Talk:Wolf/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Footnote 78

Footnote 78 and the text that accompanies it are illegitimate scare-mongering on behalf of hunters who want to hunt and destroy wolves to increase the hunters' chances of bagging more elk, deer, etc. The linked .pdf is a "newsletter" written in provocative language, criticizing "wolf activists" and arguing that wolves are dangerous and need to be killed. This sort of thing has no place in an informational article about wolves.

Perhaps it belongs in an article about deranged "hunters" who use lies and distortions to silence those seeking to protect wolves?

At any rate, Wikipedia Admin should delete Footnote 78 and its accompanying text, which is as follows:

"Wolves will occasionally attack pregnant ungulates to feed on the fetus(es), whilst leaving the mother uneaten."

Flat lies such as that should not be tolerated.Micah pyre (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The sword cuts both ways. One can also argue that pro-wolf sites are also biased. Indeed, the insistance on keeping rocky mountain wolves on the ESL despite the fact that they are a fully viable population is but one example. Then of course there is Farley Mowatt's fantasy world.

The fact that wolves will eat fetuses without eating the mothers is well documented, and photographed.Mariomassone (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The saddest aspect of the kill involves the extraction of the unborn calf. Without exception over the many years of photographing wolf killed elk, we have never observed one cow elk that didn’t have the fetus removed. In fact we have found cow elk still alive with the fetus ripped out! After a cow elk is downed by the wolves, the first thing we have observed is that the wolves extract and eat the fetus. Sometimes they will take a bite out of a rear quarter but many times they will leave the remainder of the carcass until a later date. In essence each time a cow elk is killed, two elk are gone and calf recruitment ceases. A prominent Canadian wolf biologist verified this fetus extraction ritual a few years ago while I was researching this subject http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/2009_NF_Clearwater_Elk_predation.pdf

Neither source is WP:RS, and this information seems less motivated to describe wolf dietary patterns and more in eliciting an emotional response. In the context, it is giving undue weight to a behavior witnessed on the very fringe by a handful of people; a behavior that is in no way central to the concept being discussed.

Further, far more central to dietary patterns of wolves is the claim in one of the references that wolves kill for sport, and do so even when their food source is greatly diminished. I find that highly suspect, but if WP:RS can be found, that would be far more relevant in this context.

--Thesoxlost (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where the controversy is. Wolves are not the only predatory species recorded to do this. Lots of scientists (not just hunters) have mentioned it. Hans Kruuk recorded it in Spotted hyenas, and Michael Fox recorded it in dholes. Golden jackals have done it in israel against cattle. Nevertheless, I shall try to find a better sourceMariomassone (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that a homo sapien has, at one point in time, done something similar. But I don't think that makes it appropriate content for the page on humans, or human dietary patterns. Since there is so much inter- and intraspecific competition for food, wolves fight for the best sources of nutrients and eat those first. Is the fetus of a pregnant animal high nutritious? I wouldn't be surprised. But will wolves attack an ungulate, feed on the fetus, and then take off? I highly doubt it. They simply don't have the luxury of wasting food like that. If they left the mother untouched, a more parsimonious explanation is that they were scared away from the carcass. Once scared away, they often wont come back.

I honestly know nothing about this, but a fair percent of the bits of information on wikipedia is either wrong or misleading. This looks suspiciously like one of those bits. --Thesoxlost (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

They simply don't have the luxury of wasting food like that.

So it would seem, but wolves (as well as other predators) have been recorded numerous times to kill more than is necessary to keep them alive. To be honest, these fetus pulling accounts appear too often to be just ignored, unless someone were to find a source which completely disproves it.Mariomassone (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wolf brain size

Does the article say anything about brain size? I couldn't find it. That would be a good thing to add. Please reply Jackroven (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

eye sight of wolfs

hay do u know if wolfs have poor eye site??????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.156.247 (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Its fair, but not as good as a humans.they rely more on their sense of smell. they can't see much color, though.--S'luki 23:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SalukiGirl (talk • contribs)

C. familiaris vs. C. lupus familiaris

The article states that gray wolves share a common ancestry with domestic dogs. It calls the domestic dog C. lupus familiaris, right in the same sentence where it says they share a common ancestor. Doesn't the term "C. lupus familiaris" identify the domestic dog as a subspecies of wolf? I was under the impression that it was given that name because people believed the domestic dog was descended from the gray wolf--hence why it was treated as a subspecies. If they instead came from the same ancestor, wouldn't the domestic dog correctly be known just as C. familiaris? 75.165.5.155 05:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why they put C. lupus familiaris, because I have always seen it as C. famaliaris. It even says that in the dictionary. Probably a little error that no one's been fixing. --RACiEP^{Leave a message!} 23:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh never mind, apparently it's disputed or something like that. --RACiEP (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah some consider them the same species some don't. I think it's worth discussing though. The true measure of course is can you put a wolf in a designer tote, if the answer is no, then it is not the same species as a dog. Arthurian Legend (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What? What has that do do with the question whether it's the same species or not? That would mean that a feral dog is not a dog too.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What? Your question just confused me. RACiEP (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Because you wouldn't take a feral dog off the street and carry it around in your arm; it would probably bite the heck out of you. Not to mention the majority of dogs are simply too big (ore are German Shepherds, Dalmatians, Great Danes, Pyrenees, etc., a different species?) The same goes for a wolf. Tameness isn't just in the genetics, it's also learned, hence why people don't just go walking around petting stray dogs; if it's a stray, and it's wild, it doesn't matter if it is from a "domesticated" species because it will still snap at you. 75.210.44.90 (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We should follow here Mammal Species of the World (MSW3), where Canis lupus familiaris is included in C. lupus.--Altaileopard (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The correct name has little relevancy in the context of the sentence in question. Stating that it "shares common ancestry with" something the animal's own name indicates it is descended from, is outright illogical--it is a contradiction of itself. The name in that sentence needs to either drop the lupus and just be C. familiaris--the tone of the statement can easily be changed to reflect the fact that the view expressed isn't fully agreed upon at the current time--or the statement needs to be removed altogether. 75.210.91.17 (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Domestic dog is the same species as a wolf. The difference is that the dog has been domesticated. Using C. Familiaris and C. Lupus Familiaris is both correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.70.209 (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Pic

Added a neat new picture to the livestock predation subsection, if anyone cares. Bearerofthecup (talk) 10:18,5 December 2005 (UTC)

Added a 17the century print of Fenrir, Tyr, and Odin to the In folklore and mythology subsection from Historical perceptions, and an 18th century print of a wolf eating a woman to the Causes and prey selection subsection from Attacks on humans. Bearerofthecup (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It would constitute original research, so I can't put it in the article but the correlation between "frequent wolf attacks on humans" and "area inhabited largely by mostly unarmed peasants" is very strong. Hunter-gatherers don't get attacked by wolves and neither do people who are generally armed.65.79.173.135 (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 17:17,1 February 1981 (UTC)

May I add more to wolves?

In their social structure, may I add this: "Like humans, wolf personalities vary from another wolf, and their personality fits the rank they are in." May I also add in Attacks On Humans: "In fact, you are statistically fives times more likely to be struck by lightning than attacked by a wolf."? And may I also add "Despite their vicious reputation by humans, scientists have noticed their friendliness, and have been teaching people how they are not as aggressive as mythology suggests."? The Winged Yoshi —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Winged Yoshi (talk • contribs) 01:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can find references to support those statements, fine. If you can't find reliable sources for them, please do not add them.Kww (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If you want to whitewash, provide references. Bearerofthecup (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see any need. The whole "wolves are friendly" argument has been done to death, and is repeatedly mentioned in the attacks section.87.102.1.203 (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Also add that animal rights groups don't protest furring the wolves because of the pain felt at the moment; they protest against furring in general because they believe it's unnecessary death. And mention that researchers use different traps then hunters/furriers.Mreditorman22532 (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Shortening

I think the sections on historical perceptions and folklore should be shortened, as they are (or should be) better explained in the "attitudes" argument. Perceptions and myths are purely human concepts, maybe this article should stick to facts on wolves themselves as they are.87.102.1.203 (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No response? I'm going to assume that if that a lack of answer is a lack of protest.Dark hyena (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wolfish Weights

I'd like to say that your wolf site is great but I noticed a weight mistake while skimming it. According to the Wolf Almanac written by Robert H. Bucsh, the average North American wolf weighs any way from 40 to 175 pounds but normaly is 60 to 100 pounds. 4theloveofwolves, 12:55 Saturday, January 26, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4theloveofwolves (talk • contribs) 17:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There is even more, the lowest weight in the article is 32 kg, which is more common in middle euopean wolves. Some wolves in Italy weigh only 20 kg and for the ones in the Near East, that weight is normal.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Then you need to edit the article yourself and put in correct information! TechnoFaye Kane 23:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Already did that.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

wolves

Just a note from Body Language: Defensive – A defensive wolf flattens its ears against its head. In the image at right, wolf has ears up and is described as in a defensive postition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.35.230.2 (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's ears are facing backward, away from its oponent. That is defensive.Dark hyena (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

---

can wolves be house pets —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.213.249.35 (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

if a wolf pup is cuaght soon after birth it can be domesticated, but it will still retain it's intincts plus it is porbably illegal and unadvisable, much better to get a dog than a wolf. 219.88.155.233 (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There have been numerous people who have had wolves for pets before. If you Google it I'm sure you can find some of those people. Although, If you want a wolf as a pet, I would advise against it because some of the people who owned wolves as pets have been killed by the wolves. Remember, they're wild animals, not domesticated, so they still have their natural instincts, even if you do raise them from when they were born. --RACiEP (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, many domestic dog breeds are not really pets in the strictest sence (meaning they are not as social with humans as you would like) and a wolf is normally even more independent. As far as I know there were and are wolves who can be socialized to humans and never showed aggressive behaviour and could even get along with kids BUT (and that is a warning) that is not the general case, these wolves were (as far as I know) brought up by experts and they are a clear minority; e.g. it's like to expect from a Jack Russel Terrier to behave like a Pommeranian, the first is a hunting dog, while the latter a pet dog.--168.224.32.15 (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not for everyone: My wife (a Chippewa) and I (a Scotsman, by God) have three wolves and a German Shepard in the city in Ohio, in a four-story house with a big yard. The shepard does not like them and will not associate with them, though they do not fight. The wolves are extremely violent, and the adults will challenge me (one at a time) for alpha every couple months. It is vicious and bloody, and I have to keep in very good shape including martial arts and weight training. They have bitten completely through my hands and have taken off the end of one finger, including the bone. They can be choked out if you are strong enough, and judo works on the big ones. If you fight back, only one will fight, if you cry or try to get away then they will all take a piece. They absolutely cannot be around any children, ever. They are registered with the city, and the city sent letters to all the houses within a few blocks. We have 10 foot steel fences outside and steel cages at all the windows inside, and a double door to leave the house. If you have ever done more than a couple months in prison then you might like wolves. They have bitten through cheap 12-guage chain link. We no longer have any wood or upholstered furniture, or carpeting. The purebreds can turn doorknobs and work gate latches. They have killed and partially eaten cats, Chows, Pits and even a Rott. We love them very much and enjoy them, they are affectionate and playful with us if no other people are looking, but they should not be bought as pets just because they are pretty. They will not protect you; if you are dominant over them, and you are assaulted, they will watch to see if you win. They run from gunfire. If you get your assailant on the ground, then they will bite him, and you will have to fight them to get him out safely. If you can't handle them, no one else will, either, and they will have to be killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.197.46 (talk) 07:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Agriotherium as ancestor of wolf?

Agriotherium says: "Agriotherium ... may have been an ancestor to some of today's carnivores, including the wolf."
I'm reasonably sure that this is wrong. Anybody? -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am quite sure you are right.— Ѕandahl 01:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Iberian Wolf

Is there any source to prove that its status as a different subspecies is disputed? I've aways see it being regarded as a different subspecies, which unique characteristics in appearance and behaviour.--Menah the Great (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

MSW3 lists signatus as a synonym for C. l. lupus, as well as the following (http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?id=14000739):

• altaicus (Noack, 1911)
• argunensis Dybowski, 1922
• canus de Sélys Longchamps, 1839
• communis Dwigubski, 1804
• deitanus Cabrera, 1907
• desertorum Bogdanov, 1882
• flavus Kerr, 1792
• fulvus de Sélys Longchamps, 1839
• italicus Altobello, 1921
• kurjak Bolkay, 1925
• lycaon Trouessart, 1910
• major Ogérien, 1863
• minor Ogerien, 1863
• niger Hermann, 1804
• orientalis (Wagner, 1841)
• orientalis Dybowski, 1922
• signatus Cabrera, 1907

The following is what MSW lists for subspecies of C. lupus (http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?id=14000738):

• SUBSPECIES lupus
• SUBSPECIES albus
• SUBSPECIES alces
• SUBSPECIES arabs
• SUBSPECIES arctos
• SUBSPECIES baileyi
• SUBSPECIES beothucus
• SUBSPECIES bernardi
• SUBSPECIES campestris
• SUBSPECIES chanco
• SUBSPECIES columbianus
• SUBSPECIES crassodon
• SUBSPECIES dingo
• SUBSPECIES familiaris
• SUBSPECIES floridanus
• SUBSPECIES fuscus
• SUBSPECIES gregoryi
• SUBSPECIES griseoalbus
• SUBSPECIES hattai
• SUBSPECIES hodophilax
• SUBSPECIES hudsonicus
• SUBSPECIES irremotus
• SUBSPECIES labradorius
• SUBSPECIES ligoni
• SUBSPECIES lycaon
• SUBSPECIES mackenzii
• SUBSPECIES manningi
• SUBSPECIES mogollonensis
• SUBSPECIES monstrabilis
• SUBSPECIES nubilus
• SUBSPECIES occidentalis
• SUBSPECIES orion
• SUBSPECIES pallipes
• SUBSPECIES pambasileus
• SUBSPECIES rufus
• SUBSPECIES tundrarum
• SUBSPECIES youngi

We really need to update our Caniformia articles to reflect MSW3. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

Biologists have cited possibly flawed scientific logic in opposing aerial hunting and the citizens of Alaska have twice voted against it.

There is a double negation in only a part of this sentence. Is this a typo? / What does the sentence really mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.75.6 (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I discovered that the reference for the source supporting that statement was repeated with a different reference. I corrected that and I changed the wording[1]. Basically, it means that the citizens of Alaska are voting agaisnt aerial hunting in spite of the biologists saying that it's ok to make aerial hunting. Hope that cleared it up. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I edited this sentence to match the reference, which is an editorial (written by the editorial board) from the NY Times about hunting in Alaska. What motivated me to check the actual reference was the phrase "Biologists have cited possibly flawed scientific logic in opposing aerial hunting", which implies that there is scientific controversy regarding the practice of aerial hunting. Aerial hunting is actually roundly condemned by environmental biologists. (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Clint

Possible copyright problems

Some portions of the article, notably the entire section "Body language" and "Howling", also exist on "wolfcountry.com" [2], . That page has no copyright info. What to do? 81.227.116.46 (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wolf Atruism

I believe there is evidence of both intraspecies altruism -- feeding an injured fellow wolf, for example -- and also cases of wolves helping humans. I believe children being raised by wolves has been documented.

I saw on tv -- but have no link to -- a story of a man who was caught in extreme cold while seeking help when his car stalled. He told of a shewolf coming to him and allowing him to warm himself in her fur. An amazing story if true.Jrm2007 (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"I believe there is evidence of both intraspecies altruism -- feeding an injured fellow wolf, for example -- and also cases of wolves helping humans. I believe children being raised by wolves has been documented."

