This is an Arabian wolf (Canis lupus arabs). It is a wolf that is very similar to a dingo.
As regular readers of this blog know, I am generally opposed to splitting up species, unless a very, very good reason is given.
For example, I can see that coyotes, golden jackals, and wolves are different species. Although capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, these animals normally don’t hybridize. The evidence is clear that they split from common ancestors millions of years ago, and they maintain very clearly different ecological niches.
But when you start talking wolves and dogs, I see far fewer differences, especially when one considers how diverse wild wolves are and have been through their evolutionary history. It is intellectually dishonest and misleading to base all comparisons between wolves and dogs by using the big game hunting wolves from Alaska and Northern Canada as the wolf from which all analogies are made.
Those wolves are actually quite specialized– every bit as much specialized as a border collie, a golden retriever, or a pointer.
Keep mind that in the Middle East, there are very dog-like wolves. The subspecies is called Canis lupus arabs. Except for color, it very strongly resembles the dingo of Australia, which is often considered a “primitive” form of domestic. (I consider it a domestic dog that has fully returned to the pack-hunting wolf culture and ecological niche).
As has recently been revealed, dogs were originally domesticated in the Middle East, and it is likely that if we want to make comparisons, we should be looking at C. l. arabs, not all of these moose and muskox hunters. No serious authority considers C.l. arabs a distinct species, so I am not about to consider the validity of Canis familiaris.
It’s a silly name. The differences between dogs and any wolves are no more extreme than the differences between Eurasian wild boar and domestic pigs or between domestic cattle and the extinct aurochsen. We don’t consider domestic mallards to be different from wild ones, even though we have call ducks and Rouen ducks that are very different from the original wild form.
I think it’s just that we still have mental blocks about wolves that we cannot accept that they might be the same species as the creature with which we share our homes. A wolf is a wild thing that cannot be controlled, but a dog, well, a dog is something that can be controlled. It’s just a degenerate wolf that evolved to eat human feces and garbage.
There are certain arguments that need to be considered when thinking of where dogs and wolves fit together. Dog and wolf are not the same as wolf and coyote and wolf and golden jackal.
Dogs did not split from wolves millions of years ago. It was a much later split, and the split has not been complete. The black coloration in wolves has been traced to genes that originated in domestic dogs. I have found extensive historical records of dogs and wolves mating on the North American frontier. Essentially, without persecution to distort wolf behavior and genetics and without the presence of other domestic animals that require people to protect them from wolves, dogs and wolves are more than willing to get together.
But what about ecology? Don’t dogs and wolves have different ecological niches that make them separate species? That is also not a particularly convincing argument.
In the case of the dingo, these animals have returned to the wolf culture and ecological niche. They hunt large game in packs and act the top predator in their native country. Wolves in Italy might as well be dogs, because they live exactly as stray dogs do throughout the world. They don’t hunt much. Prey simply isn’t around, so they move into garbage dumps to find food. That is exactly the same ecological niche we see in most free-roaming domestic dogs.
Dogs and wolves are capable of adapting their cultures to the ecology of their particular situations. Within their genome is an ability to adapt their body types very to fit their particular situation. Wolves that hunt moose get very large. Their jaws become very powerful. Wolves that hunt mostly small game never develop those traits. Their jaws are weaker, and they learn how to forage on their own, as is the case in the aforementioned Arabian wolves.
We underestimate the ability of C. lupus to adapt its behavior and its physical traits at our own peril. It is something we cannot understand. We are not that physically different from each other, so we assume that other species are similar. It’s very hard for some to accept that Pekingeses and Arctic wolves are part of the same species.
It’s not very hard for me.
And when I think about it, I am even more deeply amazing at the species with which we share our lives.
What has been written above is an intellectual exercise. Taxonomic debates and analysis often are, and when we consider the exact taxonomy of the genus Canis, debate is automatically going to be in the offing.
But this debate has certain practical realities, which can actually harm conservation efforts.
Wolves are a good example. Not only are dogs often considered a separate species, but several wolves are considered distinct enough to have their own species status.
