Instead of cluttering up things with the "Disputed tag," I wish people would just fix the problem and put a footnote on it. That way people don't get distracted while reading the encyclopedia. WriterHound 04:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should not call it Canis lycaon until MSW3 or ICZN do not. Therefore I kept for the first Canis lupus lycaon.--Altaileopard (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that text should be checked for non-standard-English sentences. English is not my first language and I was confused by some sentences on crossbreeding with other canine species. It seemed to me as if one sentence said "they are a valid species", another said "they are just mixes", third said "some are crosses with Common Wolf but some are pure" and other said "Oh, they just keep crossbreeding with coyotes all the time". Maybe that whole part should be rewritten as one paragraph instead of mentioning it all over the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.151.64 (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

How is it that the primary binomial at Mammal Species of the World is "Canis lupus lycaon" but here it's lycaon is listed listed as a separate species? [Here| http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?id=14000738] I found this commentary, what is the significance for this article?

....Hybridization between wolf and coyote has long been recognized (Nowak, 2002). Two recent studies make the strongest case for separation. Wilson et al. (2000) argued for separation of the Eastern Canadian Wolf (as Canis lycaon) and the Red Wolf (as Canis rufus) as separate species based on mtDNA, but see Nowak (2002) who could not find support for this in a morphometric study. Nowak (2002) in an extensive analysis of tooth morphology concluded that there was a distinct population intermediate between traditionally recognized wolves and coyotes, which warranted full species recognition (C. rufus). The red wolf is here considered a hybrid after Wayne and Jenks (1991), Wayne (1992, 1995), and Wayne et al. (1992). Although hybrids are not normally recognized as subspecies, I have chosen as a compromise to retain rufus because of its uncertain status. Also see Roy et al. (1994, 1996), Vilá et al. (1999), and Nowak (2002) who provided an excellent review of the situation.

Chrisrus (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If the Eastern Canadian Wolf and the Eastern Timber Wolf are recognized as separate species, then only one of them will retain the lycaon designation. This would be the one that matches the type. Based on the papers cited here that looks like it might be the Eastern Canadian Wolf. The Eastern Canadian Wolf would then require another designations. If it matches canadensis de Blainville 1843 or ungavensis Comeau 1940, then it would adopt one of those names. Otherwise it stil requires naming and should be designated as Canis lupus ssp. or Canis lupus ssp. indeterminate in the article. It might also be a variant of C. l. nubilus. My point is that both varieties are definitely not named lycaon simultaneously. The use of lycaon for both in these articles is probably an artifact of multiple editors/sources. --Aranae 05:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a disputed tag. There is simply no way that both of these forms of wolves can have the same name and my earlier post does not seem to have been noticed. --Aranae 16:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is that the scientific community is trying to sort it out. Right now the Timber wolf is Canis Lupus Lycaon (Genus, Species, Subspecies), and the Eastern Canadian Wolf is Canis Lycaon (Genus, Species), these are not the same scientific designation and are unique names for each. The Eastern Canadian wolf is not a Canis Lupus (or a part of the grey wolf family), it is actually closer to the Red Wolf family and therefore "Lupus" appears nowhere in its classification. Lycaon was retain in the name because for close to 200 years, it was thought that the Eastern Canadian Wolf... or Wolves of Algonquin Park, were Timber Wolves. The article isn't perfect, but I am going to remove the tag since the reason the the factual accuracy is not correct.

--Waterspyder 15:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That's simply impossible for the reasons I stated above. ICZN rules do not allow it. The name lycaon will only go with one of the two, end of story. This is determined by identifying the type specimen. If it is a Timber Wolf, then that subspecies will be named Canis lupus lycaon and a new name will be given to the Eastern Canadian Wolf. If the type is an Eastern Canadian Wolf then that species will be named Canis lycaon and a new subspecies name will be given to the Timber Wolf. I'm sorry, but without a citation for why both taxa can have the same name, I'm going to have to restore the tags. Right now we're spreading inaccurate information. --Aranae 16:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Aranae is right: within the genus Canis, the epithet lycaon can appear only once.

Waterspyder's description of the taxonomic situation above is not quite right. As far as I can tell, there are two competing hypotheses:

1. The traditional theory, based on morphology: two separate groups: the Eastern Timber Wolf, Canis lupus lycaon, and the Red Wolf, Canis rufus.
2. Wilson et al. (2000), based on DNA analysis: a single species, the Eastern Canadian Wolf, Canis lycaon. (See "DNA profiles of the eastern Canadian wolf and the red wolf provide evidence for a common evolutionary history independent of the gray wolf", Can. J. Zool. 78(12): 2156–2166.)

