Talk:Canid hybrid/Archive 1

Archive 1

Colors?

Is there a specific reason for the different colors (red/green) in the synoptic table? If so, can the reason be stated? Or the colors be removed, as they are confusing/distracting/non-standard? Rockdozen 22:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Long quote

I Wikified the Darwin quotes. I know it's public domain, but it seems long for an encyclopedic entry. Perhaps an expert would like to sumarize it. --malber 18:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The Darwin quote is not particularly helpful. Darwin wrote more than 100 years before DNA analysis established dogs are domesticated wolves. This article needs serious editing. --Michael Johnson 05:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Poor article

This article needs significant improvement.

1. It needs to distingish between hybrids between subspecies, and between species.

2. While hybrids between subspecies are unremarkable, hybrids between species need to be verified by something more than news reports. How about some serious scientific references?

--Michael Johnson 05:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You want serious reference? How about the department of genetics at the University of Wisconsin? see here: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-8424%2819490815%2935%3A8%3C468%3ACOAFH%28%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

You cannot state with absolute certainty that this is not possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.161.250 (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove yellow jackal from Jackal hybrids section

Since the jackals Canis aureus, adustus, and mesomelas have 2n=78 chromosomes [1], shouldn't the "Yellow Jackal" (What is the latin name? Is it one of the South American canides with 2n=74 chromosomes?) be removed from or moved out of the jackals' section?

Lemgo 11:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There is evidence that the domestic dog is a separate species and not a sub-species of canis lupus. See the following aticle: http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006/10/controversial-origins-of-domestic-dog.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.6.47 (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that evidence. I'm not completely finished with this article but there are certain flaws which doesn't fit. At first the whole "they revert back to being wolf-like in appearance" or "back to the wild form". Horses have become feral again in many places of the world and they don't look like their ancestors and wild wolves don't look alike no matter where you go. Arabian wolves are much smaller and look more jackal-like, than their relatives in middle europe or North America. There are a lot of domestic dogs, who look pretty wolf-like and I don't know what the author calls "wolf-like", a dingo looks pretty wolf-like in built. And just because a breed gets feral again, doesn't mean it will become wolves again. If they can, they will adapt in an amoubnt that is neccasary and not more. It seems as though the author claims to know exactly how evolution works. And all the "wolvesd don't make good pets" is no good argument either. Wildcats also don't make good pets and no one questions, that they have been domesticated. By the way, the wild cat populations in germany also don't mix with the domesticated ones and that's due to climatic reasons (different mating seasons) and not genetic diversency. And at last: The first archeological evidence of a domestic dog is more thann 10 000 years old. The wolves than could have been much different than the ones today. I recommend: try "The dog" from Erik Zimen on that matter; in that books he also gets rid, with the whole "pariah-like ancestor" stuff. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"I wouldn't call that evidence. I'm not completely finished with this article..."

Rather closed-minded to dismiss an article without even finishing it. How do you know there might not be evidence presnted of significant diversity in the parts you failed to read? Falange (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

INCORRECT ASSUMPTION

While extremely rare, dog/fox hybrids are possible. Here is an article from Fox News that says DNA tests confirmed this on a dead hybrid.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208683,00.html

Erm... That article states that the animal was a wolfdog, not a dog/fox hybrid. --Beatfox (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dox description

As far as I can tell, there have been no confirmed crosses of dogs and foxes. Therefore, I changed the description of a "dox" from future tense to past tense: most likely, if you cross a dog and a fox, what you will get is absolutely nothing. This is not to say that a "dox" is impossible, but if most crossings of dogs and foxes produced live offspring I suspect one would have been confirmed by now. If this description of a "dox" is accurate at all, it must be describing the animals that people have claimed (but not confirmed) are dog-fox hybrids, and therefore should be stated in the past tense. A citation here would sure be nice though!Revdrace (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dox and Dingo-fox hybrid

Well, technically, if a dog and a fox ever could produce offspring, a dingo and a fox would also work. Dogs and dingos are both members of Canis lupus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.27.17 (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

Note that Dingoes are Wolves.