It's a popular theme in folklore and mythology, but currently, the only properly documented case is that of Amala and Kamala.

"I saw on tv -- but have no link to -- a story of a man who was caught in extreme cold while seeking help when his car stalled. He told of a shewolf coming to him and allowing him to warm himself in her fur. An amazing story if true."

Last I heard, Wolf's Rain is not true. Dark hyena (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, not an anime but a real person who claimed this happened to himJrm2007 (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of black wolves

I've noticed there are no pictures in wiki commons on black wolves. I find this strange, as black wolves are fairly common in the Northern territories and Alaska. I was planning on replacing the "blended pelage" picture with one composed of three wolf colour varieties. The "blended pelage" one I feel does not do justice to wolf diversity. Wolves are hardly uniform. Dark hyena (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Surprisingly good behaviour

I must commend you people. I thought the info I had provided on maneating and wanton killing would have caused an uproar, whether they were sourced or not. Dark hyena (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Extinction in Great Britain

Some one has recently alterd Royal forest staing that the Wolf became exinct in England by the 15th century, previously the article had said by the 13th. I know that the wolf surivied in Scotland much longer than in England, but can any one verify the dates and add it to that article (and perhaps the reintroduction section of this one) -- with a reference please. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at the Wolf hunting article. It goes into great detail on the subject. Dark hyena (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In England of 950, King Athelstan imposed an annual tribute of 300 wolf skins on Welsh king Hywel Dda, an imposition which was maintained until the Norman conquest of England. The Norman kings (reigning from 1066 to 1152 A.D.) employed servants as wolf hunters and many held lands granted on condition they fulfilled this duty. There were no restrictions or penalties in the hunting of wolves, except in royal game reserves, under the reasoning that the temptation for a commoner to shoot a deer there was too great. King Edward I who reigned from 1272 to 1307 ordered the total extermination of all wolves in his kingdom and personally employed one Peter Corbet, with instructions to destroy wolves in the counties of Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Shropshire and Staffordshire, areas near the Welsh Marches where wolves were more common than in the southern areas of England. James I of Scotland passed a law in 1427 requiring 3 wolf hunts a year between April 25th to the 1st of August, coinciding with the wolf's cubbing season. The wolf became extinct in England during the reign of Henry VII (1485-1509). It is known that wolves survived in Scotland up until the 18th century. Mary I of Scotland is known to have hunted wolves in the forest of Atholl in 1563. The last wolf in Scotland was supposedly killed in 1743, by an old man named MacQueen of Pall-à-Chrocain in the Findhorn Valley of Morayshire Dark hyena (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomy?

What happened to the in-depth listing of subspecies of the wolves? Only thing there is now is another article with a horribly organized chart for the subspecies list. The old one had links, brief descriptions, and was very helpful.

I'd go into history and put it back, or at least copy-paste it to the new article and provide a link in this article, but I get wary of editing wikis. I don't want to screw something up. 68.109.176.76 (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It was split off to the article you mentioned, and reorganized to list only the valid subspecies according to the Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed, 2005, which is the canonical listing of mammalian taxonomy. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Should some subspecies articles be deleted or re-written?

Seeing as the subspecies classifications have been updated as of 2005, does that not make articles such as Italian and Russian wolf no longer valid? Dark hyena (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

They probably only need tweaking to reflect the current status. They should all still be considered valid populations, it should be simple enough to indicate which subspecies they are a population of. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

pastourise?

The word "pastourise" doesn't show up in any online English dictionary, and the only google search hits are to this page. Is it a real word? - Dougher (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It is another word for "grazing". Dark hyena (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wolf T-Shirts and Aspergers Syndrome

Should we put information regarding the connection between Asperger's Syndrome and the afflicted's tendency to wear shirts with wolf pictures on them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.5.69 (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wolf behavior and reputable sources

I've noticed that the article lists some wolf behaviors that seem questionable or extremely rare, at best. Most notably is the section discussing the wolf's dietary habits and hunting practices. I should note that the source I am gathering this from concerns arctic wolves in the tundras of northern Canada. Here are few of the falsehoods mentioned (either outright or by omission):

-Wolves actually subsist quite heavily on small mammals such as rodents and hares (even choosing them over caribou when available); this is not exclusive to lone wolves or pairs either, but to packs as well. -Wolves are (at least capable of being) very organized when hunting in packs, utilizing ambush tactics, intricate planning, and coordinated formations. -They generally target the weakest large game animals when hunting because they are simply easier to catch. A healthy deer can easily outrun an adult wolf. To say that they generally target healthy animals without explaining why they would do so when it would most often result in failure makes no sense. -Wolves do not obtain kills by lacerating the animal's hindquarters so that the prey will bleed out. Again, this is an unnecessary risk as it would place the wolf in a very deadly position within range of the animal's powerful hind legs. The same goes for the supposed method of tearing the prey's abdomen open and eating its innards while still alive. While this method fits well with a nightmarish view of vicious wolves, it creates another unnecessary risk of injury and death for real wolves, who would rather avoid the flailing limbs of a caribou in agony. The actual killing method is for the wolf to run alongside the animal and broadside it, knocking it down and allowing the wolf to carefully bite the back of the animal's neck, killing it as quickly as possible. -Wolves do not "surplus kill". Just the same, they are not responsible for damaging big game populations. Wolves have been hunting the same animals for tens of thousands of years and never before the arrival of human trappers, hunters, and sportsmen have these populations ever been out of balance. Killing for sport is a luxury that cannot be afforded by wolves in the wild. Every bit of energy expended must be carefully calculated so that there will ultimately be some sort of return on investment i.e., something to eat. There is no evolutionary scenario in which mass killing would benefit wolves rather than leading to starvation later on, as a result of previously purged prey animals. Upon closer inspection, mass killing grounds are often the result of human, and not lupine, hunters.

Also, if you check out the sources cited for some of this information, you'll find (see footnote 6) that at least one of them is hardly reputable. The aforementioned source is an online web site whose sole purpose is to promote a book written by a linguist (not a scientist or naturalist) who has written a book about supposed wolf atrocities committed in historical rural Russia. As a linguist, the author has translated word-of-mouth stories from Russian locals. At no point, it would seem, does any actual fact-based or scientific research come into question. This may be appropriate for an article on wolf/Russian folklore, but it is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article regarding actual wolf behavior.

I have attempted to include these points in the actual article, but they were quickly deleted.

For the record, my source on this material is the book "Never Cry Wolf" by naturalist and biologist Farley Mowat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojojamo (talk • contribs) 18:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh.

Well, do you realise that "Never Cry Wolf" is a work of fiction? Farley Mowatt admitted as such in an interview that the book was written in an attempt to whitewash the wolf's reputation at a time when these animals were still heavily hunted. He succeeded in a sense, but his "findings" have been debunked by many eminent biologists, including David Mech who studied wolves since 1958 in places such as Minnesota, Canada, Italy, Alaska, Yellowstone National Park, and on Isle Royale.

I shall attempt to answer the issues you have brought up individually;

-Wolves actually subsist quite heavily on small mammals such as rodents and hares (even choosing them over caribou when available); this is not exclusive to lone wolves or pairs either, but to packs as well.

The book Owls Aren't Wise and Bats Aren't Blind contains a quote by Mech which comments that in all his (50 year) travels, he had never encountered a wolf pack which subsisted primarily on rodents. This is mentioned again in his compendium Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation which he co-wrote with Italian wolf biologist Luigi Boitani. Valerius Geist, a deer biologist who wrote the acclaimed reference book Deer of the World: Their Evolution, Behavior, and Ecology rejected the concept, having spent numerous years with deer herds arround the world. In all his studies in areas where deer and wolves coexist, the wolves fed heavily on deer. Wolves evolved on a completely different course from coyotes and jackals which DO subsist largely on small prey. Wolves, with their large bodies and the fact that they live in goups, would quickly starve to death on a diet of rodents.

"-They generally target the weakest large game animals when hunting because they are simply easier to catch. A healthy deer can easily outrun an adult wolf. To say that they generally target healthy animals without explaining why they would do so when it would most often result in failure makes no sense."

You missed the point. Wolves do not actively target sick animals, they simply target the EASIEST ones to kill, which can also include young animals which have yet to develop proper defences and muscular coordination, and slow, heavily pregnant females, regardless of whether they are healthy or not.

Wolves do not obtain kills by lacerating the animal's hindquarters so that the prey will bleed out. Again, this is an unnecessary risk as it would place the wolf in a very deadly position within range of the animal's powerful hind legs. The same goes for the supposed method of tearing the prey's abdomen open and eating its innards while still alive.

Yes they do. It is a method used by all social canids and hyenas.

If accounts are not convincing for you, then look at this video; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-UvsJj5qgc The wolves are targetting a young bison calf, which is half the size of an adult caribou, therefore, supposedly easier to kill. Nowhere is the attack method you mention seen. One wolf grabs the animals nose, whilst the other two rip at its hindquarters. By the end of the video, the wolves go for a weak specimen, but they constantly go for its backside. They continuosly avoid its front end, the exact opposite of what you said. Indeed, the narrator (Sir David Attenborough) states that killing quickly is not an option open to them. By the end of the vid, you can see one wolf already chewing at the bisons flank, while it is still alive.

Here is another one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb6Rke7jiTc&feature=related Here, the wolves attempt to catch a muskox calf, which again, is smaller than an adult caribou. They do not "broadside" it, they grab its perinium, and bite its nose, suffocating it. Never is the clean, back of the neck bite seen.

And another; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT_3QiWQh8M&feature=related The wolves harass an adult bison from behind, biting its perinium, even recieving a sharp kick at one point. Again, they do not broadside it, they pull it down from behind, with their jaws. By the end, the bison is fighting for its life with the wolves constantly biting its hindquarters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi0J3CFqiXo&feature=related Here, the victim is an elk, which has roughly the same physical conformation of a caribou. Again, it is attacked from behind, however, this time it is killed by a wolf which strangles it to death by hanging on its throat, whilst the other wolves eat it. Even that fails to kill the elk quickly, as shown by the fact that it repeatedly tries to stand.

The suffering of prey animals is acknowledged by those who have studied the wolf. Ewan Clarkson in referring to studies on Isle Royale commented that sometimes the end was mercifully swift. A nine-month-old calf (moose) was dispatched in five minutes, and, after a short chase, a cow was killed in ten minutes. Frequently, however, the wolves were reluctant or unable to press home their initial attack, and the wounded moose will linger for hours, its wounds slowly stiffening and its life ebbing away. All around, the wolf pack would wait, licking the bloodstains from the snow or lying at ease on the ice. On occasion, the pack would abandon a wounded moose and move away to make a fresh kill, only to return a day or so later to finish off the cripple, or, if it has succumbed to its wounds, to scent out the carcass.

"Wolves do not "surplus kill".

That is not true. This is corroborated by farmers, peasants AND scientists. Here are a (very) few examples;

a) In L. S. Khuraskin's and Rumyantsev's 1978 report New data on the mortality of the Caspian seal due to wolves, it was shown that in a three week period in February 1978, wolves were responsible for the wanton killing of numerous seal pups near Astrakhan. Between 17-40% of the seal pups in the area were estimated to have been killed, but not eaten.

b) A Conservation Officer for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources stated that during a spring snow storm, two wolves killed 21 deer, consuming only two.

C) Here is photographic evidence of wolves having killed 20 rams, of which only six were eaten. Note that this occurred in the wild. I should warn you that they are quite graphic. http://www.aws.vcn.com/alaska.html

-There is no evolutionary scenario in which mass killing would benefit wolves rather than leading to starvation later on, as a result of previously purged prey animals.

And yet the phenomenon has not just been reported in wolves. Dutch Biologist Hans Kruuk recorded two notable events; one in England involving red foxes in gull colonies (which was further corroborated by Dr. David MacDonald), and Spotted Hyenas in Africa (the latter of which killed 110 Thomson's gazelle in a single night in 1966 during a storm, and ate only a small proportion of the victims.)

-The aforementioned source is an online web site whose sole purpose is to promote a book written by a linguist (not a scientist or naturalist) who has written a book about supposed wolf atrocities committed in historical rural Russia. As a linguist, the author has translated word-of-mouth stories from Russian locals.

It is clear from your statement that you have not read the book at all. Before becoming a linguist, Will Graves was a vetenary biologist who studied coyotes and feral dogs in order to understand the role they played in spreading diseases such as rabies and foot & mouth. Graves' does NOT deal with word of mouth stories. His sources are composed mostly of articles from historical documents falling back to the later Tsarist era, to modern Vetinary Biologists and zoologists from Russia AND the rest of the former USSR. Also, it is important to note that a lot of the material also comes from the newly translated Mammals of the USSR, a multiauthored reference book for fauna present in the now Commonwealth of Independent States. Valerius Geist himself wrote the book's introduction.Dark hyena (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A little something on Farley Mowat if some people are still in doubt:

Sure enough, John Goddard's heavily researched story, "A Real Whopper," made devastating accusations about Mowat's first three nonfiction books: "People of the Deer," "The Desperate People" and "Never Cry Wolf."

Wrote Goddard: "Documents recently made public at the National Archives of Canada, and papers that the author himself sold years ago to McMaster University, show that Mowat did not spend two years in the Keewatin District in 1947 and 1948 as the books say. He spent two summer field seasons in the district -- totaling less than six months -- and mostly in a more southern part of the district than he describes. He did not casually drop in alone but traveled on both occasions as a junior member of well-planned scientific expeditions. He did not once -- contrary to the impression he leaves -- see a starving Inuit person. He did not once set foot in an Inuit camp. As for the authenticity of his wolf story, he virtually abandoned his wolf-den observations after less than four weeks."

The article reported that residents of the Northwest Territories often refer to Farley Mowat by the derisive nickname "Hardly Know-it." After noting the claims of scrupulous authenticity Mowat made within the books themselves, Goddard described a very different Mowat attitude displayed in notes and conversation. "I never let the facts get in the way of the truth," Goddard claims Mowat told him. Goddard also came across Mowat's self-proclaimed motto in a catalog of the author's papers: "On occasions when the facts have particularly infuriated me, Fuck the Facts!"

Putting the word "facts" in quotation marks hardly inspired confidence. Nor did his refusal to refute Goddard's major claims. Tellingly, both Mowat's attackers and defenders quickly staked out the same ground -- namely, the author's admitted reputation as a "teller of tales." Critics pointed out that similar accusations had been made before, notably by Frank Banfield of the Canadian Wildlife Federation in a 1964 article published in the Canadian Field-Naturalist. Banfield compared Mowat's 1963 bestseller to another famous wolf tale: "Little Red Riding Hood." "I hope that readers of "Never Cry Wolf" will realize that both stories have about the same factual content," Banfield wrote. http://www.salon.com/people/bc/1999/05/11/mowat/index1.html Dark hyena (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I haven't read Graves' book. And though I cannot make a full-fledged argument against the books content, I can draw conclusions about the books self-proclaimed attitude as far as marketing is concerned. I am very skeptical of any source that attempts to write off an entire species as a plague to its own habitat: "Wolves is a stunning, fact-laden account of pandemic and devastating loss of livestock, game animals and human beings from wolf predation. Any open-minded person who reads this book will grasp that wolves are a severe threat to our way of life in Montana..." Here's another quote from a book review: "When humans are unable or unwilling to defend themselves, wolves attack. That's the conclusion you'll find in [Wolves in Russia]." "[Wolves in Russia] challenges North American notions about the true nature of these controversial animals, striving to show that populations are best controlled by human intervention."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, because you have clearly read a lot on the subject. But is this really an unbiased account of wolf behavior? How credible is ANY information that came out of the former Soviet Union? I know that quoting the web site is not the same as reading the book. But these quotes are what the author (or perhaps the publisher) want the public to see because they are a favorable representation of the book's content (from their point of view). The book, as described by its creators, intends to show how the wolf population is somehow the only creature on this planet that is out of balance in its own habitat. How did the wolf maintain its population (and the caribou theirs) for so many thousands of years without human intervention? The same was widely thought to be true of sharks. It betrays a lack of respect for evolution and nature's ability to maintain its own equilibrium. It also seems to neglect the fact that humans are the variable in these ecosystems, not the wolves. Even if wolves have perpetrated surplus killing in documented scenarios, human hunters and trappers do it consistently.

