australia is waking up from its slumbers I see. Thanks for your thoughtfulness. I am across the work - the debate continues, not unlike the red wolf in the US. I hope all is well with you. William Harris • (talk) • 21:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi William, all good here thanks, been up for a few hours (I normally get up in darkness and do stuff for an hour or two before the rest of the household wakes up). 0800 here approx on a beautiful morning! Tony 1212 (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Err, about the same time here Tony 1212, I am in Adelaide. William Harris • (talk) • 21:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Apologies William, I thought you were in the UK for some reason! Cannot remember why at this point... Tony 1212 (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it is my attempts to use a more precise and dignified style of English, quite uncommon out here in the colonies...... :-) William Harris • (talk) • 21:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

personal conjecture

Dear William Harris,

You dismissed my contribution as "personal conjecture". I am afraid that you were "wide off the mark". Misunderstanding appears not to be a "reliable tutor".

Regards.

145.129.136.48 (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I did no such thing - read what I wrote again, please, this time carefully. The editor who removed your comment referred you to WP:FORUM. I would refer that editor to WP:TPO. William Harris • (talk) • 12:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, no hard feelings. 145.129.136.48 (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

None taken; I should have probably have spelt it out a bit better. Additionally, under WP:TPO the editor should not have removed your comment. William Harris • (talk) • 20:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Pix delete

Hello User:Nikkimaria. You have been most helpful with my WP:FAC submissions, and so I seek your advice. Back when I first began editing on Wikipedia, I managed to upload this file:

File:Kesslerloch Cave dog 14,500.jpg

which I understand now is non-free use. Are you able to delete it from Commons, please? William Harris • (talk) • 08:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a file by that name on Commons? There is a file with that name here on enwiki, but our policies allow non-free images so long as they can be properly justified. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks; I will investigate its use further. William Harris • (talk) • 07:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Page number request, Saluki

For what it's worth, via Google Books: page 131, 2013 edition, https://books.google.ca/books?id=ZWLyAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA4&dq=The+dog+encyclopedia.+Dennis-Bryan,&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRo7KMkNzhAhWE2FkKHV1TCegQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=Saluki&f=false Thanks for all your dedicated work on 'dog domestication'!--Richard Hawkins (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Richard, I shall amend the reference. I doubt very much what was depicted was a Saluki, and due to breed club "legends" we have statements similar to "There are depictions of (insert name of any breed here) on cave walls dating back 9,000 years". I try to clarify what is being stated where I can. The "Origin of the domestic dog" commenced as a small improvement contribution; now it has been completely rewritten and I find myself chatting via email to researchers who have published the best and latest studies. Her sister article, the "Evolution of the wolf", came into being when someone asked what happened before the dog - it got me intrigued! William Harris • (talk) • 21:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

My pleasure. I agree with your questioning its relevance. Strength to you with 'dog domestication', I have been following this for many years through the scientific publications when I still could, and see that you are doing a very good job!--Richard Hawkins (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, Richard. I am sure the article has a number of followers, however I do not hear from them on the Talk page but I do see them reverting vandalism from time to time, therefore I assume they are generally satisfied with its progress. I am also made aware of what papers "are in the pipeline", and so I have to wait for nearly a year until these pass peer review and can finally be published in reputable journals or books. That can be frustrating at times. William Harris • (talk) • 22:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

William the papers: Frantz et al 2016, & Ollivier et al 2018, had been on my mind for some time - that is why I had also been thinking of Clutton-Brock's Tell-Brak "saluki". I was wondering if the skeleton had been returned and now out of reach somewhere in Syria. Or maybe parts of it are still in the British Museum, where JC-B worked for so long, available for possible DNA analysis. I haven't contacted any of these people for years (RK Wayne), but if you do from time to time, I think it would be a good thing just to bring it to Greger Larson's attention - and make sure it has not been overlooked. What do you think? --Richard Hawkins (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Richard. GL and his "consortium" are due to release a paper on which they have sequenced over 1,000 fossil wolves and dogs, and undertook 360 degree 3D morphometrics by camera on over 3,000 more, all to be fed into a computer. I have been waiting for this paper for 2 years now, GL advises coming "soon". I am sure the specimen would have made it into that collection, as hopefully too did the first specimen of the Cave wolf that I suggested be included. I suggest we wait for its release and see "who" made it on the list in the paper's Supplementary section. If not, then I shall take it further.