Note that Dingoes are NOT Wolves and you are utterly wrong. 153.2.247.30 (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

What is a "pure-bred wolf"? Nature isn't a dog show.

African wild dog

Can the African wild dog interbreed with other canids. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

-- The article seems to contradict itself because it says African Wild Dogs cannot interbreed, but then goes on to state that the reason different canines can't interbreed has to do with genetics, and claims that if two canines have a different number of chromosomes, they cannot interbreed. Well, African Wild Dogs have 78 chromosomes--the same as dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc. Something is missing or incorrect here.

I have done some limited research and, from what I've seen so far, people claim African Wild Dogs cannot mate with dogs, coyotes, wolves, etc. based on a single researcher group's conclusions, and they all admit that no one has ever actually tried to mate them with other canines and then published their findings. So I guess I'm left with the same question as you. Do we know conclusively whether African Wild Dogs can or cannot mate with other types of canines? (esp. those with 78 chromosomes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.241.254 (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't seem reasonable that they could interbreed. I mean, they are even more distantly related to the dog-wolf-coyote-golden jackal clade than the blackback jackals, and they can't interbreed. They aren't even in the same genus, Canis proper - they have their own genus. Having said that, however, you are not the first one to point out that this article says all that about how many chromosomes they have and such but doesn't cite any of it. I mean, it sounds reasonable and makes sense, so I personally haven't been motivated to remove it, but someone could and I wouldn't be able to stop them. We need to find out these simple facts, how many chromosomes do all these animals have, and where is this information kept so that we can be sure that this article is correct? I don't know where to look, we need an expert who knows where to look for it. Chrisrus (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"We don't know, the matter have not been rigorously field tested" is a perfectly acceptable statement on Wikipedia. No reason to hide the fact that we don't know everything. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. But then again, do we know for sure that the matter has not been tested? Maybe it has been and we just don't know about it. But it doesn't make sense in this context to say that they can't because they have the same number of genes. Maybe we should just delete that part? Chrisrus (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been up and down trying to find sources for this article, including some rather thurough summary articles and a few slightly shady websites. A few of them mention rumours, but nothing conclusive. Had this been tested and published, it would have been picked up. Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"For unknown reasons"?

"There is no genetic difference between a male coyote/female dog breeding and a male dog/female coyote breeding, but two separate terms have been invented, coydog and dogote, for unknown reasons." What? That's the normal form of terminology for hybrids - portmanteau the names, father's first - liger vs tigon, for example. Vultur (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Please go ahead and fix it. Chrisrus (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it. (There is actually a reason to distinguish, btw: for some hybrids, it makes a big difference. Ligers are much larger than either parent, the size of the giant prehistoric felines like Smilodon populator and Panthera atrox, while tigons are "normal" sized.) Vultur (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"Members of the genus Canis species can, however, all interbreed to produce fertile offspring, with two exceptions: the side-striped jackal and black-backed jackal. Although these two theoretically could interbreed with each other to produce fertile offspring, they cannot hybridize successfully with the rest of the genus Canis." Do you have any concrete proof? Or are you just talking out of your ass? You are basing this on chromosome numbers? 153.2.246.31 (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't seem to be referenced. I don't know why it hasn't been removed, but yes, it does seem to say that this is because of their chromosome numbers. You could remove the section, but the better move would be to simply cite the numbers of chromosomes of the species in question. I'd do it myself, but I don't know how to cite the facts that black-back jackals have this many arranged in that many pairs, whereas Golden Jackals have that many arranged in that many pairs. Then you'd have your proof. I think the reason it hasn't been removed is that whoever wrote it seems to know what s/he is talking about and it makes alot of sense, if it's true. I don't see how animals with very different numbers of chromosomes arranged very differently in terms of pairs could possibly interbreed. Chrisrus (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I hava managed to find sources for most of the chapter in question, though not for the first section. The content of this one does however spring as logical conclusions from the rest of the chapter, so I don't really know if we need a source as such. To me at least it seems like a perfectly logical summary. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Geez that's great, thank you so much. That had been needing to be done for a very long time. I agree with what you said about the logical conclusions and summary, but the only thing is about the African Wild dog, it's not clear what it's saying, as the fellow above was the first to point out. It doesn't make sense, given the gene numbers, that a wolf and a fox would be able to cross, and then the other animals all have different numbers of genes, so it seems to be saying the same about them. Adding that the Afr.Wild dog has the same number as the wolf group of the Canis genus in that context maybe seems to be saying that they could cross, although it also seems to be saying that they couldn't, in context, see if you agree. I don't think the paragraph should begin saying the problem is that wolves and such can cross because they all have 78 and then end with the statement that AWDs have 78 without going on to say what the significance of that is so far as whether they should be able to cross. Many of the others say that something about their arrangement into pairs, but not about the AfWD; maybe if it did, and they were arranged differently, it would imply that they can't cross. I wonder if they have the same number but they might be arranged differently. So it's still a bit confusing. I think maybe we could delete that sentence, but its presence may tend to provoke further investigation. Thanks again, it's so much better now!Chrisrus (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Something had to give