Unfortunately, the wolf population has become a topic of political debate, so bias occurs on both sides - even in the scientific community. But I ask you, how many other animals (besides humans) have evolved to a point where their own ecological systems can no longer control their population? If you can come up with any (non-anecdotal) examples where this has occurred, without human intervention playing a part, I'll reconsider my stance on this (if you're so inclined, of course). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojojamo (talk • contribs) 15:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. Again, I shall do my best to answer the issues you present.

Regarding the reliability of the former USSR, the majority of Soviet sources actually SUPPORTED Farley Mowat's harmless wolf hypothesis. Valerius Geist, in his "Statement by Valerius Geist pertaining to the death of Kenton Carnegie", stated that the Russian communist party actually suppressed information on wolves surplus killing and attacking humans. It was an effective method of disarming rural populations in wolf inhabited areas without a fight. Since the fall of Communism, documents came to light of large numbers of wolf depredations on both livestock and people which were previously not open to the public. Indeed, one author named "Bibikov" (one of the authors of "Mammals of the USSR") had an entire section on wolves banned by the communists because it exposed their laxity in reporting wolf aggression.

"It betrays a lack of respect for evolution and nature's ability to maintain its own equilibrium."

The fossil record shows that nature is quite capable of turning its back on its own creations, equilibrium be damned. Some paleontologists state that of all the species which have inhabited this planet in its 4 billion year history (humans have only been around 130,000 years), 90% are now extinct.

Regarding wolves, there is no evidence to suggest that wolves "moderate" their breeding and behaviour to accomodate their prey. The common pattern observed in both North America and Eurasia is this; First the wolves prey on all available ungulates, and increase in number at the same time. When the ungulates reach low numbers, the wolves either starve or migrate, allowing the herds some time to recover, until the wolves return. Unfortunately, nowadays, this causes problems for both farmers and hunters; Farmers, because the wolves will move on to livestock after their wild prey is depleted, hunters because... well that part is obvious. It is a perfectly natural process, and has obviously worked for thousands of years. The problem is, is that it is not "politically correct".

"But I ask you, how many other animals (besides humans) have evolved to a point where their own ecological systems can no longer control their population?"

No one has suggested that wolves cannot be supported by their ecological systems; The problem arises when that system is inhabited by another species with similair needs or wants (humans), resulting in competition.

"If you can come up with any (non-anecdotal) examples where this has occurred, without human intervention playing a part, I'll reconsider my stance on this (if you're so inclined, of course)."

There are numerous examples in the fossil record of species wiping each other out. According to Dave MacDonald's The Velvet Claw, the arrival of bone crushing hyenas coincided the extinction of a family of scavengers called percrocutoids (sp?). Similairly, the arrival of short fanged felines like lions and tigers, coincided with the extinction of sabre-toothed cats, which were unable to eat their prey as efficiently. When the predatory dinosaurs first appeared in the Triassic period, the older and more primitive Dicynodonts were easy prey, and quickly became extinct.

Wolves themselves are no more native to North America than humans. They are a Siberian species which colonised the continent a mere 12,000 years ago, along with grizzlies and wolverines. Wolves pretty much displace all three native American species (Black bears, cougars and coyotes) in their ranges, causing near localised extinctions in some places. Humans are not the only creatures to show a seemingly "un-mother nature-like" ferocity. The Siberian immigrants arrived and "siezed" the continent from the native carnivores.

You seem genuinely interested in this controversial topic. May I reccomend this? http://wolfcrossing.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/carnegie-no1.pdf It's a very absorbing read. It does cover up a lot of what we've discussed.

Regards. Dark hyena (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "DOGS" :
  • {{cite book | author= Coppinger, Ray | title=Dogs: a Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior and Evolution | year=2001 | pages= p352 | isbn= }}
  • {{cite book | author= Coppinger, Ray | title=Dogs: a Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior and Evolution | year=2001 | pages= p352 | id=0684855305 }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate assesment of wolf social structure

I want to dig up the following statements by anonymous users in the archive about the social behaviour of wolves. I think that the chapter has to be updated with the divergent views of various wolf experts, including for example the leading German wolf experts Gesa Kluth and Ilka Reinhardt. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The section in this article on social behavior is highly inaccurate. The terms 'alpha' and 'beta' are no longer recognized by leading wolf researchers. In fact, almost nothing is accurately known about wolf social behavior because it differs so dramatically based on if the wolf is in the wild or in captivity. It is true that the basic hierarchy with the 'alpha' and 'beta' wolves holds true in artificially created or unusually large packs, but naturally occurring wolf packs are smaller units that are simply nuclear families, the 'alphas' being the mother and father and the 'betas' being yearlings, or pups that were born the previous season and have yet to reach full maturity and start their own packs. A good book that explains this with more citations to more specific studies is Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation by L.D. Mech and L. Boitani. (http://www.amazon.com/Wolves-Behavior-Conservation-David-Mech/dp/0226516962)

Interesting. I'm going to recieve that book as a Birthday present in three weeks. I'll check that bit out.79.72.192.210 16:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to an abstract that already says enough about the failures in the main text. Unfortunately, the full paper isn't for free, maybe I can get that through the university and add some information. http://rparticle.web-p.cisti.nrc.ca/rparticle/AbstractTemplateServlet?journal=cjz&volume=77&year=&issue=&msno=z99-099&calyLang=fra The german version of wikipedia has the correct information about the social structure known so far. Maybe someone with better english knowledge than mine could translate it and add it to the article. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.166.205.26 (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you translate it yourself, if you already know enough German to know it is more accurate?Dark hyena (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The term alpha pair is currently being used to describe the lead dominant pair of wolves. Bugguyak (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have read the book about their research (Beatrix Stoepel: Wölfe in Deutschland. Hoffmann und Campe, Hamburg 2004, ISBN 3-455-09470-8), but that was some time ago and I do not have it at hand at the moment. Since there are so much sources with information about the "old" ranking system, the chapter should also not be completely rewritten without being sure that it is defintiely incorrect for wild wolves. I generally hesitate to alter the article, since I am not a wolf expert and do not have an accurate enough overview of this controversial topic. However, the various sources given here should indicate that the chapter needs some serious work to present a well-balanced and up-to-date scientific point of view. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This does not seem to be widely accepted outside of the single reference you have given. Bugguyak (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have been alerted to this discussion bei User:Altaileopard. I have written the above-mentioned part concerning social structure in wolfpacks in the german wikipedia. I have now tried to translate this part, as a base for further discussion. Sources are given in the end, additionally, Mech and Boitani are already mentioned. The results are in accordance with the results of research on wolfs in germany, done by Gesa Kluth and Ilka Reinhardt. Sorry for my bad English.

"Occasionally, single wolfs are found in the wild, but the normal social structure of wolfs in the wild is the pack. Normally, the pack consists of a male and a female and their offspring, so the pack is essentially a familiy. Wolfs mature after two years, and stay with their parents until that age. The former years young support their parents in nursing the pups of the year. So, in autumn, the pack consists normally of the parents, the young of the former year and the young of the same year. When the young reach maturity, they normally leave the territory of their parents to look for a territory for themselves. Parents are obligatory dominant over their offspring, hierarchic fights are therefore rare in wild packs. Copulations between closely related individuals (e.g., parents with own offspring, or between siblings) do not occure, even in the case that no other wolves are in reach, because the males refuse copulation.

In literature, wolfpacks are commonly characterized as strongly hierarchic communities, with a dominant "Alpha pair" which solely reproduces, a group of subdominant individuals and the "omega wolf" on the lowest end of the hierarchy, often in the role of a scapegoat. These descriptions are based on research on wolfs in captivity and are in no way transferable to wolfpacks in the wild. In captivity, amongst others, dismigration of mature individuals is impossible, resulting in frequent aggressive hierarchic encounters.''"

Sources:

• Dimitrij I. Bibikow: Der Wolf. Die Neue Brehm-Bücherei Bd. 587. Westarp Wissenschaften, Hohenwarsleben 2003, ISBN 3-89432-380-9 : S. 136

• H. Okarma: Der Wolf. Ökologie, Verhalten, Schutz. Berlin, Parey 1996, 2002, ISBN 3-8263-8431-8: S. 59-61

Yours, --Accipiter2 (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--Altaileopard (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

An additional point: The article states: "Deaths in intraspecific battles within the pack do occasionally happen, with some dominant male wolves on Isle Royale having been known to kill to to four wolves in their lifetime.[37]".

The given link is dead, but I have checked for this information and I found a suitable link [3]. The content does not cover the statement in the article. The statement of Vucetich describes the kill of a male of a different pack, so this was in no way a battle "within the pack", but a result of an intraspecific fight between different packs. Also, Vucetich does not state that this male was killed by another male, but generally by the (much larger) trespassing pack! Yours, --Accipiter2 (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Salmon preferred

This article says that "wolves" prefer fishing to hunting in Western Canada. I'm not sure which wolf they're referring to. If definitive, this Wiki article could use a little modification. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7595112.stm Piano non troppo (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Current status split

The "Current status" section contains a lot of useful and well-sourced information, but it is essentially a list, and too long. I'd suggest splitting it into a separate article, called e.g. List of grey wolf population by country (open to other suggestions, couldn't find a precedent), and rewrite the section here in summary style. Lampman (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Who concurs?Dark hyena (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

+1 It could also be made into a real table with rows and cols. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Could be, provided someone knows how to do it... Dark hyena (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DogWolf.jpg

The image Image:DogWolf.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Blackwolddog.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

New structure is illogical

Once upon a time, there was an article called Wolf. Now, Wolf redirects to Grey Wolf, which is an article about a particular kind of wolf that "shares a common ancestry" with the domestic dog.

Meanwhile the Domestic Dog article states that the Domestic Dog is a sub-species of the Wolf!

If the domestic dog and the grey wolf are both sub-species of Wolf, then Wolf should not redirect to Grey Wolf.

Ordinary Person (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Move

When, exactly, did wolf become a proper noun? I suggest a move to Gray wolf (which is now one of the stupidest & most needless redirects I've seen). TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 10:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Gee, multiple places you are asking the same question. Perhaps you should look at a common location, such as the Mammals Wikiproject.... I'm not going to answer you in all of these locations. I answered on talk:African Linsang. But read WP:BIRD for the logic of why to use upper case. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

IUCN Red List

After looking around online, I notice that gray wolves are only listed as LC in Alaska, not in other parts of their original territory. Should this discrepancy be corrected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.119.135 (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

More on LC status

The gray wolf in the contiguous 48 United States has long been on the federal government's list of endangered species, which includes both threatened and endangered populations. In the Eastern and Western distinct population segments (DPS), the gray wolf is considered by the federal government to be threatened, whereas it is considered fully endangered the Southwestern DPS. In Alaska the gray wolf thrives in such numbers that it is neither threatened nor endangered.

Classifying the status of animals is a judgment call. In some cases, the judgment is easy. For example, the California condor population includes only a few remaining members and is clearly endangered. With other species, such as the gray wolf, the situation is far more complex.

Worldwide, wolves once lived everywhere north of about 20 degrees north latitude, a parallel that runs through Mexico City and southern India. In 1999 the minimum world wolf population was estimated at 150,000, with a minimum of 55,000 in Canada, 85,181 in Eurasia, and 9,790 in the United States (including Alaska). Mexico may have no remaining wolves. In many other countries, the gray wolf is long gone.

In the 48 contiguous states, wolf populations are scattered. Minnesota supports about 3,020 wolves. This population seems to be increasing in numbers and in distribution. About 425 wolves live in Wisconsin and around 360 in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Isle Royale holds 30. Northwest Montana supports over 92 wolves. With the government-sponsored reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming and also into Central Idaho 1995 and 1996, the Greater Yellowstone Area now supports over 301 wolves, and Central Idaho supports over 368. In addition Mexican wolves were reintroduced into Arizona and New Mexico in 1998 and the wild population is steady at around 50. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.119.135 (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The LC needs to be corrected. We cannot look at just a few areas such as Minnesota and Alaska and state that the population is perfectly fine. In just North America Most of the wolf's former territory is vacant of the wolf. Also the Mexican Subspecies is almost gone. Wolves of Western Europe are also almost gone, so how can the Conservation Status be LC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.70.209 (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wolves of Western Europe are also almost gone...

I'm sorry, but that is a very ignorant statement. Europe is not as large as America, therefore, naturally, America's standards of wolf populations cannot be applied to it. Plus, all Western European populations are increasing in number. I really find this consistent need in some people to portray wolves as being on the brink of extinction as irresponsible. Here is what the List of grey wolf populations by country article says (all of which is sourced);

Portugal has a stable wolf population of 200-300 which is afforded full protection. Compensation is paid for livestock damages.

Spain's wolf population is estimated at 2000 and growing. Wolves are considered a game species, though they are protected in the southern regions of the country. Compensation is paid for livestock damages, though this varies according to regional laws.

In Italy, wolves are a protected species, with current estimates indicating that there are 500-800 wolves living in the wild. The largest concentrations of wolves occur in the alps and the Italian national parks of Pollino, Abruzzo, Lazio e Molise and Appennino Tosco-Emiliano. Isolated individuals have been sighted in the vicinity of human populated areas such as Tuscany, Bologna, Parma and Tarquinia. Wolves have also been sighted denning 25 miles from Rome, with one small population living in the regional park of Castelli Romani. Currently, Italian wolf populations are said to have been increasing at a rate of 6% a year since the 1970s, though 15% of the total Italian wolf population is reported to succumb annually to illegal poaching and road accidents. Compensation is paid by regional governments for livestock damages. Italy's leading wolf biologist, professor Luigi Boitani of the Sapienza University of Rome, expressed concern that the Italian wolf recovery may have been too successful, due to a large portion of the public refusing to concede to the possibility of rising wolf populations requiring management in the future.

Wolves migrated from Italy to France as recently as 1992, and the current French wolf population is said to be composed of 40-50 individuals and growing. Estimates in 2005 put the figure at between 80 and 100. Under the Berne Convention, wolves are listed as an endangered species and killing them is illegal. Official culls are permitted to protect farm animals so long as there is no threat to the national population as a whole. Compensation is paid for livestock damages.

Wolves were first spotted in Germany in 1998, and are thought to have migrated from western Poland. Currently, there are around 35 wolves in 4 packs now roaming the heaths of the eastern German region of Lusatia, and they are now still expanding their range to the west and north. Under German law, wolves are a protected species, though there are no livestock damage compensation programmes.Dark hyena (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Red Wolf photo

I'm curious about the claim made in the caption of the Red Wolf photo posted. According to the Red Wolf Wikipedia page, the Red Wolf is proving to be a separate species, not a hybridization with coyotes and gray wolves. Yet here on the Gray Wolf page, it's claimed to be just such a hybridization.