The red wolf is the most famous one. Too much has been written on that particular animal, so I’m not going to waste a lot of time on that one. I will say that I am of the view that it is the result of hybridization between C. lupus and Canis latrans. Some evidence suggests that this hybridization happened in recent times. However, there are theories that they represent an ancient hybrid or are some form of ancient wolf that evolved solely in North America.
I’m not going to go into this one, but I do know red wolves behave like C. lupus and not like coyotes. However, we are spending lots of time and money trying to keep red wolves from mating with coyotes.
Just out of tradition, I consider them to be part of C. lupus, along with C. lupus lycaon, the timber wolf or Eastern Canadian wolf. Some authorities believe that these animals are the result of hybridizaton between C. lupus and the coyote. Others consider them to be the northern population of the red wolf, if they also count the red wolf as a distinct species.
These are probably the best known wolves with undetermined taxonomy, but just a few years ago, it was decided that the Indian wolf (C.l. pallipes) and the Himalayan wolf (C. l. himalayensis) are also distinct species.
Considering these animals to be distinct species does have some practical political benefits. After all, it is easy to get people worked up about protecting a distinct species than a mere subspecies. Legally, it is called the Endangered Species Act, not the Endangered Species and Subspecies Act, although conservationists do try to preserve the distinct subspecies for a particular ecosystem.
And maybe that is a good thing that we can get attention focused on preserving a population of unique animals.
However, there are situations in which splitting up a species is nothing more than a good way to kill it.
I am reminded of the recent finding that has led some to count the northern white rhino as a distinct species from the southern white rhino. The southern white is a relatively healthy species. If a species of rhinoceros is going last through the next few centuries, it will be this one. The northern white rhino is extinct in the wild, and only a few individuals exist at the San Diego Wild Animal Park and a zoo in the Czech Republic.
(Four of the six Czech rhinos have since been sent to the Ol Pjejeta Conservancy in Kenya, where they could be very useful in preserving their species. I have not heard whether they will be allowed to interbreed with southern white rhinos or not. I hope that it at least gets considered. You can support Ol Pejeta’s efforts here. )
It could possibly be preserved through some cross-breeding, and such cross-breeding has been employed in the past. I believe the Przewalski’s horse was essentially save through the influx of some domestic horse blood. However, Przewalski’s horse is now regarded as a subspecies of the wild horse from which the domestic horse descends– even though it has a different chromosome number.
The reason why we spend so much money preserving red wolves from coyotes is that we can’t conserve hybrids. People also worry about dingoes crossing with Western domestic dogs all the the time. There is an obsession with trying to find and preserve pure dingoes.
In weird way, this strarts to resemble something else.
Something I’ve always believed was more than a bit detrimental to domestic animals.
It is this desire to have purity for purity’s sake.
If we decide that some animals are distinct species and can never be crossbred, then we’ve essentially doomed them to extinction.
Of course, there are legal reasons for doing so. Blood purity problems plagued some of introductions. When a study came out about the hybrid origins of the red wolf, various wolf haters called foul. That is one reason why the Ghost Ranch Mexican wolves were deemed unsuitable for reintroduction. The possible taint of their bloodline meant that the wolf haters would be empowered.
I know that conservationist are much more concered with genetic diversity than breeders of purebred domestic animals. That’s an obvious difference between the two groups.
However, it is possible that splitting up species because of some unique genetic characteristic could have disastrous genetic consequences.
I can see that possibility that all of this splitting actually winds up creating situations that are akin to breeds of domestic dog. That is something that species with very limited populations really don’t need.
And it would be worse than the situations that exist within the closed registry system in domestic dogs. It is one thing to breed a golden retriever to a poodle. It is quite another to breed two species together that we have decided must be distinct enough to be different species.
Evolution has never embraced blood purity. That is a human construct. Nature has shown us that time and again, species have evolved through the influx of genes from another.
Including ours.
Species often are able to adapt and develop sustainable gene pools when natural gene flows are allowed to happen.