We can't have the article saying in one paragraph that X is the case and in another paragraph that X is not the case. It's self-contradictory and therefore incoherent. If there is a seeming contradiction between facts, we should say so. Either the difference in chromosome number and arrangement is not the reason a dox is impossible, then we should not be saying that it is. Chrisrus (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ethopian Wolves can interbreed with the wolf/dog/coyote/golden jackel complex

See here: http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/files/actionplans/ethiopian_wolf.pdf Chrisrus (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Disagreement over Chromosome number and interbreeding

The discussion in this box originally took place on user's talk pages, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] and was then pasted here -- but without indentation to show who wrote what. This left highly misleading timestamps, for edits not in this discussion's contribution history. Please never do this again. Geo Swan (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Your recent uncited addition to Canid hybrid leaves the article contradicting itself and incoherent. If that is not the reason a fox/wolf hybrids and so on are impossible, what is the reason? It says the reason they can't interbreed successfully is that they have different numbers of genes arranged differently. Then the paragraph ends and you have a new paragraph say that having different numbers of genes arranged differently is no obstacle to successful reproduction, so the reader should ignore the preceding paragraph. As such, it is not clear that your last edit constitutes article improvement. Perhaps it would have been better to post that to the talk page so that we can get this straight and work it in so the article makes sense. Chrisrus (talk) 12:14 pm, 6 July 2012, Friday (1 month, 3 days ago) (UTC−4) I'm sorry you feel that my addition hurt rather than helped the article. I went straight to the Canid hybrid article from Zebroid. In Canid_hybrid#Genetic_considerations, hybridization is attributed solely to the different chromosome numbers (or, at least, that is the only example of genetic factors that is mentioned) but the Zebroid#Genetics article says quite clearly that a different chromosome count does not automatically mean hybridization is impossible. I was only trying to express that idea because I felt that the current version of the Canid article was unclear and misleading in that regard. Obviously, I failed. However, after re-reading both article's genetic sections, I still feel that the Canid article needs to be edited to include the thought I was trying to convey. I tried to re-word my thought but couldn't produce anything too different from my original addition. Perhaps, if you read the Zebroid Genetics, then you would understand what I was trying to say and express it better than I was able to do. My addition: The fact that "parent" species have a different number of chromosomes does not, by itself, mean that hybrid offspring is impossible. For instance, zebroids are the offspring of horses, which have 64 chromosomes, and zebras, which have between 32 and 46 chromosomes depending on the species. Donkeys have 62 chromosomes but can breed with horses to produce mules. My thought: Chromosomes are not the sole determinant of the ability of two species to produce hybrids and horse hybrids are proof of that. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 8:19 am, 1 August 2012, last Wednesday (7 days ago) (UTC−4) I see your point. My undo made returned the coherence to the article, but did not resolve the dissonance between it and this other article. I'll take a look at it, think it over, see what I can do, and let you know. In the meantime, if you would, please do swipe this conversation and paste it to the talk page of the article. It's important to keep a record of the factors that go into decision-making about articles on their talk pages. Chrisrus (talk) 3:49 pm, 1 August 2012, last Wednesday (7 days ago) (UTC−4) OK, how's that? I edited Canid hybrid tonight so that both what Zebroid and it say about hybridization can both be true. Did that do the trick? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) It looks good. Thanks. I've copied our complete conversation to Canid genetic's talk page. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 9:06 am, Today (UTC−4)