Reference from Red Wolf: Wilson, P.J., S. Grewal, I.D. Lawford, J.N.M. Heal, A.G. Granacki, D. Pennock, J.B. Theberge, M.T. Theberge, D.R. Voigt, W. Waddell, R.E.Chambers, P.C. Paquet, G. Goulet, D. Cluff, and B.N. White. 2000. DNA profiles of the eastern Canadian wolf and the red wolf provide evidence for a common evolutionary history independent of the gray wolf. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:2156 - 2166.

Kemkerj (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Red Wolf article should be changed. Here are the notes from the Canis lupus entry in MSW3, the mammal taxonomy reference we general follow:

Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate--artificial variants created by domestication and selective breeding (Vilá et al., 1999; Wayne and Ostrander, 1999; Savolainen et al., 2002). Although this may stretch the subspecies concept, it retains the correct allocation of synonyms. Corbet and Hill (1992) suggested treating the domestic dog as a separate species in SE Asia. Synonyms allocated according to Ellerman and Morrison-Scott (1951), Mech (1974), and Hall (1981). Provisionally includes rufus, (recognized by Paradiso, 1968; Paradiso and Nowak, 1972; Atkins and Dillion, 1971; Paradiso and Nowak, 1972; Nowak, 1979, 1992, 2002) although this problematic group (rufus, floridanus, gregoryi) should probably be best listed as incertae sedis. The widely used name C. niger is invalid (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1957a). 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.

- UtherSRG (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaker of Swedish required

Apparently, this is from the daily Sydösterbotten at the end of January, 2006, regarding the illegal importation of Siberian wolves into France, where they pose a threat to native wolves. This could be a good addition to the "populations" article, but this page gets more attention.

“I Frankrike har man genom historien haft mycket svåra vargproblem. Redan år 813 lät kejsar Karl den Store bilda ett speciellt vargjägarregemente med uppgift att utrota vargarna. Ännu i våra dagar finns det i varje franskt län, som arvtagare till detta regemente, en person med titeln "vargjägarlöjtnant". Han hade tidigare till uppgift att koordinera vargskall och att överhuvudtaget sköta utrotningskriget. I våra dagar är han jaktövervakare och rådgivare vid fångst av smårovdjur. Eftersom vargplågan var stor i landet är det på sin plats att jag nämner några av de mera kända tilldragelserna genom historien. År 1439 dödades fjorton personer av vargar i centrala Paris mellan Montmartre och Port St Antoine! 1630 klagar prästen i en liten by mellan Mende och Villefort i Cevennerna över att 26 av hans församlingsmedlemmar under vintern blivit ihjälrivna och uppätna av vargar! Odjuret från Gevaudan är det mest kända fallet kring vilket också de flesta myterna har bildats. I våra dagar när vargen inte mera får vara den som gör någonting illa så har mytbildningen slagit alla rekord i vansinne. Man har försökt förklara odjuret varande en hybrid och tillochmed en hyena som en afrikaresenär skulle ha hämtat med sig och tränat upp till att döda människor. Man har också fösökt säga att det skulle ha varit en galning som iklädd vargskinn skulle ha utfört morden samt försökt förklara händelserna med allsköns övernaturligt nonsens. Det tycks vara lättare att tro på sagor än verklighet. Vad hände då i Gevaudan? Åren 1764 -1767 dödades ett hundratal kvinnor och barn när de vaktade får i Cevennerna. Vargarna som troligen var tre till antalet med en stor hona som ledare sprang rakt genom fårhjorden för att ta kvinnan eller barnet eftersom de specialiserat sig på det bytet. Trots att mytbildningen snabbt kom igång om att det rörde sig om någonting onaturligt så fann man aldrig någonting annat än normala vargspår när platsen för anfallen undersöktes. Kungen Ludvig XV såg så allvarligt på händelserna att han sände ut militären för att skjuta vargarna. 1764 sköts 74 vargar men dödandet av människor fortsatte likt tidigare och upphörde först 1767. Förklaringen är enkel. De andra dödade vargarna hade inte specialiserat sig på människobyten. Man måste döda den rätta. Den stora vargen som ansågs vara den huvudskyldige transporterades när den skjutits till Paris men transporten tog för länge. Kadavret ruttnade och finns därför till vargkramarnas glädje inte bevarat. Vargarna hade under den franska revolutionens ofärdsår ökat till den grad att regeringen 1797startade en statsledd utrotningskampanj varvid 7 350 vargar dödades. 1816 upprepades kampanjen och skottpengen höjdes. 2 416 vargar dödades. Under dessa statsledda utrotningskampanjer höggs också de otaliga och fortfarande existerande, geometriskt dragna skogsvägarna upp. Dessa indelar skogarna i "kvarter" vilket gjorde det enklare att spänna upp vargnät. 1883 sköts i Frankrike 1300 vargar och 1887, 701 vargar. 1930 var vargen i praktiken utrotad i landet. Själv hade jag 1968 nöjet att som Musée des Sciences Naturelles konservator i Orléans restaurera och nymontera Centralfrankrikes sista människoätarvarg. Den hade i Chaingy nära Orléans dödat och ätit upp en åttaårig flicka år 1854. Den sköts av den legenadriske tjuvskytten Blaiset Basset som lyckats med rekordet att hela 24 gånger dömas för tjuvskytte! Jag ställde ut vargen på museet i ett diorama föreställande skogen där vargen levat. När de fanatiska vargkramarvindarna nådde Frankrike under den senare hälften av 1980 talet så revs dioramat och vargen försvann. Jag har inte ens klarat av att spåra den. Antagligen har den förstörts för barnätande vargar får inte finnas till. I en bok om Centralfrankrikes sista vargar, utkommen 1990 finns den inte ens omnämnd! 1986 dök ett odjur upp i Réauville i Rhônedalen. Det skadade och dödade får och hundar. Mytbildningen startade snabbt om puman i Réauville. Folk såg den ofta nattetid och beskrivningarna blev mer och mer fantastiska. Historien började likna den om odjuret i Gévaudan. Det lokala gendarmeriet hämtade mig då till platsen för att om möjligt identifiera spåren. Det var enkelt. Spåren visade otvivelaktigt på en varg i 45 kilos klassen. På rådhuset i Réauville pågick en otrolig aktivitet. Församlade var massor av journalister och representanter för allehanda kvasi-naturskyddsorganisationer. Även om vargen vid den tiden fortfarande var fredlös så förklarades det vitt och brett under detta "pöbelns" tryck att djuret skulle fångas levande i en fälla. Odjuret var tidstypiskt mycket viktigare än alla rivna får och hundar som inte "naturskyddarna" brydde sig om. Borgmästaren bad mig in på sitt kontor tillsammans med en förtrogen och stängde dörren. "Vad anser Ni att vi skall göra?" Jag förklarade att vargen helt klar hade uppfötts I fångenskap eftersom den var mycket oskygg och skadade en massa men dödade dåligt. "Säg ingenting och gräv ner den!" Odjuret i Réauville försvann. 1987 invandrade vargar enligt uppgift från Italien till nationalparken Mercantour ovanför Nizza. Vargen var fortfarande fredlös och en av vargarna sköts omedelbart. När jag såg bilden i tidningen kunde jag inte göra annat än flina! Vargen var av fel ras! Den var inte en av de små rölliga italienska vargarna utan vargen var av nordisk/sibirisk ras! Att vargar skulle ha invandrat från Italien var inte heller logiskt bortsett från metamorfosen. Invandringen skulle ha betytt att vargarna osedda och utan märkbar skadegörelse skulle ha vandrat från Apenninerna genom det tättbyggda Toscana, den högindustrialiserade Po-slätten med alla sina vägar och hårt trafikerade motorvägar för att så småningom nå Frankrike. Att de franska vargarna var utsläppta från fångenskap är klart. Odjuret i Réauville kom inte långt ifrån. I Gévaudan i Cévennerna hade vargfantasten Ménatory ett hägn med en betydande vargavel och han fick sina inkomster från tourismen. Hans vargpark blev snabbt berömd och den drivs nu efter han död av dottern. Där får tourister och småbarn lära sig hur fina och snälla djur de tama vargarna är. En tam varg har ingenting att göra med det vilda djuret. Om också de andra vargarna kommit från Ménatorys hägn är omöjligt att säga. På sjuttio och åttiotalet förekom en omfattande handel med levande vargar och många fantaster höll sig med tama husvargar i stället för hundar. Nu är de vilda vargarna minst 75 trots att det beviljats många avskjutningstillstånd och ännu fler har skjutits illegalt. Den fria fårdriften i Alperna håller på att omöjliggöras.”Dark hyena (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

128.242.187.101 (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure, if everybody has understood the above article, but since i am from Denmark i naturally understand, speak and read swedish. It's a very long historyresume, the most interesting part is that the author claims, that the wolves in France, allegedly from Italy, don't in any way look like italian wolves.They are much bigger, looking like nordic wolves, like the ones in the nearby zoo. A dna-test??Csblach (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nutrition

^up to^ 3.2-3.5 kg per time, 10-15 kg if hungry, and 1.5 tonnes per annum? all cited to one source, in two sentences, and rather contradictory if i may say so

Find something less contradictory then and share.Mariomassone (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Social behavior--dominance and alphas

LM1313 (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I question this statement: "There are no documented cases of subordinate wolves challenging the leadership of their parents." The [| Yellowstone Wolf Project Annual Report 2007] records this incident: "After losing his dominant status, wolf #113M remained in the pack and was tolerated by his son the new alpha."

The Social Structure section of the article talks at length about hypotheses/scientists who do not feel "alpha" is a legitimate/useful way to describe wolf behavior, but in the Wolf Project Report it repeatedly refers to "alphas". (For example, "Both wolves held alpha status late into their lives" and "By contrast, an ex-alpha female wolf would typically not be tolerated by her pack.") Given that wolf biologists wrote the report, I question how widespread this disregard of the "alpha" term/position really is and whether the paragraph that supports its disregard is really justified.

I agree that the quote is probably wrong, and the sources are dubious. But note that in the case of wolf #113M, he was a long-time alpha who essentially retained his status until his death. The report says that he was 10 years old, and was injured in the spring. He survived, but presumably because of his injury, he lost the top-spot in the pack. He died later that year. I think that of course your right, under circumstances where the alpha (parent) dies or becomes incapacitated, the hierarchy can change. But the point people like Mech are making is that there isn't a constant struggle. The parent doesn't have to constantly fight off children who are attempting to usurp the alpha position. Wolf #113M is a good example of that. Mech argues that the term "alpha" and "parent" are, in the canonical pack, equivalent terms, and that "alpha" provides no more information. He suggests avoiding its use it because of the extra baggage that comes with the term. He never argued that there isn't an "alpha" position. He is just rejecting the associated image of a group of animals in a constant battle of fitness, each attempting to take over the top spot.

A change to the page is justified; though I would look back at the Mech 99 reference to see specifically what he says. He may have said the young do not physically attack the parents to gain leadership. That definition of "challenge" would make the statement consistent with wolf #113M.

--Thesoxlost (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

LM1313 (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Mech argues that the term "alpha" and "parent" are, in the canonical pack, equivalent terms, and that "alpha" provides no more information."

But they are not equivalent, since a non-alpha wolf can have pups, plus multiple females can have pups in a given year. For example, Yellowstone Wolf #40 was always described as an alpha (and certainly acted dominant, to the point where she would attack other females until they rolled over for her), but it was wolves #41 and #42 in that pack who had pups. Alpha seems to me to be the more accurate term, given that multiple wolves were breeding. Plus there are situations like this (also from the 2007 Yellowstone report): "During late 2006 this pack lost its alpha male due to intraspecific aggression. The breeding vacancy was quickly filled by a wolf from the Agate Creek pack, but this wolf was hit by a car in September. Within days of this alpha’s death, another yearling from Agate Creek (#590M) replaced him." The "replacement" alphas might be "parent" wolves to any new offspring, but what about the rest of the pack?

Anyway, I'm going to start searching for more scientific papers to see if they discuss any of this.

LM1313

I don't know which wolves your talking about (40, 41 and 42). Its unusual for a pack to have two litters in one year; that tends to happen when game is abundant and the pups can be supported. Its very unusual for two subordinates to mate and not the alpha. I might question whether the one you've identified as the alpha actually is. There are many accounts of wolves in captivity changing their personalities on a situation by situation basis. One might appear aggressive most of the time, but during feeding, gets bumped down the totem pole. A previously timid wolf may become ferocious during breeding season. Which is the "alpha"? What does that mean?

But again, I think the section would benefit from some editing. I haven't seen any good academic articles on behaviors of wolves during the transition period after the breeding pair dies, or in situations where a wolf from another pack assumes the breeding role. Its not unreasonable to think that wolf packs in these situations would look more like captive wolf packs. If you find anything good, let us know! --Thesoxlost (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I did more checking and Wolf 40 did have pups the same year as Wolf 42. I was incorrect in saying Wolf 41 had pups; #41 (a sister of 40 and 42) had already left the pack. Number 106 was the other female who had pups. (Wolf 42 had also had a previous litter of pups, which Wolf 40 killed. This probably was indeed in a time of plenty of food since they were all "original" reintroduction wolves and elk were overpopulating the park before the wolf reintroduction. However, now the packs have "filled" wolf habitat in Yellowstone and they still sometimes produce multiple litters. In the wolf report linked above, the Oxbow pack, the Slough Creek pack, and the Hayden Valley pack had two litters apiece.

Regarding the way scientists define and differentiate alpha wolves, I found a paper called [| Social dominance, aggression and faecal glucocorticoid levels in a wild population of wolves, Canis lupus] written in 2002 which talks about determining the alpha:

"We recorded initiator, recipient and winner/loser where appropriate for all aggressive, agonistic and breeding behaviours. We classified social interactions into four major categories: attack, stylized aggression, agonistic behaviour not involving direct aggression, and submission. For a detailed description of these behaviours in wolves, see Schenkel (1967) and Mech (1970). For a table of all behaviours we recorded, see Sands (2001). The category ‘agonistic behaviour’ included any behaviour related to dominance that did not involve physical contact, such as approaching with the hackles up, tooth baring or raised-leg urination. ‘Submission’ was a subset of agonistic behaviour, restricted to behavioural elements signalling concession or social subordination, following Schenkel (1967)."

He goes on to explain/describe behavior from each category.

I also found this, from [|Leadership Behavior in Relation to Dominance and Reproductive Status in Gray Wolves, Canis lupus]:

"We analyzed the leadership behavior of breeding and nonbreeding gray wolves (Canis lupus) in three packs during winter in 1997-1999. Scent-marking, frontal leadership (time and frequency in the lead while traveling), initiation of activity, and nonfrontal leadership were recorded during 499 h of ground-based observations in Yellowstone National Park. All observed scent-marking (N = 158) was done by breeding wolves, primarily dominant individuals. Dominant breeding pairs provided most leadership, consistent with a trend in social mammals for leadership to correlate with dominance. Dominant breeding wolves led traveling packs during 64% of recorded behavior bouts (N = 591) and 71% of observed travel time (N = 64 h). During travel, breeding males and females led packs approximately equally, which probably reflects high parental investment by both breeding male and female wolves. Newly initiated behaviors (N = 104) were prompted almost 3 times more often by dominant breeders (70%) than by nonbreeders (25%). Dominant breeding females initiated pack activities almost 4 times more often than subordinate breeding females (30 vs. 8 times). Although one subordinate breeding female led more often than individual nonbreeders in one pack in one season, more commonly this was not the case. In 12 cases breeding wolves exhibited nonfrontal leadership. Among subordinate wolves, leadership behavior was observed in subordinate breeding females and other individuals just prior to their dispersal from natal packs. Subordinate wolves were more often found leading packs that were large and contained many subordinate adults."