Such an idea is very hard for people to understand.
We like clear differences between ideas and concepts.
But in nature things are often nuanced and gray. The stark differences we expect and need for our understanding often aren’t there. Things that look clear and distinct are actually quite smudged.
And when we try to create distinctions, we wind up with some real problems.
Our brains like distinctions, but the world is not as distinct as we like it.
How we answer these questions ultimately will affect how we create conservation strategies.
We can use the knowledge we have to preserve as much biodiversity as we can.
It may mean that we turn off that part in our brains that wants complete and total distinctions for the sake of preserving genetic diversity of certain species.
It does us no good to do to endangered species what we have done to our domestic animals.
It’s not good for our dogs, and it could be a killer for so many species.
This is a tendency that should be checked–or at the very least, kept in perspective.
Very interesting post. There has been recent debate about the coyotes in New England being wolf x western coyote hybrids. There have been DNA tests that be found at
http://easterncoyoteresearch.com/downloads/GeneticsOfEasternCoywolfFinalInPrint.pdf
Basically the results show that these coyotes are almost all hybrids. I know that some wish to call them coywolves because of this.
I’ve seen a lot of coyotes on hikes and runs and they are pretty large, about the size of a border collie. Its hard to say when you should call a wolf a wolf. I think it might make people more nervous of them to call them anything other than a coyote, which is foolish because it doesn’t change the animal.
I also read recently, but can’t seem to find the link, that humans and neaderthals may have hybridized in the past too. The article said that anyone of European or Asian ancestry has Neanderthal DNA.
Yes.
I didn’t want to get into that in that post, but there has been a gene flow in the coyote’s direction from wolves.
There are far fewer coydogs than one might suspect.
First, Retrieverman, let me say I LOVE discussing subjects like this(and have so few, rare outlets for it!), as they involve things I have long studied/researched–if only for my own personal interests. When I beg to differ about certain aspects, it is NOT to be arguementative, but out of a sense of “information dispersal” that I HOPE others will find interesting, too, and give another perspective that might need to be given on the subject. As in…..dogs degenerate wolves who evolved to eat human feces and garbage? Sounds like Coppinger has influenced you more than you realize! SOME DOGS–i. e. pariah-types–were developed this way, but I think the first dogs(wolves) probably ate very well, and not just scraps unwanted by humans–if dogs did develop from wolves hanging around and eventually assisting human big game hunters, it is logical to assume, I think, that they were fed very well to encourage them, and with all the big game being taken, there was a lot of meat to go around! So much so, with the megafauna being hunted then, that it is hard for people to imagine nowadays the surplus of protein that existed at the time, which is what encouraged the partnership in the first place(in my theorizing opinion….) It is only after HUMANS “degenerated” from hunters of big game to agricultural scratchers-in-the-earth that dogs also “degenerated” to weaker, smaller, domestic forms–but they ALREADY had a long history and association with humans before that, and I’m sure that as hunting partners, they were accorded much more respect and status in human society than later scavenging strays. And anywhere dogs continued to be used for specific tasks(sled dogs, herding dogs, hunting dogs, guard dogs, war dogs), they were accorded more care and consideration than village scavengers–i. e.–fed and cared for–so they certainly did not “evolve” as eaters of garbage and human feces, much as they still even today enjoy such treats!…..And dogs and wolves develop different niches? Yes, mostly–BUT, given the right circumstances, dogs will show amazingly wolflike social and hunting behaviour! I know because I’ve seen it! It is just that there are fewer and fewer places where this can develop like the time and place where I grew up. As a kid(a naturalist geek from birth) I kept tabs on a pack of totally feral dogs(most born and raised wild, with no previous human contact), and though they certainly took advantage of scavenging in a nearby landfill, they also hunted quite effectively as a pack for large animals(mostly domestics–including full grown cattle– alas, which got them severely persecuted by local farmers), and singly or in pairs for smaller game. It was VERY DIFFICULT to observe them–they were as wary as wolves! But what observations I was able to make over the years, I saw very wolflike social interactions, and they also dug dens to birth their pups in. The only blatant thing(other than physical appearance)that they differed from wolves, is that, as far as I could tell, the bitches got no help from any of the males in raising pups(though the females did regurgitate food to their pups–I kept several dens secretely under observation over the years)…..