Research to date shows that there are no "ancient breeds". All of the European breeds were produced in Victorian times, using other more-ancient lineages that are now extinct. Human along with dog migration over the past few thousand years, and free breeding with local wolf populations, has erased much of the genetic lineage, which is why trying to locate the place and timing of domestication is so difficult. When I read of dog breeds dating back a century or so I am happy, when I read of them dating back 4 centuries I give it the benefit of the doubt, when I read of breeds dating back to ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Celts, Visigoths, and cave art I treat these as breed club legends. William Harris • (talk) • 21:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm in absolute agreement with you! I thought we had been waiting for this for three years or more, but I do appreciate the enormity of the project, and have been fascinated by the wealth of data we have been getting in the last decade or two. I will continue being patient. Thanks, --Richard Hawkins (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC) By the way, have you been following Bennett & Timm's publications on the Vindolanda dogs - I'm hoping their finds will be in GL's consortium analysis too.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I understand that the analysis of the field work finished a year ago and the draft "flagship" report is being negotiated, Richard. It will not be published until all of the major players agree on its content (i.e. RKW & friends, the "palaeolithic dog" supporters, and the "East Asia origin" fans). I tend not to follow dogs later than the Bonn-Oberkassel dog of 14,300 years ago. However, there are several breeds that attract unwanted subtle vandalism so I visit them from time to time, you will have noticed Saluki being one of them; what a mess that was 3.5 years ago! Let us see what the flagship report, or its associated "minor" reports (as I am told), will have to say. William Harris • (talk) • 04:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

PS Melinda Zeder also put out in 2005 "Ancient Pompeian Dogs – Morphological and Morphometric Evidence for Different Canine Populations". Given that I tend to stop at the Bonn Oberkassel dog, and the 'breed club' articles commence from a couple of centuries ago (or should do), there is the opportunity for someone with the interest to cover the period in between using the best of what we know. William Harris • (talk) • 05:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

OK thanks for the update. I do appreciate the problems with unreliable information and creative writing on the breed pages, but there is just so much I'm willing to do for Wikipedia. Looking forward to what GL et al publish and the wealth of questions they will raise.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"Obit/Orbit

William just noticed typo "obit" instead of "orbit" in your wolf skull diagram on ODD page. Apologies for the nuisance--Richard Hawkins (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

A sharp eye for detail, thanks Richard. I will rectify. William Harris • (talk) • 01:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

New consortium

Hello Mario and others who watch this page. A new "consortium" has been formed, linking internationally recognised researchers who are working on the Golden Jackal (Hatlauf), African Golden Wolf (Sillero), and Himalayan Wolf (Werhahn).

Based on mDNA, the Golden Jackal appears to have emerged from northern India. The earliest fossils we have found date to 7,600 years ago, and it is perhaps a recently diverged species. The African Golden Wolf has recently been found to be a hybrid of the Ethiopian Wolf and some ancient form of grey wolf. Given that the "Himalayan Wolf" is a more ancient-lineage than the modern grey wolf, you can guess where this is all probably going. William Harris • (talk) • 09:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Guten morgen, Gerda. As well as improving articles you also remind us of the things that we may have forgotten! Happy editing. William Harristalk 09:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Danke, - it's good for me and my memory ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Natufian dog/human burial

William, I have recently received a graphic of, and a photo of the cast of, what has to be the famous Davis & Valla Natufian dog/human burial which in 1978 was originally dated to approx 12,000 yrs BP. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Davis11/publication/232793024_Evidence_for_domestication_of_the_dog_12000_years_ago_in_the_Natufian_of_Israel/links/5aeafde3a6fdcc03cd90d834/Evidence-for-domestication-of-the-dog-12-000-years-ago-in-the-Natufian-of-Israel.pdf Now The Steinhardt Museum of Natural History in Tel Aviv is promoting an age of approx 15,000 yrs BP. I don't know whether the find has been re-dated or if the the museum is 'bragging'. If you would like to see the photos I received, what is the best way for me to send them to you? richard.k.hawkins@gmail.com--Richard Hawkins (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Most thoughtful of you, Richard. You can email me from my user page, left side, under Tools, fifth entry is "Email this user". Later scholars declared the "puppy" to be a fox: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3027631/ The timeline is provided in the 2 tables at Paleolithic dog#Early dog specimens. The earliest indisputable dog is the Origin of the domestic dog#Bonn–Oberkassel dog. William Harristalk 08:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I have to run, sorry to do this on your Talk page. Two different finds and ditto locations: Israel and Jordan, footnote 10 in Maher et al refers to the "dog" in Davis & Valla. More later, we have veterinary problems here.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I trust all is now well. You are correct; these are separate locations belonging to the same culture. I had misinterpreted my own edits! William Harristalk 21:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)