There's more details about what they evaluate and how they evaluate. Scent marking, double scent marking, posture while urine marking, submissive behavior (rolling onto belly, licking at the mouth), etc. Basically, "dominant" or "alpha" status is judged based on behavior, but statistically. In this study they don't use the term alpha, but "dominant breeding pair." But as I said, they use "alpha" all through the Yellowstone Annual Wolf Reports, so it definitely isn't a dead term yet.

I've also come across references in papers to a "pair bond" between the breeding pair/alphas. Don't have time to research it right now, but when I get more spare time I'll see what I can dig up! Double scent marking (one wolf peeing and another peeing over the same spot) seems to be part of it. (May help in synchnorizing mating behavior.)

LM1313 (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

LM1313,

Yeah, I've read those too. I added some of that stuff to the Dog Behavior article. But I don't think we're successfully communicating here. I didn't ask "How is Alpha operationalized?" I asked "What does it mean?" The term comes from initial studies on wolves and wolf behavior. In the early 20th century, biologists began observing hierarchical social structures in animals. Hierarchical structure in pigeons led to the introduction of the term pecking order. This work was built on by those studying wolves. These initial studies were largely performed on wolf populations in captivity. The terms alpha, beta, and omega were introduced to describe important positions on this hierarchy, and became associated with the early, overly simplistic view of wolf society. These terms have a lot of baggage associated with them because of the early research. Much of this research was also done at a time when there was a strong push for state-sponsored control of predators. Farmers leased land from the state for their livestock, and were demanding protection from wolves there. The public portrayal of the wolf, and the features that came to define the "alpha" emerged during this period.

Mech challenged that view, saying that packs in captivity are not natural. The salient features of being "alpha" may not be nearly as important in the wild. He argued that for the canonical pack, there is a breeding pair which tend to hold a position of dominance over their children, and that they are not challenged by their children in the same manner seen in captivity.

Peterson, in the paper you mention above, is trying to help resolve the issue and come to a synthesis by taking a closer look at wolf behavior without the bias of the hierarchical framework. He looked at a wide range of behaviors, such as breeding behaviors, dominance behaviors and leadership behaviors. He showed that (1) subordinate wolves do provide leadership and (2) that leadership patterns depend on the season. He argued that "alpha" still had meaning for packs with multiple breeders (though non of the packs he studied had multiple male breeders, and often the pups of one female do not survive), which Mech explicitly concedes. Unfortunately, Peterson didn't look at (or couldn't assess) the relationships between the breeding pair and the subordinate wolves, and so could not speak directly to whether the breeding pair tended to be the parents of the pack members.

So yeah, the term hasn't been abandoned by any means. But there seems to be a consensus that the true nature of the social relationships between wolves is more complicated that the simple hierarchy gives credit for, and that the term "alpha" can be misleading. --Thesoxlost (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I just want to correct the author of the differences between wolves and domestic dogs.

 The author states, that dogs never regugitates their food to the pups.

This is not correct, i've personally witnessed this behavior on several occasions in english setters.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csblach (talk • contribs) 18:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC) 

Not only you, there's plenty of evidence that the lack of regurgitating food is a degeneration and not normal, just quite widespread.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

How many people are really researching here?

Today I had to add several very important informations which showed that several of the information presented in the article is false or incomplete. Especially the stuff from Coppinger. That one seems to have brought quite a lot of false information in the world, or he simply didn't research or question his own findings good enough. But now I'm coming to my point: How many people here really do research? That was the... hell knows how many times I had to add information which should be common knowledge. This is wikipedia for Christ's sake, how good do most people who write this article really do their research?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Inugami,

I think you answered your own question: this is wikipedia. No one is paid to do research. Expertise is not especially rewarded, nor are particularly good contributions. What is made public here is time and effort that people are quite literally giving away. That said, don't jump to too high a moral highground. Consider your own contributions:

1) The German breeding experiment concluded that the wolf and dog are the same species. That's stated elsewhere. They are the same species. That's what it means if the dog is a subspecies of wolf.

2) The fact that a behavior has been seen in dogs does not argue against a difference between wolves and dogs. In wolves, regurgitation is a necessity that occurs it every generation of every litter. In dogs, that simply is not the case. That is a difference. Although selective breeding has created all kinds of genetic problems, and the current breed-centric mindset of the dog world is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of genetics, in this case I have seen no reason to believe selective breeding is the problem. The subspecies, through its interaction with man, is no longer dependent on feeding pups through regurgitation. It would not be surprising to see the behavior disappear.

From my own humble perspective, your contributions didn't improve the article. I'm working elsewhere, though, and am happy to let them be. BTW, please don't construe this as a personal attack, and please don't get defensive. I just wanted to give you another perspective. Keep up the good work :) --Thesoxlost (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the information was false. It doesn't matter if it's necessary or not (by the way for dogs who reverted back to the wild it is a neccessity). And also: if you argue that way it's no longer necessary for dogs to chew their food by themselves. The problem is that the authors did not question the findings good enough, and if you write for wikipedia you should be morally comitted to research as best as you can and don't just copy what one guy said (in this case Coppinger). Or have you forgotten how many people use Wikipedia? And the whole regurgitating stuff is used as an argument (at it is said that no dogs regurgitate, which was definetely proven to be false [and I can name my sources if you wan't]) in case you haven't noticed that. And thats another problem, when you use that, you can also say that a pekinese and a husky are two different species. The cynologists who are and were (some are dead) the experts on the subject here in Germany all said that the lack of certain characteristics must be seen as degeneration and nothing else. Or will you say that it is ok if a bitch cannot breed and raise her pups without human help? --Inugami-bargho (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The information is not false. It does not say "no dog has ever done X"; it said "Dogs don't do X." Its a normative statement. Its like saying that humans don't regurgitate for their young. That statement is true. But I guarantee you that someone somewhere has done it. Does that make the information false? No. Your edits are disrupting the flow of the article without improving them. What are you trying to argue? What central point are you trying to make? Its entirely unclear. If you strongly disagree with the meaning of the paragraph, then spend the time to integrate your thoughts into it. As it is, the paragraphs you have edited have become schizophrenic, clearly arguing with themselves, with arbitrary retorts thrown in haphazard. --Thesoxlost (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a normative statement for you, but that's also the problem, who says that that is the norm. And what is the definition for "normal". And yes the information is false the way you write it, because if one is an exception than the statement is no longer true, it's like saying swans are white. My sources say that the regurgitating is the norm, not the lack of it. You think the article is schizophrenic, I disagree. At that's my central point: There are so many different opinions even among scientists, that you have to research more and clearly ask yourself how that and that may sound to other ears or otherwise you're responsible for letting false informations spread. Like I said, if you don't believe me I can name my sources. And just for the record, like I said below, I don't have the time right now because I'm working on the Dingo-Article, because the articles on the grey wolves and domestic dogs in generall are to big for me to start with them. After the Dingo I will write on feral dogs and than the grey wolf or the domestic dog. By that time, my writing and researching skills should have improved enough to write a good article.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you didn't understand. If its a normative statement, then its a normative statement, period, not "for me." You may disagree with the statement. You may think it is incorrect. But its still a normative claim, and is not disproved by the fact that you watched your dog fido regurgitate once in 2005. You would need data that demonstrate that regurgitation is sufficiently common occurrence amongst dogs. Then you could prove the normative claim to be false. Your welcome to provide this information, if you have it. In English please. If you can provide a reputable English source, it can be evaluated by the community at large (this is en.wikipedia.org). If you can't find any reputable scientific discussion of regurgitation in dog populations in the English language, that may something about the reliability of your source. :)

Second, you can have multiple points of view in a WP article. You can have contradictory points of view. That's not what makes an article schizophrenic. The problem comes when people find a single sentence they disagree with, in isolation, and add another single sentence that argues against it. That undermines the meaning of the paragraph, and the flow of the article, without substantially altering it. If you think a paragraph is passing on false information, then change the meaning of the relevant paragraph or section to reflect a new point. Instead of "People believe X about wolves," you could change it to "There is contraversy about X." That way the reader isn't set up to expect support for a statement only to find an unexpected argument between editors with no resolution. The issue has nothing to do with WP; it has to do with writing skills. --Thesoxlost (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The problems are, that only a few of my reliable sources are in English. That would be e.g. The Dingo in Australia and Asia by Laurie Corbett, and of course pretty much everything on that dingo that can be considered reliable and that's a whole continet full of examples. Although these dogs are a good example of controversy, since their seems to be no unity as to what a dingo is (what I don't get since he shows the same features which are considered caused by domestication in other dogs). And by the way, I did not just see it, I have plenty of other sources, who disagree with Coppingers claim. These are:

• 1 Der Wolf, Verhalten, Ökologie und Mythos, Erik Zimen; 2003, Franckh-Kosmos Verlags-GmbH & Co, Stuttgart, ISBN 3-440-09742-0
• 2 Der Hund, Abstammung- Verhalten – Mensch und Hund, Erik Zimen, 1. Auflage, 1988, C. Bertelsmann Verlag GmbH, München
• 3 Doris Feddersen-Petersen, Hundepsychologie, 4. Auflage, 2004, Franck-Kosmos-Verlag 2004
• 4 Günther Bloch, Die Pizza-Hunde, 2007, Franck-Kosmos-Verlags-GmbH & Co. KG, Stuttgart, ISBN 978-3-440-10482-8
• 5 Der Wolf im Hundepelz, Hundeerziehung aus unterschiedlichen Perspektiven, Günther Bloch, Franck-Kosmos Verlags-GmbH & Co. KG, 2004, Stuttgart, ISBN 3-440-10145-2
• 6 Eberhard Trumler, Meine wilden Freunde, Die Wildhundarten der Welt, R. Piper & Co. Verlag, München, 1981, ISBN 3-492-02483-1
• 7 The Basenji Annual Estrus: A Comparison to other Canids by James E. Johannes, The Basenji, 39 (1): 34-5, January n2003
• 8 Das Jahr des Hundes – Ein Jahr im Leben einer Hundefamilie, Eberhard Trummler, Kynos Verlag, 1. Auflage 1984, ISBN 3-924008-11-6,
• 9 Eberhard Trumler, Mit dem Hund auf du; Zum Verständnis seines Wesens und Verhaltens; 4. Auflage Januar 1996; R. Piper GmbH & Co. KG, München
• 10 Eberhard Trumler, Ein Hund wird geboren; Der Ratgeber für den Hundefreund, R. Piper GmbH & Co. KG, München, 1982, ISBN 3-492-02775-X
• 11 Das Geheime Leben der Hunde Elizabeth Marshall Thomas, 1. Auflage März 1994, Rowohlt Verlag GmbH, Reinbek bei Hamburg, Originalausgabe: 1993, The Hidden Life of Dogs“, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston/New York, ISBN 3 498 04364 1
• 12 http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0168159104001753 Parental care in free-ranging dogs, . Applied Animal Behaviour Science , Volume 90

These sources stand for at least 30 years of research and observation, so how can I believe that the one source listed in the article is more reliable? If you think, you can find the time, search for them, although most will only be usefull if you can read german otherwise, well bad for you and for many dogs.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Inugami, the dingo is not a domestic dog; its a different subspecies that is not covered by this article.

You provided two english references about canis lupus familiaris. #7 makes no statements about regurgitation as far as I can tell. #12 does seem to make a compelling argument that dogs, when they revert to the wild, regularly feed pups with regurgitation. This actually argues against your position: if dogs do it when they need to, and not otherwise, then it is not degenerative because its not genetic; its environmental. But I think that reference 12 justifies changing the article to state that some of the differences are not genetic, but environmental.

That said, you make some pretty wild, dubious claims that only cite German references. I'm going to revise them (heavily) if there is no evidence for them (e.g., the degeneration statement). --Thesoxlost (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's not genetic, than what is it? Do wolves stop regurgitating food once there are in captivity? Do dingos stop it? Why do other dog owners report regurgitating? And by the way, the book from Elizabeth Marshall Thomas was translated from english into german, and I provided the original title, which you obviously failed to notice. You are the one who makes dubius claims and what are these claims based on? And if a source is not good enough for you because it's written in german, than you should also get rid of for instances the italian sources in the article on the italian wolf. And the dingo is a domestic dog? Here is again the whole not researching topic. You say it is not a domestic dog because it's classified as a different subspecies? What is that classification based on? And in fact, that seems not to be the name with the widest use, that's probably still canis familiaris dingo. And some even use the name canis lupus familiaris dingo or Canis lupus forma familiaris dingo, google them if you think you can get yourself to do that. Check the books of Helmut Hemmer if you don't believe that the dingo shows the same features which are regarded as being caused by domestication and which are also present in other domestic dogs. And the degeneration statement was made source 1-10 (except 7). I'm done with you, and by the way, once you eradicate the sentence, I will readd them, over and over again, as often as necesarry and that's a promise.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Inugami, the main point of my original post is that you should ensure that you are not rude. My point was that your additions are not categorically above the rest of the edits here, and are subject to second guessing by others. It's counter-productive to suggest that the entire population of editors that watch an article are incompetent, more so when you do so on the talk page to that article. No one will respond positively to you; you will only create antagonism and arguments.

*Yes, I did fail to see the Elizabeth Marshall Thomas translation. What does it say about this issue?

*Yes, Canis lupus dingo is a different subspecies of Grey Wolf, distinct from the dog. It has its own IUCN status. Reference to "Canis familiaris dingo" come from before the dog was reclassified as a subspecies of wolf; its out of date. When you get down to it, I don't know exactly why. That would be the subject of a good WP article.

*If you can provide an English quote (or translation, I suppose) to substantively support the claim that there is scientific evidence that the differences between the wolf and the dog are degenerate, I will listen and consider it, as will the rest of the WP community. This could just be a semantic, as degenerate has no concrete scientific definition. It just means losing "desirable" qualities. What makes them desirable? In some cases, you can say that it hurt their chances to survive. For instance, the French Bulldog has significant difficulties reproducing naturally. They are frequently artificially inseminated. One could easily make a claim that the breed has lost desirable qualities, and is thus "degenerate." But regurgitation? Seriously? There are 400 million dogs in the world as opposed to 400 thousand wolves. If the regurgitation behavior of dogs hurt their ability to survive as a species, its not really showing. My guess is that the reason it shows up in German publications, but not English publications, is because subtleties in language: the German word means something different than the English word. Thats speculation. Again, provide any WP:RS quote to support the statement; I'd honestly be very curious to see it. Thanks for editing. --Thesoxlost (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I

For instance, the French Bulldog cannot reproduce on its own without

Conflict between Dog and Gray Wolf articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Wolf

The Dog article says that the Domestic Dog is a subspecies of the Gray Wolf. That is to say, the Gray Wolf is a species with several subspecies, of which the Domestic Dog is but one. The Domestic Dog, then, is a subset of Gray Wolf. All Domestic Dogs are Gray Wolves, but not all Gray Wolves are Domestic Dogs. (Forgive my caps, which I have included for clarity.)

The Gray Wolf article states in one place that the Domestic Dog shares ancestry with the Gray Wolf. Elsewhere, it states that the Gray Wolf is an ancestor to the Domestic Dog.