These hypotheses are explained in a bit more detail in "The Wolves of Algonquin Park: Population & Habitat Viability Assessment (PHVA)", 2000 (page 17).

It's not for Wikipedia to resolve this issue; we have to wait for a scholarly consensus to develop. So for the moment I think it would be reasonable to have articles on all three of the Red Wolf, Eastern Timber Wolf, Eastern Canadian Wolf, provided that we explain the taxonomic issue and its currently disputed status. Gdr 20:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

W. Christopher Wozencraft, in MSW3 (pages 576-577), lists C. lupus lycaon and C. lupus rufus. Quoting in part: "Wilson (2000) argued for separation of the Eastern Canadian Wolf (as C. lycaon) and the Red Wof (as C. rufus) as separate species based on mtDNA, but see Nowak (2002) who could not find suppot for this in a morphometric study. Nowak in an extensive analysis of tooth morphology concluded that there was a distinct population intermediate between traditionally recognized wolves and coyotes, which warranted full species recognition (C. rufus). Although hybrids are ot normally recognized as subspecies, I have chosen as a compromise to retain rufus because of its uncertain status. Also see Roy et al. (1994, 1996), Vilá et al. (1999), and Nowak (2002) who provided an excellent review of the situation." - UtherSRG (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

UtherSRG definitely stated the case well. However, when it comes to nomenclature, which is a brutally complex thing, as there are a lot of exceptions. I have never been taught that you may not name one subspecies with the name of another species. I do know that you may not name an animal with the same genus-species combination regardless of whether one is a squid and the other is a monkey. The bottom line is there are a handful of scientists trying to sort this out and one can only assume the research and documentation on this will only get better with time. --Waterspyder 04:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a starting point is to determine the authority for both C. lupus lycaon and C. lycaon. If they are both Schreber, 1775 then there's clearly a problem with priority. --Aranae 01:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's what it comes down to: species and subspecies are both considered "species-group" names under the ICZN (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature), and within a genus all species-group names must be unique. This is why you can't have C. lupus lycaon and C. lycaon. Priority is irrelevant in this case; what matters for the purpose of who gets the name, as noted above, is whether the original description was based on what would now be considered the timber wolf or the eastern Canadian wolf. Since descriptions of the time usually didn't designate types and may not have the detail necessary to separate them, this may be a problem if it's really decided to be a separate species (although that seems unlikely to me). KarlM 05:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That's all very interesting, but what it really comes down to is what does Mammal Species of the World do? It's for them to fight it out and us to report. As it is, we conflict with them, see my most recent section below. When/if they change, we'll update. 05:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia uses Mammal Species of the World, that will be the end of the debate for us, but I just found a 1991 paper by Lehman, Eisenhawer, Hansen and mech (Introgression of coyote mtDNA into sympatric N. American gray wolf popualtions) and the hybrid zone matches the map of the Eastern wolf exactly. I know it's an older paper and later work should have clarified what their findings mean, but I thought it should fit into the artilce somehow, if nothing else for historical perspective. Perhaps 'additional reading'. My main problem with all of this is one paper says the hybridization is recent and another says it's 750,000 years old. That makes big difference.--Paddling bear (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the information in the Eastern Wolf page, but I think it would be better merged with Eastern Timber Wolf, which is lacking for information.

The Eastern Canadian Wolf, canis lycaon, and the Eastern Timber Wolf, canis lupus lycaon, are two different wolf species according to recent research. Eastern Wolf and Algonquin Wolf were both common names being thrown around before "Eastern Canadian Wolf" gained a measure of acceptance and is now used in the majority of scientific research since 2003. The Wolves of Algonquin Park PHVA Final Report, PDF notes many of these changes (pages 5-7 are of particular note). See more information on the Eastern Canadian Wolf on the Red Wolf page. Additionally, the page on the Gray Wolf links to both the Eastern Timber Wolf and the Eastern Canadian Wolf.

