White-tipped tails are not uncommon in coyotes, and they may be endemic to the species. However, they could have received the white tips from cross-breeding with dogs. Other than coyotes, only the only wild dogs with white-tipped tails are red foxes and side striped jackals, both of which always have this feature.
The black coloration also has its roots in dogs, either directly inherited from crossbreeding with dogs and with interbreeding with wolves that inherited that gene from dogs.
Coyotes with black coloration are not all that rare, but as far as I know, they have been studied very little.
The source for this photo describes this coyote as mangey, rather than melanotic. Obviously, it could be both, but I,m wondering if it just looks dark due to mange. I would like to see a photo of a healthy specimen with this coloration,if you can find one! thanks for sharing, I learn much from your blog!
It describes it as both.
I don’t know if it is or not. Coyotes in summer pelts look quite moth-eaten.
Mangy coyotes are source for another urban legend:
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/chupacabra-mystery-monster-101029.html
Camera traps:
These specimens are not healthy, seeing as they’re dead, but they aren’t mangy:
If you click ‘source for image’ link, there are a number of photos.
There are ALWAYS exceptions–the only rule that always holds. Sometimes Red Foxes don’t have white-tipped tails–I’ve seen photos of them. And I still do not accept the wolves-and-coyotes-got-their-melanistic-color-phases-from-dogs-theory(as you already know!)–ONE experiment does NOT prove this unquestionably, and it seems only one experiment has been done so far–I’ll wait for more confirmation and peer reviews on this subject before I accept it….There are several things wrong already with the article link you provided(sorry, but I just can’t let it go!)–the first evidence of the mutation 45,000 years ago? There is no absolute proof there were even any DOGS(as distinct from wolves) that early–such dates for dogs are still very controversial.(It might be so, but it is not yet, and may never be PROVEN). Also the article states “some wolves”–that is rather vague, and doesn’t necessarily mean all wolves and coyotes. No black wolves in Europe and Asia(except dog hybrids in Italy?)–THAT is certainly inaccurate–they may not be as common as in North America(just as black Red Foxes are more common in North America than in Europe–but it has nothing to do with breeding with dogs), but they do occur–I’m reading a book about hunting in Russia right now, written in the 1800’s, that mentions black wolves in Siberia, and I have read other accounts of black wolves in Europe and Asia, especially in The Himalaya mountain region. And these guys aren’t finding evidence of recent interbreeding with dogs in North America?(as in historically as opposed to thousands of years ago as detected in their experiment)–we have just been discussing all the historical evidence of wolves crossing with Native and settler dogs in North America historically–why isn’t that showing up in their genetic experiments–that seems much more likely! And the mutation for black only showing up in North America 12 to 15000 years ago in North America? Whose to say that those animals were just barely tame wolves at that point anyway, not really very distinct from dogs yet? None of this is PROVEN, which is why it is rather pompous and jumping the gun for these guys with this ONE experiment to be saying all this like it was beyond any doubt. ANY so-called “scientists” that try to push a minimally experimented theory like this as PROVEN it is wise to be suspicious of. They make mistakes all the time. They tweak experiments to keep the funding coming. They often have over-inflated egos(and little common sense). I find it so improbable because melanistic color phases are so common in such a wide variety of species with zero history of domestication, that it seems silly to say wolves and coyotes ONLY got this color phase from dogs! Since dogs came from wolves anyway, where did THEY get black from, if it was not a genetic mutation possibility in wolves in the first place?
I believe it’s the Nile subspecies that doesn’t have a white tail tip as a rule and some of the south Asian subspecies do, too.
However, the study on the black wolves also was done on Italian wolves, where there are also black individuals. They got theirs from dogs, too.
So the one Siberia got its black coloration from dogs, too.
The evidence is pretty convincing on this one.
It’s pretty clear that there have always been gene flows between wild and domestic Canis lupus.