The ideas presented in the two articles are not, under close analysis, compatible. If the set A is ancestral to the set B, then the set A cannot also include the set B.

I think we need to pick a winner on this one, and stick with it.

Ordinary Person (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The dog is a subspecies of the gray wolf, the reason for the problem here is probably that many consider the dog to be descended from the wolf but also a different species. I corrected that, but I'm not sure whether I got all the misinformations. Someone has to look for that because I'm to busy right now working on the dingo-article.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ordinary Person, there is no contradiction. A subspecies does not mean a subset of a species; this isn't set theory. It is a taxonomic rank. A subspecies is a diverged population of a particular species. Thus the species and the subspecies must share a common ancestor. When one writes that "the domestic dog and the gray wolf share an ancestor," one is hedging their bets. That is, it is possible that there was a 3rd species, yet undiscovered--and ancient form of the wolf--from which both dogs and wolves evolved. But that possibility isn't given that much credence. Wolves are believed to have been relatively stable over the last 100,000 years, so people often simply say that the Wolf is the ancestor of the dog. If dogs are a subspecies of Wolf, then they wolves had to be their ancestors.--Thesoxlost (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"A subspecies does not mean a subset of a species; this isn't set theory. It is a taxonomic rank." Taxonomy, though, has a few things in common with set theory. Subspecies is the taxonomic rank below species. Members of a subspecies of a particular species are necessarily also members of that species. Although the domestic dog is not part of the nominate subspecies of the species Gray Wolf, they are members of the species Canis lupis. If we are going to say that Gray Wolf = Canis lupus, then the domestic dog is a Gray Wolf, it is meaningless to say that the dog descended from the Gray Wolf. If we are, instead, going to say that Gray Wolf is merely the nominate suspecies of the species Canis lupus (e.g. Canis lupus lupus), whereas the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is another subspecies, then it could makes sense to say that the domestic dog is descended from the Gray Wolf (though whether it is actually true would remain open to discussion).

Right now the two articles combined say, in effect, that the domestic dog is descended from a species to which it still belongs.Ordinary Person (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I think that's what I'd like to see: the Gray Wolf article to be about Canis lupus lupus, the Domestic Dog article to be about Canis lupus familiaris, a separate (perhaps brief) article about Canis lupus. Then we can say that the domestic dog is considered a subspecies of Canis lupus, AND say that it is thought to be descended from the Gray Wolf, without contradiction.Ordinary Person (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Species and subspecies are funny things, and they don't work as reasonably or logically as you are assuming they do. The article for subspecies states explicitly, "In layman's terms, a subspecies may also be described as a diversification of the primary species since a subspecies always has the nominate form or primary species as its common ancestor, i.e. it always originates from a common ancestral stock." Thus, the domestic dog is, nominally of the species canis lupus (i.e., it is a "gray wolf" by species), it also descended from grey wolves. It is not possible for a subspecies to have descended from anything but the species which it is, nominally, still a member of.

I'm not sure what your complaint is. Originally, you argued that there was a contradiction. That "being descended from" and "being a subspecies of" are mutually independent. Clearly this is not the case. In your post above, you say "It is meaningless to say that the dog descended from the Grey Wolf." I suppose I would agree that it is redundant; if it is a subspecies, it is by definition descended from the primary species. But meaningless?

Also, canis lupus lupus is a term that is out of date. It was coined by Linnaeus, and has been abandoned. The current valid taxonomic terms are "canis lupus" and "canis lupus familiaris". See [4]. --Thesoxlost (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience and that information, Thesoxlost. It might well be that my notions are simply out of date and the information that Canis lupus lupus is not part of the current taxonomy is perhaps crucial.

Note, though, that Canis lupus lupus is mentioned in various WP articles still: notably the subspecies article, where it is presented as the nominate subspecies of Canis lupus. Canis lupus familiaris, then, would (under my previous (mis)understanding) have been a subspecies defined by comparison to that nominate subspecies: both Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus lupus would be considered members of Canis lupus, and hence any extant individuals of the species could be said to be in one subspecies or another: under this view, it would make no more sense to say Canis lupus familiaris is descended from Canis lupus than to say the budgerigar is descended from the chordates. But if what you say is true, I can see that subspecies doesn't bear the same relationship to species as, for instance, subfamily does to family. I'll read up a bit more before I come back.

Another place where Canis lupus lupus is still mentioned is in the Eurasian Wolf article.

Thanks again for your help.

Ordinary Person (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like I'm wrong. Canis lupus lupus was coined by Linnaeus, and I thought that most of his classification of wolves was out of date, but that doesn't appear to be the case. I guess the critical question is this: are there wolves that belong to canis lupus, but to no subspecies? My understanding was that the answer was yes. So when we say the dog is descended from canis lupus, we don't mean canis lupus lupus; we mean canis lupus. If I'm wrong about that, I'd completely reconsider. --Thesoxlost (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're both wrong and right. The dog is descended from Canis lupus, but then Canis lupus lupus is also descended. I think the problem might be, that the grey wolf article might not encompass the whole grey wolf species. The best would probably if the article gives as much information about the species as needed but as short as possible and than points to the articles of every subspecies. I know it already does but not good enough it seems.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Most subspecies of wolf are only marginally different from the rest. One species is on average a little bigger. Another has slightly different coloration. The vast majority of information on wolves is common to the entire species. The classification of wolves into subspecies is arbitrary, much like breeds only the list is kept by scientists. Subspecies pop into and out of existence as one scientist notices a subtle regional difference in one population, and then another speculates that the subtle difference is due to the hybridization. This is common. Genetic variation amongst organisms is continuous. Where do you draw the line between categories? Its easy to say there is a line between giraffes and wolves, but as you start looking closer and the very subtle differences between organisms, scientists have far less confidence that they are cleaving nature at its joints. When you get down to the level of the subspecies, the classifications become relatively arbitrary and the utility of those classifications becomes questionable. Emphasizing them is counter-productive. --Thesoxlost (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The line? How about different relative brain size, vocalization and social behaviour? According to Helmut Hemmer the arabian and iranian wolves have 15 % lower brain size than for instance middle european wolves.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Image needed for Dog section

As the section is quite extensive, I feel it would be appropriate to perhaps add a photograph, or a sketch comparing dog and wolf physiology (eg, a wolf/dog standing side by side, or a skull comparison). If anyone here has the resources to do so, please consider it.Mariomassone (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I recommand not to do it since there are so many differentr shaped dogs, that it would have no use here.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be good if the dog in question was a wolfish looking breed like a husky or malamute. That way, one can see that these northern dogs are not simply carbon copies of wolves. Or maybe a primitive pariah breed like the dingo, whose appearance is the result of natural selection, unlike most other dog breeds.Mariomassone (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a very good idea. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, it would be best if you make a picture of at least three or four photos, which represent (roughly of course) the variability of the dogs. Take the best known examples, like, the chihuahua, the great dane, the english bulldog and the siberian husky or a dingo. I think a picture of a mixed breed would be of use too.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Lack of sweat glands on paws? Where in Coppinger's book ?

I just started with Coppingers book and there was something very strange when compared with this article. In the article it was stated that: Unlike dogs and coyotes, gray wolves lack sweat glands on their paw pads. This trait is also present in Eastern Canadian Coyotes which have been shown to have recent wolf ancestry. and the referenced source was Coppinger, Ray (2001). Dogs: a Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior and Evolution. pp. p352. ISBN 0684855305.

Well I just started with the book and in the foreword it was stated that dogs and western coyotes just have a higher density of those sweat glands than wolves, not that wolves lack them. Saidly I can't just turn to the referenced page 352 because I have the german translation, so could someobody tell me in which chapter that page is so I can check whether the contradiction is based on the writer or on the book?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going back to my homecountry on friday. I will check out the reference then.Mariomassone (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Good, I just started the book, so it would take a while for me. And to be honest if it stays that way it is written now, the whole thing's probably not gonna end well. I found several things in there which certainly are not consistend with observed facts. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is what I found;

Preface, P.15; "We designed an experiment comparing footpad sweating of siberian huskies, coyotes and wolves and found out that the domesticated canines and western coyotes had a greater density of of sweat glands in their pads than wolves and eastern coyotes."

Chapter 5, The Physical conformation of a breed, P.173; "Dogs and coyotes sweat through their footpads. None of the wolves I tested could."Mariomassone (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's consistent with my findings. So the sentence was not correct and the book itself is contradictory. To be honest, the book is pretty much crap. To find the wright information in it you got to have enough experience in the subject and such a person would not need this book. It was full of contradictions and it's questionable how good the author questioned his own theories. All in all, that book can't be classified as a reliable source. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont see much of a contradiction. The latter paragraph states that wolves dont sweat through their pawpads, it does not say that sweat glands are absent. Maybe this is simply a side effect of having fewer sweat glands than dogs. Humans themselves have redundant appendixes and tailbones. Perhaps the wolf's sweat glands are vestigial.Mariomassone (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Coppinger mentions having actually performed an experiment on this. Perhaps someone else has done the same thing. Maybe you could find a better source? I just think it is wasteful to get rid of such information. Crap or not, Coppinger's statement cannot be completely without basis.Mariomassone (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Raised importance rating

[5] An attempt is made to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.[6]SriMesh | talk 03:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Alaska is not in Canada

{{editsemiprotected}} In "Though rarely encountered, extreme specimens of more than 77 kg (170 lb.) have been recorded in Alaska, Canada[7]" please change to "Though rarely encountered, extreme specimens of more than 77 kg (170 lb.) have been recorded in Alaska, USA[7]". Not sure if the reference still stands, but we all know Alaska is not part of Canada

Done Note: The source was talking about Alaska AND Canada, not Alaska alone. I have changed the passage to "Alaska and Canada" not "Alaska, USA."

If you had read the entire sentence, you'd see it stated "Alaska, Canada and the former soviet union". Canada is simply part of the list of places. It would not be grammatically correct for the sentence to say "Alaska and Canada and the former Soviet Union".Mariomassone (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

For culture part

In mythology Graywolfs are the symbols of Turks. In the epic of Ergenekon when they were stuck a graywolf came and lead the way also in some other Turkish epics graywolfs are always been the helper.Another reason for graywolf to be Turks symbol is because they're independent. ın past lots of Turkish countries used graywolf's head in their flags as a symbol and yet still in some of Turkish countries the graywolf is still the symbol in the flag for independence and for power to lead the way, the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.230.187.239 (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional Sources

Walker, Brett L. The Lost Wolves of Japan. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005.

Wozencraft, W. C. “Wolves.” Mammal Species of the World (3rd edition ed.). ” Wilson, D. E. and Reeder, D. M. (eds). 3rd edition. Johns Hopkins University Press. 16 November 2005.

Bright, Michael. Beasts of the Field: The Revealing Natural History of Animals in the Bible. London: Robson, 2006.

Lopez, Barry Holstun. Of Wolves and Men. New York: Scribner Classics, 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.246.93.243 (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

harmed?

How are these animals harmed, I'm confused? And what are we doing to stop it. These poor creatures are endangered and all we're doing is making it worse. It's sad when an amazing, independent creature like the grey wolf might not be around for our kids' kids. So what are we doing about it!

- kt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.30.244 (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

harmed?

I must agree, for as you must know,due to my name, I LOVE Wolves more than any other animal, so yes, they should be protected. Well done Sir!!! (Wolf3297 (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Wolves in Estonia

I linked to this article from Wildlife of Estonia which states that there is a population of wolves living in Estonia. How come Estonia is not green on the map? Either the article on Estonia is wrong, or the map is. 86.132.52.26 (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The map needs updating.Mariomassone (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wolf Howl

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

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

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

Is this a joke??

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

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

No, it is not a joke, it is political propaganda. One could easily list the same thing as the diet for humans, just because isolated cases exist of cannibalism. It should be removed and the user who added it disable from editing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.47.107 (talk) 05:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see extensive discussion above under #Predation on humans, which showed conclusively that predation does occur or has occurred regularly in some areas. Not political, merely dispassionate, and in fact excluding this material would itself violate WP:NPOV. Richard New Forest (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Unproven facts

{{editsemiprotected}}

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

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

Thank-you.

The proof that evolution is real is overwhelming. Also a majority of Catholics (who are Christians) believe in evolution.

In fact, most Catholics are Christians who believe that God designed the universe to evolve.

A majority of Catholics also believe that Genesis is metaphorical and not literal.

It is only in insecure and easily-threatened back-country Christian Churches that the concept of evolution is feared--

(Due actually to a weak faith, ignorance and lack of intellectual confidence.)

Some of these back-country Churches have spread to larger cities, but they retain their backwoods ignorance and superstitious fears of the modern world.

In fact-- There is no conflict between Christianity and believing in evolution. Whatsoever.

69.171.160.182 (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe that they test how much the carbon has degraded in the soil to see how old something is. IceBlade710 (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Move?

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I edited the WP:MAM wording to better frame the common/proper noun debate. The whole point is not everyone agrees. As one writer put it: "To me a Lincoln's Sparrow is just as much a particular thing [proper noun] as a Lincoln Continental."[7] Hence the debate. Marskell (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Why is the conservation status "least concern"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spain's wolf population is estimated at 2000 and growing

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

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

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

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

Scandinavia has a population of over 200 wolves

Finland has a stable population of 116-123 wolves

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

Estonia has a quite stable wolf population of around 200

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

Latvia has an unprotected, yet stable population of 900 wolves

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

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

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

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

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

Croatia has a population of 100-150 wolves and increasing

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

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

Hungary has a stable population of 50 wolves which are protected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gray Wolves

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

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

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

Science

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

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

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

Gray Wolf and Timber wolf

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

subspecies

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

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

More evidence that the link to Subspecies of Canis lupus needs to be made more prominent in the article so that more readers will notice it. Chrisrus (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is lacking in the article and definitely needs adding, and links incorporated to any pages that exist for the subspeices... i know there is a "canis lupus rufus" page [which is missed off of the above list though... (?)] The addition would fit the set-out of the vast majority of animal pages to have the sub-species listed. Wuku (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Who exactly is "building" wolves?

Resolved

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

I can't think of a better wording. What would you suggest? To answer your question, natural selection builds wolves.

Why would you even ask such a stupid question? When you say, "Wolves are built for stamina," you say that the build of the wolf has been developed by evolution to have as much stamina as possible. Why would someone take anything so literally?!

Μαστ3ρλινκ-εξ (Ινβάξ|Μαι Έντιτς, ετσέτρα) posted this message on Friday, March 26^th, 2010 at 6:42 PM (EST).

Canid timeline

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

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

Common ancestry - more detail please

The article says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skip "gray" in the title

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

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

And we do not just call the Gray wolf "Gray Wolf" , it is also known as "Timber Wolf" and "Artic Wolf" . . . about Tiger's, it's not really on topic so I won't go there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.196.132 (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I can understand Buggwiki's thoughts. I'm not sure if I agree with the skip-gray-thing, but by reading on Wikipedia, it's difficult to know which canids which I can see as wolves. I think that we all agree that all canids (or "canins") are not wolves, like all the foxes for example. In reality, I can not enough about these dog animals, but if you ask me, I feel that the only logical solution is to let "wolf" be the english word of the binomial name Canis (or maybe even the tribe canini) and ignore that some animal names include "wolf" and some don't - I mean, these animals are not the only ones with misleading names. If not, I'm afraid that Buggwiki's right about that only Canis lupus are real wolves and have no reason to be called "gray wolves" like they are not the only ones. I feels very strange for me that "wolf" is a term of every animals with that namne, but if anyone of you can refer to some source, it would be the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.202.76 (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem nitpicky, but how is the red wolf not a 'true' wolf? And to maybe help answer your question, the most commonly thought-of wolf species is the Gray Wolf in many areas. People can check the subspecies list for other ones. 24.85.47.37 (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Griffin

why is "Wolf" capitalized?

in the title? Nergaal (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's for disambiguation. A "Gray Wolf" is a member of this species; a "gray wolf" is a wolf that happens to be gray. Whether Wikipedia should use this style has been debated many times and no clear consensus has been reached.` See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Bird_names_and_article_titles for some links to past discussions. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Keystone Species

"Wolves are not a keystone species, as they are not essential for the presence or survival of other species.[87]" The last sentence before the heading "Interspecific predatory relationships"

The reference is not accessible so I don't know what it says, but the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and many scientific journals ranging from BioScience to Ecological Applications say they are a keystone species.