I would like to make a special note that this information is going to be particularly fluid for the next 10 or 20 years as taxonomic distinctions are made and it is going to be particularly hard to keep up with research due to the myriad of names that will be used as researchers attempt to distinguish various wolf populations according to genetic testing. This information will change, but we should all try to be diligent in trying to keep up with new research. --Waterspyder 03:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

If E.C. wolf is a different species than E. Timber wolf, why does the range map for this page say E. Timber wolf? Also, the bright green is labeled, but I don't see what the darker green, blue, or brown signify. Can't be a map of either E. canadian or E. Timber as it's not just in the east. The gray wolf, red wolf, algonquin wolf, coyote mix is complicated enough.--Paddling bear (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of confusion about status of eastern wolf populations in North America, but one thing is clear: Canis lupus lycaon and Canis lycaon is one and the same. "Lycaon" is a subspecies described by Schreber in 1775. No type location is given in Banfield (1974), but Banfield cites the following: "A small dark subspecies that inhabited all of southeastern Canada. It has been exterminated in southern Quebec south of St. Lawrence River and in New Brunswick since about 1880, and in Nova Scotia prior to 1900. There appear to be no reference to wolves on Prince Edward Island." F. Reid (2006) in her "Mammals of North America" uses different name "Eastern Timber Wolf (Canis lycaon)" and shows its range from western Ontario to Labrador, but not in the United States. She states specifically that Eastern Timber Wolf does not occur in USA, but shows range in Manitoba. The range shown in the book is incorrect as "Gray Wolf" or "Timber Wolf" (Canis lupus) occurs north and east of Lake Superior. Those I have seen were typical Canis lupus, and not reddish coyote-like "lycaon" from Algonquin park. Currently local offices of Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources work with trappers to obtain tissue samples from wolves in the Lake Superior area and compare with those from Algonquin Park. My bottom line: it is very confusing and complicated issue, and contributors with limited knowledge of the matter and animal systematics should abstain from writing on this matter.

Vitoldus44 18:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

However, people doing Original Research on this or any subject should not post on that topic. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Canis lycaon and C. lupus lycaon describes the same animal. "Eastern wolves are mainly viewed as: (1) a smaller subspecies of gray wolf (Canis lupus lycaon)... ...Although debate persists, recent molecular studies suggest that the eastern wolf is not a gray wolf subspecies, nor the result of gray wolf/coyote hybridization. Eastern wolves were more likely a distinct species, C. lycaon" (from C.J. Kyle, A.R. Johnson, B.R. Patterson, P.J. Wilson, K. Shami, S.K. Grewal and B.N. White: Genetic nature of eastern wolves: Past, present and future. Conservation Genetics, Volume 7, Number 2 / April 2006. Pages 273-287 )

So both articels must be fused. A proper Name for the article would be Eastern Wolf. I will do that in near future.--Altaileopard (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to clear up some odd language etc. and meant to add (citaion needed) to "This was identified as early as 1970" but then I couldn't understand what it meant (was distinct species identified in 1970 or the hybrid status?). Anyone know the citation?--Paddling bear (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it true that timber wolves bark a lot? 76.18.92.82 04:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I too wonder this. What can we, the readers, be made to understand what makes this and the red wolf noticably different from a gray wolf? What are the features of the animal that distinguish them that we can notice? I have heard that this taxon tends to bark whereas gray wolves do not, with the exception of the domestic dog and dingo. Chrisrus (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

according to a book by David mech, the gray/timber wolves he's studies almost never bark. He mentions only hearing one bark when he was crawling into it's den. The article describes more reddish color and smaller size so that is your only characteristics. Most people haven't seen any wolves, so will likely NOT be able to tell them apart easily given the experts can't agree whether they should be separate species or not. Certainly vocalizations you might hear would be a poor distinquishing characteristic.--Paddling bear (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that for obvious practical purposes, there is no real alternative for the Taxobox than the latest taxon from MSW. I think we all agree by now that the lead shoud just agree with the taxobox, and the complications left to the body of the article. So before we can provisionally run with MSW3 for the puroses of the lead, we should review what they do and do not say, to make sure we all agree and there is or is not any disagreement about what it means.

This website http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000763, it says that it is a subspecies of Canis lupus, and then name is lycaon. So that's what the taxobox and the lead sentence will say, agreed. Agreed?

That's about all this pages says, but tell me please if anyone disagrees with my interpetation of it:

The animal called "canadensis" first by de Blainville in 1843 was C.l.lycaon, as was the animal Comeau called "ungravensis" in 1940. Any historical document referring to either of these two former taxa are to be synonyms for lycaon.

It gives the credit for the first guy to call this animal "C.l.lyaon" to a man named Schreber back in 1775.