There is a chance there could have been black wolves in the population before the dog hybridization happened, but all modern black wolves have been traced to a mutation that happened in dogs, perhaps as early as 50,000 years ago, which would have been during the Camp Wolf stage of their domestication.
Of course, people always forget genes migrate. What was once there may be somewhere else now.
Problem is… timeline and actual prevalence of genetics doesn’t always line up.
If you look at the modern map of lactose tolerance, the lowest percentage tend to be southern Sweden. One would conclude the lactase gene evolved there. However if you actually look at the genetics study, the 7,500-years old gene originated closer to central Europe– where modern Serbia and Italy is. Now southern Europe has a high rate of lactose intolerance.
Dogs got their black genes from wolves, the black genes became extinct within the wolf population or migrated away from the wild populations, then the black genes was later reintroduced back into the wolf population. That’s the most logical explanation.
The timeline actually lines up perfectly.
The camp wolf stage of dog domestication happened around 60,000 years ago.
http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/camp-wolves/
The gene is the same in dogs, wolves, and coyotes, and it’s been found to be older in dogs than in wolves and coyotes.
This is a big genome-wide study. It’s not mere speculation.
I will have to ask a paleontologist if they consider “camp wolves,” wolves or dogs. Heh.
Camp wolves don’t appear a morphologically distinct in the fossil record, except for the Goyet cave dog:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27240370/ns/technology_and_science-science/
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/biologists-solve-mystery-about-80301.aspx
A camp wolf is not a wild wolf. A camp wolf is one of the intermediate stages between dog and wolf.
The reason why black wolves appear in North America may not be because the black color also works with the gene that makes wolves more resistant to infections.
The reason is that North American wolves were not widely persecuted and they were more comfortable hanging out near human settlements than Old World wolves. There are plenty of accounts of Indian dogs and wolves interbreeding and coexisting. That’s where the black color came from.
I think it’s very unlikely that this gene originated in the wild. The analysis here is very clear, and if genes were migrating, then you wouldn’t see the exact same gene in Italian wolves and black coyotes that clearly comes from domestic dogs.
I doubt it originated in the wild as well. If the black gene has any advantage, we see a similar result from North America in Europe.
However the transition stage doesn’t make a clear distinction which are semi-domesticated wolves and which are fully-domesticated dogs.
That transitional stage is very vexing, because we know that first no arguments about it domestic dog remains date to 15,000 years ago in Russia. The next one is 14,000 years old in Germany and another one in Switzerland. But the Goyet cave dog is more than twice as old as those dogs. The genetic evidence all points to an older origin for the domestic dog that those remains. 40,000 to 60,000 years ago.
Because humans were likely using them in the pursuit of large game, it is unlikely that they became morphologically distinct from non-camp wolves. But they did start their way into becoming genetically distinct.
Perhaps they were like orcas where you have different “cultures” that are genetically quite distinct and have been for a long time.
Now we’re on the same brain wavelengths.
Why couldn’t it have originated first in wolves in the wild? It exists in Red Foxes, leopards, jaguars, servals, bobcats, black bears–black is not a strange, unknown-except-for-domesticated-animals color in the wild! Once again, you don’t KNOW other black wolves in Eurasia got this inheritance from dogs. You’re assuming that based on the conclusions of this one study of the subject. The different genetic studies I’ve read about DO NOT all agree with one another on the antiquity of dogs based on DNA studies–quite a lot of squibbling between factions there. You can’t KNOW camp wolves were distinct genetically from wild wolves 45,000 to 60,000 years ago–none of this has been proven beyond a doubt. Even if black originated and became extinct in wild populations and resurfaced in camp wolves thousands of years before full domestication, how can you say it came from DOGS before there were any distinct dogs? Sounds way too much like nit-picking scientists trying to come up with a “new” and attention-getting discovery! I have no problem believing wolves and dogs have been crossing back-and-forth since there have been wolves and dogs as distinctly identifiable varieties of one another. In fact, because of this, it seems highly suspicious to me that only their discovery of the supposed cross 45,000 years ago is noted, but that they haven’t seen any more modern genetic evidence in North American populations(as stated in that one article) when there is all manner of actual historic evidence to contradict this. It aggravates me because, not only after frikkin’ 45,000 frikkin’ years is it an extremely moot point, it gives potential ammunition to stupid anti-environmental politicians to not allow reintroduction and/or protection of wolves because, well, after all, they are all just part dog anyway! Think that’s far-fetched? You should check out all manner of stuff the local government politics in North Carolina tried to use to block the reintroduction of Red Wolves, which really are probably a naturally occurring wild cross between coyotes and wolves. Although that is a whole different kettle of fish, it does show how politicians will latch onto a study like that to further their own agendas, which are usually not beneficial to the animals……
It could have exited in the wild, but that’s not what the genetic evidence– which is quite sophisticated– actually says.