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A00D

According to Professor Paine who first introduced the keystone species concept "a keystone species is one whose impacts on its community or ecosystem are large and greater than would be expected from its relative abundance or total biomass". It does not mean that other species depend on them for "presence or survival".

http://www.washington.edu/research/pathbreakers/1969g.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.101.16 (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The full reference itself is inaccessible, though here is a snapshot. It was written by both David L Mech and Luigi Boitani.

http://books.google.com/books?q=wolves+not+keystone+species

The link didn't work for me, Mariomassone. It might detect where the viewer is located.

It's clear from both the discussion above and from Wikipedia's article Keystone species that there's no consensus on what the term means. In any case, the sentence the IP above quoted doesn't seem to tell us anything we wouldn't already expect of an apex predator. Would anyone object to me simply removing that sentence?

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've managed to scan the specified reference from my library: http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/5295/wolfkeystone.jpg Mariomassone (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah – what the source says is slightly different to what Wikipedia's article says: "Wolves are not a keystone species... in that they are not essential for the presence of many other species" (emphasis added). The author is clarifying which meaning of "keystone species" wolves do not meet. In contrast, the first source linked by the IP above uses a different definition of "keystone species" that wolves do meet. I'm still seeing the concept of a keystone species as being more troublesome than it's worth. How about changing the sentence to "Wolves are not essential for the presence of many other species.[ref]"? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There didn't seem to be any opposition, so I made the change I suggested above. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Subspecies?

Isn't the subspecies of the "gray wolf" "canis lupus lupus"?IceBlade710 (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

See Subspecies of Canis Lupus.

Predation on humans

Eating and attacking humans are NOT dietary HABITS of wolves. They are exceptions. There are human canibals, but we would probably not write that eating other humans is a dietary HABIT of humans. An exception is an exception - NOT a HABIT. Wolf haters should try to understand the difference and not using WIkipedia to spread their paranoia and propaganda. That part should be under "Attacks on Humans". I'm ready to erase this until Wikipedia locks this article. Joe hill (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look a little further down the article you'll find a whole section on predation on humans (Wolf#Attacks on humans) and indeed there is a whole article (Wolf attacks on humans) on the subject. This is well reffed material, and there is no doubt that wolf attacks have occurred or do occur in some parts of the range of the species – though in other parts of the range and at other times they are virtually unknown. We can't leave it out just because we don't like it; including it does not mean anyone is a "wolf hater". This material is presented in a balanced, unemotional and neutral way, and is clearly not "paranoia and propaganda". WP is an encyclopaedia, not an advertising site for the good nature of the wolf. We must report facts as they are known, even if these are sometimes uncomfortable.

The "habits" in the heading is unnecessary, so I've changed it to just "diet". Richard New Forest (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted again, since there is a pretty big difference between "preyed upon" and "attacked", IMHO. Wolves have not preyed upon humans, they have attacked them in various situations, nearly all of them not having anything at all to do with the diet of wolves. Thus, the mention of attacks on humans should not be in a section about the diet of wolves. --Conti|✉ 16:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You clearly have not even read the sources provided. Allow me to do the work for you:

Child lifting: Wolves in Hazaribagh India: Describes both old and new incidences of wolves carrying off and eating hundreds of children in Indian villages. http://www.mexicanwolf.0catch.com/Human%20Toll%20articles/e-liite%202%20Hazaribagh%20wolves.pdf

The Danger of Wolves to Humans: A chapter of a book describing how certain wolves from the 1940s onward in several areas of Russia became habitual man-eaters. http://wolfcrossing.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/appendix-a-pavlov.pdf

Living with Death in the 1700s Describes how wolves in central Italy killed and ate many people, and that those who recorded the attacks could distinguish between rabid and healthy wolves. http://www.skinnymoose.com/wolfattacksitaly.pdf

Historical data on the presence of the wolf and cases of maneating in central Padania Same topic as above, only more detailed. http://wolfcrossing.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/historical-data-on-the-presence-of-the-wolf-and-cases-of-man.pdf

Mariomassone (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No more reversion please until consensus reached: leave article as it was. We must avoid edit warring. Richard New Forest (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's always Mikhail Pavlov that pops up. And then old stories that can't be substantiated. About wolves in India you already have the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Wolf so let's talk about the Indian Wolf there. A section about Wolf attacks is relevant. Writing about humans as a part of wolves diet is not. That's just some persons using Wikipedia for their political agenda. I want more and much better sources from several scientists, not just one, before I change my mind. Joe hill (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't continue to revert. Discussion here, reach consensus, then change the article if appropriate.

Joe Hill, you are accusing others of having a political agenda, but your own tone doesn't sound very balanced. I certainly have no agenda whatever other than trying to get at the facts, and I take great exception to being accused of having one.

You seem to have issues with the references given. Well, lets discuss those: if they do turn out to be too poor to support the statement, then that is the time to remove it. You will not convince anyone else just by insisting that you don't believe it. In the meanwhile I have marked the section as being in dispute: please now leave it as it is until consensus is reached. Richard New Forest (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My tone is annoyed since you use this page to spread views that have very little support among people studying wolves. So far all you've managed to present in your support is Mikhail Pavlov, a man that pops up on every wolf hating page on the internet. You also refer to a book that he has written. I would like to see a scientific study and read comments from other scientists on that study. As far as I know Mikhail Pavlov is pretty lonely promoting those views. We also have the "Attacks on humans" section where comments like yours ought to be since humans usually not are a part of the GREY WOLF's diet. I need to take a closer look on the situation in India and the INDIAN WOLF. But please keep your stories about India in the article about the Indian Wolf. Joe hill (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

All I want is that this article reflects a scientific consensus and not the views of one or two scientists and just as many who aren't even that which is the case right now. Joe hill (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of their reliability, all the sources solely referring to the Indian Wolf should clearly be removed from this article and moved to Indian Wolf instead, for (hopefully) obvious reasons. --Conti|✉ 17:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Indian wolf's supposed separateness as a species has not been accepted by mainstream taxonomists. Canis indica (as some laypeople like to call it) is noteably absent from the Mammal Species of the World taxonomy list on canids. http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?id=14000691

The Indian wolf is therefore still valid in this article.Mariomassone (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point: we generally use MSW3 for WP mammal taxonomy. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Then the article about the "Indian wolf" ought to be removed... Joe hill (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

All I want is that this article reflects a scientific consensus and not the views of one or two scientists and just as many who aren't even that which is the case right now.

Historical documents such as those are extremely relevant, as many of the facts listed in them are directly corroborated by the Child Lifting in Hazaribagh India document, which is the most recent example. Significant is the recurring theme that attacks by non-rabid wolves occur in the summer period:

From Child Lifting Wolves in Hazaribagh, India p.3- "Most incidences occurred in March to August; i.e. summer and rainy seasons" p-5 "..in this study, most children were attacked and taken during Match to August; i.e. in summer and the rainy seasons. This pattern could be due to i) the availability of natural prey; ii) evening fires during winter frightening wolves, or fewer children venturing out to play in the open during winter.

From Historical data on the presence of the wolf and cases of maneating in central Padania p.7-Figure 4 illustrates the monthly distribution of the attacks and shows a peak in the June-July period in which 45% of the attacks are concentrated, of a total of 377 events for which it has been possible to find the month of the incident. This seasonal peak can probably be attributed to two contributory causes: the birth of cubs, therefore resulting in a greater necessity for protein intake, and a simultaneous arrival of livestock to areas of pasture, which represented an easily accessible and largely available source of food.

If you look at Page 72 here, you can see that similair conclusions have been come to by historians from Holland and Estonia. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gTqYP9mSyoYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hunter+hunted+kruuk&lr=&as_brr=3&ei=CslMS7j7OpOCzATr_PHoCw&cd=1#v=onepage&q=wolves&f=false

From Hunter and Hunted: Relationships between carnivores and people p.72- These figures indicate a striking peak in late summer, just as for wolf predation in Holland. Rootsi gives two reasons for this peak. Firstly, children are outside in summer, playing or helping their parents on the land, and secondly and most importantly, it is the time of year when the she-wolf has to provide for cubs, the time of highest energy requirements.

Note that the above's conclusions are identical to those independently found in the Italian and Indian documents. Attacks by rabid wolves on the other hand are almost always shown to occur in winter years.

From Hunter and Hunted: Relationships between carnivores and people p.72- This seasonality in predation contrasts sharply with that of attacks on people by rabid wolves: in nineteenth century Estonia there were 82 of those, with 37% in spring, 24% in summer, 4% in autumn and 35% in winter.

The wolves in the Hazaribagh case were not rabid. From Child Lifting Wolves in Hazaribagh, India p.5- Dogs are known to transmit diseases to wolves. However, so far, no evidence exists on the role of the wolf as a source of rabies in India.

The attacks by non-rabid wolves in the summer period were almost invariably directed at children, who were clearly treated as prey items (not as enemies or rivals) when no intervention occurred. Again, all the relevant sources come to this conclusion independently of each other;

From Child Lifting Wolves in Hazaribagh, India p.3- In a few cases, wolves lifted the child from the mother's lap or from a courtyard p.4- The child, sometimes equal to the wolf's own body weight, is grabbed by the neck, waist, head, chest or thigh. Feeding takes place in remote areas as far as 1-2.5 km away from the village, as seen from the location of remnants and or clothes of the victim.

From Living with Death in the 1700s p.2- The victims are almost exclusively young shepherd boys; the scene of the tragedy is generally a field as the event never occurs in the vicinity of heavily populated areas. It always occurs during the fair season when livestock enters grazing zones and the wolves must feed their spring-born litters. The attack is directed at the neck or head and the victim is immediately dragged towards a place where it can be hidden; in this phase, the intervention of third parties, be it in the form of adults or bovines, causes the victim to be abandoned. Assuming the victim has not received particularly serious lesions, he/she recovers without any obvious symptom of rabies.

From Historical data on the presence of the wolf and cases of maneating in central Padania p.13- Focusing our attention instead on the other kind of attack, that with predatory purposes, we find that the wolf normally attacked the victim by the neck or head to drag it away. If the attack was not interrupted by third parties, the wolf would “take away” the prey, sometimes whilst it was still alive... For 26 cases it has been possible to find their ages: between 3 and 5 years- 2 boys. between 6 and 10 years- 0 boys and 2 girls. between 11 and 15 years- 6 boys and 6 girls

Also, it should be noted that several of the above documentations have been used as references by L. David Mech (America's most celebrated wolf biologist) in his Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation on the chapter on wolf attacks.

The reason we put these facts here is because they MATTER. Yes, it is extremely rare that wolves target humans as prey (which is already stated), however, it has happened many times, and in some parts of the world (i.e. India), is still going on. This is not a trivial issue. People should stop imposing North American realities on other countries. Wikipedia is meant to represent a global view.Mariomassone (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

All that looks sensible to me... Richard New Forest (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Historians are historians - not experts on wolves. And historical documents like the books you refer to rarely delivers "facts" - most of the time they deliver views or stories. And I think that it's important that we also add humans as potential dog food since there are plenty of lethal attacks on humans made by dogs. Joe hill (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Err, no actually, historians are the best people qualified to determine whether or not old documents are genuine or just stories. Furthermore, in this case, we have pretty much every historical document presented concurring on almost every detail (except for time and place) with a scientific study on wolf attacks on humans done by present day biologists.

Let me break it down for you: if the historical events I've posted are erroneous, then why is it that they present pretty much the same facts on how and when wolves attack people, and all explicitly stress the differences in behaviour of rabid or healthy wolves? If they were all false, then you'd expect them to contradict each other, but they don't, and they are all from different countries and from independent parties. The fact that the findings of these historians bare striking similarities with the Indian wolf document (which again, I stress was done in modern times and by biologists) makes them even more compelling.Mariomassone (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Then the article about the "Indian wolf" ought to be removed..."

No, it just needs revising (which it already has).Mariomassone (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Carrion feeding on battlefields

I recall reading somewhere that in Europe in mediaeval times large numbers of wolves would eat the corpses left after battles. Are there any good refs for this? I see that the red wolf is recorded as doing it in North America (Wolf attacks on humans#North America), but I can't find any other material on it. Richard New Forest (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wolves in the British Isles article mentions how the celts buried their dead on small islands, as burials in the mainland would have been desecrated by wolves. Incidences of wolves eating battlefield corpses are mentioned in the Wales section.Mariomassone (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about medieval times so, of course, there are no good refs. And I hope you wont write that crows, eagles, foxes, rats, flies and other scavangers have human flesh as part of their diet. Joe hill (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

More Review of Hunting Strategies Please

The article makes a few statements I'm fairly sure are flatout false, however I'd prefer to have an expert on the subject confirm or deny. They particularly irked me because they imply a lack of predatory intelligence that deeply misconstrues the qualities and habits of the animal. In no particular order:

"Unlike lion prides, wolf packs numbering above 2 individuals show little strategic cooperation in hunting large prey." I've read numerous accounts of wolf packs demonstrating a planned hunting strategy hours if not days ahead of time and executing flanking and ambush tactics. Can someone confirm this, i.e. with direct evidence in documentary or peer review writing?

The pic attached to this article named "Wolves baiting a bison" seems to show quite organized stand-off tactics, and the amount of blood on both of the paws of the wolf at the bottom, which appears to be the bison's (don't see what kind of injury could make it the wolf's), suggests that the tactics are working. The two big individuals in front of the bison are distracting it, the other big individual seems to have already scored his hit, and the three smaller wolves are surrounding the bison to attack from positions of less risk. Looks like pretty solid strategic planning and highly organized tactics to me! Aadieu (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretation is not direct evidence in documentary or peer review writing. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"Though commonly portrayed as targeting solely sick or infirm animals,[33] there is little evidence that they actively limit themselves to such targets." Incorrect and needs to be changed. I have seen several video recordings of wild wolves keeping a herd in a holding pattern and carefully herding out a young, say bison, killing it, and leaving the adults alone. While this may not be a universal tactic of all wolves, it is certainly one practiced by some packs.

"Female wolves tend to be better at chasing prey than males, while the latter are more adept at wrestling large prey to the ground once it is caught" Could be true, but smacks of a sexual anthropomorphism to me. Citation required.

Hardly. Lighter individuals are almost universally faster in any species, while heavy males in sexually dimorphic species pack the strongest punch. Aadieu (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's all, have at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.65.193 (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is nearly entirely incorrect. Firstly, to say that wolfpacks do not hunt cooperatively as frequently as lionnesses is entirely dependant on the location of the wolfpacks.