Thanks. Let's see if the other watchers of Canine hybrid agree. Chrisrus (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Cutesy popular names

I have concerns over the over-use of cutesy popular names for hybrids.

1. In my opinion they require references to WP:RS before they appear in article space. I doubt whether any books or articles refer to these cutesy names, except in passing. I suggest it would be best if all mention of these cutesy names were confined to a section -- possibly "in popular culture".
2. The use of the cutesy names is misleading as it implies there is a genotype difference between interspecies hybrids, depending on which species was the mother or father. Do any scientific studies state or imply this? From what I have read the sex of the mother can be guessed at due to phenotype differences, due to size differences of the mother's species, or due to behavioral differences.

I suggest all cutesy names should get a {{cn}} tag, and, after a reasonable period of times, they should be removed. Geo Swan (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Original research

Much of this article is unreferenced, and I suspect it is WP:original research, which does not belong in article space. Geo Swan (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Red Fox, Number of Chromosomes.

According to this article, the Red Fox has:

http://cbsu.tc.cornell.edu/ccgr/behaviour/Fox_Genome.htm

34 metacentric chromosomes and from 0 to 8 small B chromosomes. Apparnetly the actual number of chromosomes can vary somewhat with the inclusion of different numbers of small chromosomes.

Anyway, the listed 38 chromosomes is likely inaccurate. Keelec (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right. Please fix it. Chrisrus (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Mysterious Canid hybrid of some kind appears in NC, attacks a child, fights with her mother, is shot to death, and the body lost

I'm leaving this here because I removed it from the articles Coyote attacks on humans and coydog as I couldn't figure out what it was other than a Canid hybrid of some kind, and frankly couldn't find anywhere else to put it. Chrisrus (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• On June 20, 2011, a 100-pound canid described in news reports as a "hybrid" attacked a 3-year-old Randolph County, North Carolina girl who was jumping on a trampoline with her older sister in the back yard and tried to drag her off. Her sister yelled for their mother, who came running and fought the animal with an oar, got the children into the house and called 911, but the animal would not leave their yard for at least thirty minutes until a neighbor brought her a shotgun and together they killed the animal before the police arrived at the rural home. Authorities destroyed the body before it could be tested by experts. <ref>{{cite web|title=Coyote Attacks Toddler|url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/test/Michelle2/wghp-story-coyote-attacks-toddler-girl-trinity-randolph-110618,0,211107.story|work=WGHP News Story|publisher=WGHP}}</ref>

Here is video which went with the original story, the link above seems dead: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xje0ef_coyote-attacks-toddler_news#.UeVhr77D_mJ

Please do watch it, but when they say it was known to be a coyote hybrid; please I checked into it and the experts told me it didn't seem to be one and there is no proof it was one, that it looks like it might have instead been a wolfdog. So this initial news report seems to have been wrong about that. Chrisrus (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Canis hybrid

It would appear that this article should be renamed Canis hybrid. I am unaware of any Canid hybrids - the article is about genus Canis hybridization. William Harris • talk • 09:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Canid hybrid/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Umm, I'm not sure what the section on Coy-dogs was meant to say, but something tells me that "human sperm" is a mistake. If not, I'm going to be seriously skeeved by coy-dogs from now on.

Last edited at 17:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)