….And we(human races) are not much different from one another? As an Anthropologist(well, that’s what my degree is in, anyway) I really must beg to differ! We humans show incredible physical diversity, every bit as much as subspecies of wolves! Look at one area in central Africa–Pygmies, incredibly tall Watutsi, and the more populous Bantu tribes–blatantly different types physically–all adapted to specific lifestyles originally. Look at the amazing adaptions of the Eskimos(Inuit) to life in the Arctic, and contrast them with the Bushmen(San) of the Kalahari desert–amazing diversity! This is visible in various human types all over the world, and often gets lost in everyone’s scramble to be politically correct–losing, alas, the fascination and uniqueness of the various human races–which I think is a shame! If narrow-minded humans just wouldn’t think THEIR type was “superior” to all others politically ….And I really MUST point out that your comment on John Varty’s “junk” tigers does not mesh very well with the comments in this blog about conservationists not getting so nit-picky about exact subspecies when trying to save endangerd species. In the case of tigers, this could not be more appropo, because ALL tiger subspecies are EXTREMELY endangerd–alas, our generation is very likely to see their extinction in the wild…….And I think that the Red Wolf restablishment efforts are not in vain, despite the “purists” wringing their hands over the swamping of the gene pool with coyotes–I think Nature is reinventing a wolf(large canid predator) to survive alongside human civilization, and a Red Wolf/Coyote/Timber wolf mixture, with the ability to morph genetically to whatever the circumstances, is just the thing to ensure their survival.
….not quite done with this post yet….I still do not accept that all black wolves are descended from dogs–I rarely or never automatically accept without question studies of this sort. It is only ONE study, based on a limited number of animals. Why, if a melanistic color phase is known to many animal species with no history of domestication, is it not possible for this to be a naturally occurring color phase of the wolf, as it is in foxes and numerous cats? If it is true, then that means ALL wolves in North America have domestic dog genetics, not just the black individuals–because the blacks/grays/whites all constantly interbreed with one another wherever they occur. How could, therefore, dog genetics show up in just the black animals in such a population? Wouldn’t the gray animals in the same population have the same “markers”? Have very isolated(from humans) populations with black wolves been tested? One reason we don’t have lots of wolf-dog hybrids running around, is because of wild wolves and domestic dogs(with only a few exceptions like Basenjis) having different breeding cycles(dogs every 6 months or so–wolves once a year in conjunction with the seasons), which, along with behavioural and other survival obstacles, make it difficult(but certainly not impossible) for fully domestic dogs and wolves to coordinate breeding, and then successfully raise the offspring in the wild. Ditto for coyotes. Dingoes, on the other hand ARE descended from domestic dogs originally, and generally live in an environment that does not restrict successful breeding to certain times of the year, so wild dingoes or crosses can successfully raise litters that in a Northern climate, would never survive. In areas where wolves are populous and doing well, dogs and wolf-dog hybrids also stand little chance of competeing against established packs of wolves, without the aid of humans(as wolves are VERY territorial, and kill interloping wolves on their territory regularly–dogs don’t stand a chance in those circumstances, as the wolves do regard dogs as territorial interlopers–in other words, they DO recognize dogs as creatures like themselves). If wolves in North America had dog genetics to any degree, we SHOULD see other more doglike characteristics pop up now and then, not JUST the black color phase. Black foxes are also not as common in Europe as they are in North America, and this has nothing to do with domestication. No doubt wolves and dogs crossbred regularly in this country, especially prior to the European invasion, when wolves were common and had regular access to free-ranging Indian dogs–BUT–the crosses ONLY survived long or successfully by living with humans. The feral dog pack I knew growing up lived in an area where there were no wolves, and coyotes had not yet colonized, or else I’m sure they could never have survived, and successfully reproduced and raised young…..And I must beg to differ, also, on the comment that dogs can be controlled, and wolves