The first part of this article is nearly entirely incorrect. Firstly, to say that wolf packs do not hunt cooperatively as frequently as lionesses is entirely dependent on the location of the wolf packs. In Yellowstone and lower Canada wolves are nearly exclusively pack hunters, less so, for example, in Alaska or Minnesota.

It must also be stipulated that what may seem to be a hunt, may simply be a recon mission. Wolves often test their prey long before the actual hunt (often appears to be a hunt), they may even do so when not hungry. True hunts often well exceed the 1-2 km (0.62-1.3 mi) as suggested as a “limit” to a wolf's hunt.

The statement of one wolf was recorded to chase a deer for 21 km (13 mi) is also incorrect. It wasn't one wolf, it was an entire pack and it was a full grown adult male elk and the entire hunt took place during a whiteout (severe snow blizzard). I have seen the footage of this hunt in its entirety. Overall, wolves hunt with far more intricate strategies than any lion pride or other pack hunters. It's often referred to as military precision. In Canada a pack of wolves was filmed hunting a large herd of caribou (exceeding 200). From its initiation one wolf sunk itself down into a snowbank and disappeared while the rest of the pack continually dissected the herd for more than 40 minutes until it finally dwindled their prospective prey down to 3 where it then directed the hunt into the path of the waiting wolf that had sunk itself into a snowbank. This was clear, concise proof of an intricate “planning” and length of a wolf pack's hunt (this hunt far exceeded 10 square miles). Again, I have seen this footage in its entirety.

Lastly, in the northern regions of Yellowstone many packs are now switching their main prey from elk to bison as they have “relearned the art of hunting bison”. This is further evidence of strict pack hunting.

Hertz figures for growling

Resolved

I've changed the range of frequencies of wolf growls from 250–1,500 hz to 25–150 hz. See piano key frequencies; 250 hz is a touch above the B below Middle C, and I can't imagine anything growling at that frequency. A growl at 1,500 hz would probably sound something like a glass harmonica. A range from 25 to 150 hz sounds sensible to me. Graham87 14:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that's obviously too high, but someone seems to have changed it back. I also agree that 25-150 is probably about right, but we ought to find a real source. The source that's cited seems unavailable, and isn't in English, which is inconvenient for the English article. I've no idea how to proceed. I'd like to at least flag the data as inaccurate somehow. -- Bilbo1507 (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect information shouldn't be flagged, it should be removed outright, which I've done. Better to have no information than incorrect information. Meanwhile, Google gave me a tiny snippet of an article I can't access from home, which seemed to give a figure of 380–450 Hz. I don't want to add this without confirmation at the full source, though. The source is available via http://www.jstor.org/pss/3503924. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 17:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I accessed the source from uni, all was well, and I updated the article ([8]). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Distinguishing characteristics from dogs

What is the source for that part of the article? It states that wolves differ from dogs in their yellow eye-color. That is definitely false, since there are dogs with yellow-eyes. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair point; but I have no idea of the source. Rewriting it to include a more definitive list may be the best option. 24.85.47.37 (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Griffin

Not as adaptable?

While the threashold of Wikipedia is not truth, but citability, the statement in the lead that grey wolves are less adaptable should be removed or revised. While I have no doubt someone citable said that, it is a lower adaptability to living with humans that would explain their present range better: their hisorical range was by far the widest of any canid species, leading to the obvious conclusion that they had been the most adaptable canid species of all until the humans came along. Also, the statement is obviously not true according to any standard unless the domestic dog is not a subspecies of the grey wolf, which the article and standard taxonomy say that it is. Chrisrus (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the map, there's almost no wolves in the US anymore?

I fail to see how this makes sense. The region maps list 96% of the lower United States completely eradicated of grey wolves. Then how do we have things like wolves in the midwest and wolves in the northwest being in endangered categories, or having wolves thriving, or in the case of my state, legal to hunt. How can you hunt or protect wolves if there are no wolves? Is the map this misleading or am I missing something? Extirpation means extermination. So, why is near every wolf in the states gone according to these maps? I was camping in western Oregon a few months back and we saw some wolves on the coast. I understand they're threatened to heck, but... completely exterminated? I don't quite get this region map. Teafico (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I suggest you google up a better map, get permission to use it here, and then replace this one with that one. Chrisrus (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the big problem is that no source is given for the information in the map. Without that it's no different from any other unreferenced piece of information on Wikipedia. TastyCakes (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggust that we use the ICUN range map since it is up-to-date for the current range of the gray wolf. Someone will need to find a historical range map from a reliable source.Coaster1983 (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a great map. One thing about it, though: why does it show the "extinct" range only of Japan? Canis lupus is just as extinct in New York or Scotland as it is in Japan. It's great at showing the present range, though. But I wish it wouldn't even try to show the "extinct" range at all if it's only going to show Japan. We should bring that problem to the attention of the ICUN. Maybe they'll fix it and appreciate us so much for pointing this out that they let us use it. Chrisrus (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a small map with low resolution you can't except it to pinpoint every single wolf on the planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.64.132 (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wolves' relation to dogs

I know this is highly anecdotal, but my city (Moscow, Russia) is unusually tolerant of stray dogs, and the following can be observed here: stray dogs form up in highly organized packs of perhaps 5 to 30 individuals, which after a couple of generations turn into one of two phenotypes, small and large, of uniform appearance throughout the city, with packs always one of the two, but never both. The large dog feral packs tend to exhibit typical wolf-like behaviours, as described here, and revert to a very wolf-like appearance, while the small dog ferals act very much like Californian coyotes. The simple fact that the entire city, with what city authorities estimate to be 300,000 ferals, reverts to two distinct phenotypes despite an obvious variety of breeds going stray, seems to suggest an organized pack structure with clearly defined breeding rights for alphas, as well as rejection of individuals deemed not up to the pack's par. The appearance of feral-born generations of the large-dog packs suggests that only the most powerful breeds of first-generation strays achieve reproductive success, and nearly all look like an oversized mix of German shepherd, Siberian Husky, and small bits of other large dog ancestry. They are almost all perky-eared, exceptionally huge (often larger than a K9 unit), gray and medium-short haired (a small minority of separate packs, which again do not intermix, are very long- and curly-haired, droopy-eared and even larger). These large feral, wolf-like packs almost always appear healthy, well-nourished, and behave exceptionally calmly and rarely if ever bark. They are very territorial, but rarely challenged by anyone or anything, and therefore not aggressive. The second pack type, small dogs massing perhaps five times less which quickly become uniformly dark and shorthaired, usually appear malnourished, unhealthy, nomadic, and are very loud and aggressive barkers. Now, this is hardly my field of expertise, but I'd say that shows dogs to be a mix of wolf and other canids, with packs of ferals selectively breeding and reverting toward the phenotype that dominates their genetic makeup, with large breeds turning very wolflike after going feral, and small breeds becoming something more akin to coyotes. Aadieu (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, highly anecdotal and totally irrelevant. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting theory. I suggest you get a grant or something and do some serious research and then get it published. Then we can find a place on Wikipedia where we can cite it. Chrisrus (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an awesome story. The idea that Moscow's dogs are reverting to a "wilder and less domesticated state" is supported by the article in the financial times (link, full ref as a hidden comment).

The same article also describes Moscow's dog population as being segregated into distinct niches, though the details differ from your account. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done. It could help here: Free-ranging urban dog. Chrisrus (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

problem with caption {{editsemiprotected}}

{{editsemiprotected}}

In the section Communication the second image is of a STUFFED wolf with a supposed look of fear. This just seems strange to me as I'm sure a picture of a wolf communicating should be of a live wolf. The image is: Grey Wolf 4.jpg Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samcreynolds (talk • contribs) 21:12, 6 March 2010

I'm looking for a pic of a live wolf to use...

Please request an edit when you have found the image you want. In addition, there is no need to display your email here--it may be found by spam robots, and you are reached by the talk page for your user account or IP address.  fetchcomms☛ 22:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

For your image requirements, try browsing commons:Category:Canis lupus.

If you come across a better picture to express a wolf showing fear, please suggest the replacement here - we can only edit pages if you specify exactly what to change.  Chzz  ►  22:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Behaviour, sources, etc.

Is it only my impression that the article is a bit of a mess? The social structure and diet sections mention a number of randomly selected behaviours, most of them from just one source (used only in order to mention them). It's mentioned wolf packs are essentially a nuclear family, and then that Asiatic and Middle Eastern wolves are less likely to socialise with members outside of their pack (without previous mention that it does, presumably, occur in other regions' wolves). The social structure section questions the assumption that hierarchy exists in wolves' natural environment, but then the diet section constantly references the hierarchy in hunting and food division (a behaviour occurring, obviously, only in the natural environment). Finally, I'm pretty sure I saw a number of documentaries where the alpha pair has been overthrown (killed or otherwise), in the wild.

And did any of you guys actually look through some of the sources? My favourite is the Outdoorsman article, used to support the claim that wolves rip animal fetuses out of living mothers. I'd spoil the details, but go ahead and check if the part is references is anywhere near a reliable citation (or if it even corresponds to the claim). --93.105.205.33 (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Eyesight

Wolves have eyesight inferior to that of humans and other canines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.84.226 (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

By daylight yes. However, wolves have the best night vision among canidae. It is mentioned in the upcoming re-writeMariomassone (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Social structure

This part could use some improvement:

In popular literature, wolf packs are often portrayed as strictly hierarchical social structures with a breeding "alpha" pair which climbs the social ladder through fighting, followed by subordinate "beta" wolves and a low ranking "omega" which bares the brunt of the pack's aggression.

This makes it seem as if the source is saying that wolf packs are not strictly hierarchical social structure with a breeding alpha pair followed by a beta, delta, etc, and an omega, while all it is saying is that in the wild, this structure is not always created by violence, but by the domination of the parents of their offspring from birth. Only if an outside wolf is introduced or if the alpha gets too old or some such to hang on to the rank, or some other such situation is there much violence, apparently, like what happens if you throw unrelated wolves together in captivity. So the "popular" conception is not debunked, but true except for the part about how the hierarchy is typically formed in the first place. Please check the source for the accuracy of my interpretation and if I seem to be right, edit accordingly. Chrisrus (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

re-write

Would it be possible to refrain from editing the article for the time being? I am in the process of completely re-writing the article, which is now practically done, and can be accessed on my userpage.

The main changes include an improved referencing system based on that present in the articles of historical figures. As an example of what I'm referring to, see the Stalin article's reference section. By listing the exact page numbers, it is my hope that verifiability of literary references is made all the more simpler. I like to think that this will set a new standard in wikipedia's animal articles.

As some users have already noted, the current article suffers from being a disjointed composition of random sources with conflicting information. Part of the article's improvements will be a greater usage of books such as Wolves: Behaviour, ecology and conservation by L. David Mech and Heptner's exhaustive Mammals of the Soviet Union. Books focusing on Russian and Indian wolves are included to give the article a more global perspective. It is wrong that wolf information should be limited to that occurring in western litterature.

As of now, I consider the article complete, though I shall wait until I get feedback or suggestions from other users before proceeding. Mariomassone (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 80.240.144.2, 9 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} There is a spelling error in the word "fromthis", it should be "from this". 80.240.144.2 (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Canis Lupus" and "Wolf" not the same

The term "Canis Lupus" is not just another way to say "wolf" because the word "wolf", unlike "canis lupus" does not refer to such "canis lupus" subspecies as the domestic dog, the dingo, and (maybe) the New Guinea Singing Dog. This article clearly is about wolves, not dogs. As such, the lead sentence needs to be reworded. Chrisrus (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

:I'll give some more time for someone to object before I change this. I will change it to words to the effect of "the word "wolf", and this article, refers to any subspecies of Canis Lupus other than Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo". Chrisrus (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Although officially, the English name for Canis Lupus is "Grey Wolf", the referent of this article is clearly not Canis lupus per se but rather Canis lupus minus the Domestic Dog. Look at the map, for example, or statements like wolves being less adaptable to life with humans, and many more. The referent is clearly not Canis lupus familiaris. I am not at all sure what should be done about this problem, but it seems to me that this article needs to explain that domestic dogs are Canis lupus, too, and therefore Gray Wolves, even though they are obviously not the referant of this article. Otherwise, it isn't really telling the truth about what the words "Canis lupus" and "Grey wolf" mean. Right now I imagine a sentence such as "Although the words 'gray wolf' and 'canis lupus' refer to domestic dogs as well as wolves..." Please help!Chrisrus (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see your point. How about a simple ".... is the most likely ancestor of the domestic dog, with which it shares the same binomial name."Mariomassone (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding! Given the fact that once again, the experts in their infalible wisdom, have seen fit to, in this, as far as I know, only case, refuse to assign the domestic and wild versions of this animal to two different species, (http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000738, in the comments, "Opinion 2027 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (March, 2003a) ruled that lupus is not invalid by virtue of being pre-dated by a name based on a domestic form") without even saying why, there is nothing we can do but to simply say exactly that in as upfront, clear, and thourogh a way as we can: there is a disconnect between the terms "canis lupus" and "gray wolf" on the one hand, and the word "wolf" and similar words in hundreds of other languages the world over, and naturally, in this article. The only other possiblitity I can imagine would be to do some kind of disambiguation page or umbrella article or some such in which the above is stated, stating that there are two definitions for "Canis lupus", the only one anyone actually ever uses on the one hand, and the one which is technically correct. Chrisrus (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not call this article simply "Wolf" or "Wolves"? The term "Gray Wolf" means "Canis lupus" and this article isn't about the taxon Canis lupus but rather only those which are wolves; it specifically excludes two subspecies of Canis lupus.

If its any help, I'm re-writing the page anyway, as well as giving it a new referencing system. As for naming, perhaps Canis lupus should have its own article, encompassing the wolf, dog and dingo, with the wolf article itself opening with "The grey wolf is a variant of Canis lupus" ??Mariomassone (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

When I say something like "...my brother (Matt), is..." you undersand that the referents of "my brother" and "Matt" is %100 the same. When you say "The Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)...", it the same apositive equation of referents. Can we change this to read something like "The Gray Wolf (all subspecies of Canis lupus except familiaris and dingo....)?? Or would you object? Chrisrus (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The example of Wild Horse

At Wild Horse they have a hat note at the top that says "This article is about the species Equus ferus, which includes both never-domesticated "wild" horse subspecies and the domesticated 'Equus ferus caballus. For "wild", meaning free-roaming horses descended from domesticated ancestry, see feral horse." It's not the best analogy, but it might help. Chrisrus (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomenclature

I think we need to clarify the names used. Most importantly, decide on grey or gray for the entire article and title. Personally, being British, I prefer grey - which is the dominant spelling in the article currently. However, given that Britain doesn't have any wild wolves but the USA and Canada do, gray may be more appropriate and this would also match the current page title. Next, we need to clarify common names and sub-species names. The IUCN lists Gray Wolf, Arctic Wolf, Common Wolf, Grey Wolf, Mexican Wolf, Plains Wolf, Timber Wolf and Tundra Wolf as common names for the whole species. These should at least be acknowledged somewhere in the article. Suitable redirects/disambiguations should be included as appropriate. I'm not sure about the subspecies, so if someone can clarify this it would be helpful.

TimKasoar (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines for gray vs grey are WP:RETAIN and WP:TIES, both of which align with your suggestion that gray is more appropriate (the article title has never been spelled with an e). There's also the question of capitalisation: Gray Wolf versus gray wolf. Given that any attempt to change the title is going to stir up more drama than it's worth (see above), and that there seems to be a weak consensus for capitalisation anyway, the text should be modified to use Gray Wolf throughout (except in quotes and in the titles of cited works). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)