That's all. That's all MSW3 has to say about this on this particular page. Next, we look for commentary on the main Canis lupus page. But please everyone check that I'm reading this page correctly.Chrisrus (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to be sure I got everything relevent to this animal, so I took a big bite. I think some of this runs into the question of rufus and might not apply to lycaon. Here it is, I quote:

The validity of rufus as a full species was questioned by Clutton-Brock et al. (1976), and Lawrence and Bossert (1967, 1975), due to the existence of natural hybrids with lupus and latrans. Natural hybridization may be a consequence of habitat disruption by man (Paradiso and Nowak, 1972, 2002). All specimens examined by Wayne and Jenks (1991) had either a lupus or latrans mtDNA genotype and there appears to be a growing consensus that all historical specimens are a product of hybridization (Nowak, 2002; Reich et al., 1999; Roy et al., 1994, 1996; Wayne et al., 1992, 1998). Hybridization between wolf and coyote has long been recognized (Nowak, 2002). Two recent studies make the strongest case for separation. Wilson et al. (2000) argued for separation of the Eastern Canadian Wolf (as Canis lycaon) and the Red Wolf (as Canis rufus) as separate species based on mtDNA, but see Nowak (2002) who could not find support for this in a morphometric study. Nowak (2002) in an extensive analysis of tooth morphology concluded that there was a distinct population intermediate between traditionally recognized wolves and coyotes, which warranted full species recognition (C. rufus). The red wolf is here considered a hybrid after Wayne and Jenks (1991), Wayne (1992, 1995), and Wayne et al. (1992). Although hybrids are not normally recognized as subspecies, I have chosen as a compromise to retain rufus because of its uncertain status. Also see Roy et al. (1994, 1996), Vilá et al. (1999), and Nowak (2002) who provided an excellent review of the situation.

Now all we need to do is translate all that into encyclopedic language. You go first! Chrisrus (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So if it was originally considered a subspecies and its current status as a species is still being debated why is Wikipedia leading with it as being a unique species? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.2.88 (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I know this comment is a little over four years old, but I still have to ask the same thing. The classification of lycaon as a separate species instead of a subspecies of C. lupus remains very much disputed, with the underlying studies being questioned, and isn't recognized as such in MSW3, which is our usual authority on these matters. So why do we list it as such? oknazevad (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

If eastern and red wolves are not considered separate species, are there valid reasons that they are considered subspecies of Canis lupus instead of Canis latrans? Editor abcdef (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Chrisrus, oknazevad and Editor abcdef. I apologise for the late reply, as I just stumbled on this article while searching for something else. On the one hand I agree that we should have standardization across Wikipedia. On the other, I regard Mammal Species of the World as outrageously out of date (2005) on a number of issues because its business model has failed. There was supposed to be a new release "coming shortly", according to its website - that was over 2 years ago. We need a 24/7 real-time database that is kept up to date, not a book that might be published when someone can organize it, which clearly now they cannot. If zoologists want to regard some wolves as sub-species of Canis lupus, that is fine - evolutionary biologists do not based on a 2.8 billion letter DNA code. I am leaning towards what the geneticists find if: (1) the study was published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal, and (2) the specimens were wide - i.e. a number of specimens that would not represent relatives carrying the same mutation. Regards, William Harris • talk • 10:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue, as always, is what exactly is the dividing line between species? There actually is no objective criteria to answer that question. The existence of subspecies along a continuum and hybridization (which it turns out is a lot more common throughout the world than previously thought) with closely related species (Includimg genetic introgression that becomes so widespread as to be found in every member of a given population) makes it very difficult to actually answer the question "what is a species?".

Morphology, the classic methodology, is almost entirely useless because similar conditions will reinforce the natural selection of similar physical traits. So we turn to genetics. But genetic surveys, while they can tell us how closely two individuals or two populations are related, they cannot actually tell us whether those are separate species or just at the extremes of genetic diversity within the same species, because that dividing line is not objective and fixed. Genetic surveys are not the be-all-end-all of determining speciazation.