can’t(by humans)–in which I assume you mean trained to a degree where predictable results occur in response to commands. Wolves absolutely CAN be trained to quite a tractable level, and they can be taught basics like “sit”, “come”, and other obedience commands. I knew some people who taught some purebred wolves to jump through a hoop on command, just to show it could be done! My wolf hybrids participated readily in any hunting activity, and even retrieved fairly well. Perhaps not as REFINED or as high a percentage in dependability as SOME domestic dogs, but certainly acceptable, and I’m sure primitive hunters that partnered with wolves did not have the expectations that we, in modern times, have of our dogs now. Also, this is a blog sponsored by a RETRIEVER guy–the retriever breeds have to be the most tractable, trainable, mild tempered dogs out there! The ultimate in doggy domestication!!!! Try training some Siberian Huskies or Malamutes or Sighthounds to the same level of dependability for obeying commands as the retrievers are capable of giving, and you’ll likely get a whole different perspective on dog tractability! But these are all still identifiable as DOGS, not wolves, even if they have retained some wolflike independence and easily bored temperments! Wolves WERE “controlled”(trained and habituated to work and live with humans)–that’s why we now have dogs!
Yes. Actually that’s what it does mean.
It means there has always been a gene flow between wild and domestic C. lupus.
That study also included black coyotes and black Italian wolves, and the results were the same.
Black comes from domestic dogs.
I think that DNA studies often become a distraction. They are interesting and they offer insight into evolution of strains, but when it comes down to preserving the actual physical animal, they are of limited usefulness unless you are using them to maintain diversity and hardiness. Using DNA to divide small populations in yet smaller ones just guarantees that you will be preserving the species in little containers in a freezer, instead of having living animals.
Fascinating post. I know that Eastern coyotes have wolf genes, but never occurred to me to think that the wolves they’re mixing up with – the red wolves – are already a mix of coyote and wolf. Interesting idea.
Lane, Scotty.
Thanks for the education here. Very good read.
This is only tangentially related to the points being debated here, but I thought the folks posting here would think the science is neat. The researchers doing this study were interested in whether the mitochondrial DNA markers seen almost uniquely, but very frequently, in this population of assorted Arctic and Nordic dogs as well as wolves, was an indication of a separate, and more recent, domestication or of later hybridization after domestication. Plus, there’s an interesting paragraph at the end about possible trade in dogs between the Arctic, nomadic Saami and the Indo-Europeans is neat.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20497152
Wow.
What a find!
I’m never going to look at a Norwegian Elkhound the same way!
Science is so f@cking cool.
That is an awesome find.
And you guessed right that “norwegian elkhound” was what I’d been doing a google scholar search on, when I came across it ; )
This is the quote I thought was interesting:
” The high frequency of d1 haplotypes among Scandinavian dogs, therefore, warrants an alternative explanation. One possibility is that the offspring from the crossbreeding had a successful phenotype selected for by humans. If females descending from the crossbred litter were selected for during the first few generations, an increased frequency of d1 would be the result.
The sharing of the d1 haplotypes between the Lapphund
breeds associated with the non-Indo-European speaking and nomadic Sami and some hunting breeds connected to Indo- European speaking farmers (Table S1) is notable. Possibly, efficient hunting and herding dogs were items of trade between the two populations. The direction of this trade is not clear, but an origin of d1 among the Sami related breeds is indicated, as all these breeds have d1 haplotypes, while only some breeds linked to the Indo-Europeans have this haplotype (Table 1).”
For partly nomadic, non-agragrian communities to be purposefully breeding the two species with particular attributes, whether physique or personality in mind, is interesting and pretty sophisticated animal husbandry. It also lends credence to the argument that you often make that humans and wolves, especially in hunter gatherer societies, came in pretty frequent contact and that humans, at least, were pretty familiar with their behaviors.
I remember almost everyone who comments on here.