That's my concern with jumping on the latest survey. Over the past three years alone we've seen one survey say lycaon is a species, another day it isn't a year later, and a third saying it is one year after that. Clearly it is not a settled issue in the scientific community. All based on genetic studies and surveys of the existing literature. Similarly with the African "golden wolf" issue. I think we should be cautious in our editing so as not to state unsettled things as firm. oknazevad (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I partially agree with you - DNA studies may give unresolvable results due to the specimens selected, the genome technology used, and the assumptions made by the researchers (Boyko 2009). There are six mutations (insertions-deletions of base pairs) in the mitochondrial control region separating the gray wolf from the domestic dog (Wayne 1999). When looking at ancient fossils, what do we call something that is 3 mutations away? Is it a wolf or a dog, or neither? Some researchers have found ancient specimens one mutation away from a dog and published it as a dog (Druzhkova 2013 - Altai dog), while others publish it as uncertain or wolf (Thalmann 2013 - Altai dog). There are 22 mutations separating the jackal from the wolf/dog line; what do we call something from the past that is 11 mutations away? With the explosion of DNA technology that allows extraction of ancient DNA from fossils, including whole-genome DNA (Skoglund 2015 - 35,000 year-old Taimyr wolf), these matters will need to be addressed very soon, else the confusion will compound. Regards, William Harris • talk • 10:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't like to change taxoboxes from MSW (2005) until new taxonomies show acceptance by multiple subsequent publications. We don't want to change taxoboxes while experts are still using the old MSW taxonomy in new publications in a primary way. Is that the case for the red wolf yet? Chrisrus (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a bit of a circular situation - experts will stick with MSW, MSW isn't changing, experts aren't changing.......... Regards, William Harris • talk • 10:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as I see many experts use alternate taxonomy, the fact still stands that MSW is outdated by 10 years of scientific research. Despite that it's more an online database than a physical book, the creators never bothered to make any significant updates to it. Editor abcdef (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed abcdef. Although the Smithsonian:http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswCFApp/msw/index.cfm and Bucknell University:http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/browse.asp and ITIS: http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=180596 all make the extant species only from MSW available online, it is still based on the published MSW3 (2005). As you and I have discussed previously on other pages, my discussion above with oknazevad illustrates genetically why Bob Wayne has always referred to the ancestor as being "a wolf-like canid" - he believes that it may be lupus but at present we cannot be certain. Then Lee 2015 comes along and adds Canis variabilis into the dog/wolf mix! Regards, William Harris • talk • 07:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Are experts using the new or the old taxonomy? Chrisrus (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Chris, it was not clear to whom you were addressing your query. Regarding the Red wolf and the Eastern wolf I do not know as I do not follow the species/sub-species of wolf and who is saying what - there are many other editors here on Wikipedia with a knowledge of, and passion for, wolves without me interfering. My interest is in the dog ancestor and therefore the Late Pleistocene northern holarctic wolves. (My 'venn diagram' of interest covers only the dog's ancestor, the divergence, the ancestral dog and ancestral grey wolf, and any other canid that might be in that mix - which is where my venn diagram overlaps that of Mario's regaring the Megafaunal and Beringian wolves. My interest ends with the split of the ancestral grey wolf into its extant subspecies, and the ancestral dog when it split into the dingo/domestic dog lineage and the first recognised dog at Eleesivich I 15,000 years ago.) Regarding geneticists using ancient DNA and their taxonomy for dogs, some have never accepted MSW3. Druzhkova 2013 classified the "Altai dog" as Canis familiaris. Some other researchers also do (Coppinger 2001 p281, Nowak 2003 p257, Crockford 2006 p100, Bjornenfeldt 2007 p21) but most refer to the dog as C.l. familiaris. Lee 2015 is possibly the way of the future, she simply classified her 6 "dogs" as Canis sp and deposited their sequences with Genbank! Interestingly, if you venture over to the "Dog behavior" article under the References section you will find that most behaviorists publish using the term Canis familiaris - they know it doesn't behave like the grey wolf, especially the feral ones. (One in particular, wolves only defend territory if there is safety in pack size or a food shortage; a feral dog will defend territory every time, against any number, to the death. Single male dogs have died trying to defend their territory where it overlapped with wolf-pack territory. Which one of the two would you encourage to take up residence and guard the entrance to your cave?) Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, this isn't a real "controversy". While the question of possible hybridization has actual substance, the distinction between species and subspecies is largely conventional, and the pragmatic approach would be listing C. lupus lycaon and C. lycaon simply as synonyms (as the taxobox indeed does). Taxonomy is burdened with a considerable load of historical synonyms for "backward compatibility" with older literature anyway, so this is nothing out of the ordinary. Fwiiw, wikispecies has a redirect but does not actually mention C. lycaon as a synonym yet. --dab (𒁳) 10:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/7/e1501714

Turns out it's a hybrid after all.Mariomassone (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I have raised the article's quality scale rating from Start class to C class. Someone might like to take that huge second sentence and relocated it under Taxonomy, with just a short summary left in the intro. COSEWIC is covered in both para 2 and para 3 - some merging might be done here as well. With a bit of tidying up it warrants a B. Regards, William Harris • WikiProject Dogs • WikiProject Mammals •talk • 08:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Based on the tidy-up conducted by an editor in January, I have raised the quality of this article from C to B.  William Harris |talk  • WikiProject Dogs • WikiProject Mammals 09:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)