There could have been black wolves historically that had nothing to do with this mutation, but they don’t exist right now.
Actually, we do not that dogs were distinct from wolves a long time ago. The exact time is probably 40,000 to 60,000 years ago, but it’s been put at 27,000 to 135,000 from the genetic evidence.
Because these guys have accurately and without mistake tested every population of wolves in the world that exists today? They haven’t even begun to have done enough to be absolutely positive about this conclusion!
UCLA is actually got part of that process already done, which is why they looked into this as Barsh did.
UCLA is doing a wolf genome project right now, and this research is certainly part of it.
This was big study across different wolf, coyote, and dog genomes. It’s not the full thing– which is the current project.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5919/1339.abstract
I think the K gene (black dominant) may have occured at about the same time as domestication, but I don’t think that it is as clear cut that it “started in dogs”. I haven’t seen any clear evidence from bones that have had the DNA checked. And DNA “time lines” have been proven to be inconsistant with the known fossil record (in birds among other animals. It crops up as an issue from time to time on the Dinosaur mailing list). But there are two “blacks” and the information I’ve read only addresses the dominant K gene, NOT the “a” recessive black.
It’s interesting that the “red wolf” was originally identified as Canis NIGER (black) — one does wonder if the black ones were simply more likely to be shot than the red ones, and if the original wolves really did have both black and red individuals (makes perfectly good sense since “red” KKee is only a gene variant from dominant black KKEe or KKEE).
The assertion that only “Italian” wolves come in black is a bit self-serving. There are no “quagga” either — half horse colored/half zebra striped — simply because all of them were shot. The tendency of humans to hunt unusual trophy animals plus the view that “black” animals were especially evil during the middle ages and thereafter would have resulted in black wolves being especially targeted. Like any other color, black may not have been a plus in certain environments just as white is good in some areas, not good in others.
The DNA folk sometimes make assertions that can’t be validated in the fossil record. Keep in mind that they initially asserted that Neanderthal and H. Sapiens did NOT interbreed. Now they agree that it did happen. The fossil record had already indicated there were hybrids.
Peggy Richter.
I would have said that had the genomic evidence not backed this up.
The fossil record, whatever it is, is meaningless.
Fossil record meaningless?????? Rather a sweeping statement there! Perhaps it would be better to say the fossil record isn’t written in stone—oops, except that it is! Okay, well then the fossil record isn’t the final say on things(Mister Hovind would agree, I’m sure!)–or at least is open to more interpretations. But then so are DNA and genetic studies’ results! Two different studies place the origin of dogs either in the orient or the mideast–I know you support the mideast one, Retrieverman, and I tend to prefer that one too(it’s the first place human ancestors and wolves met, which could push the dates of our symbiotic relationship with wolves-into-dogs further than almost anyone has previously imagined)–but that means one of these imperious studies MUST be wrong! And I have seen such DNA studies done on Red Wolves, too–each claiming to “prove” entirely different things–that Red Wolves are coyote/wolf hybrids, that they are a unique and seperate species, even that they are the ANCESTORS of both wolves AND coyotes–all “proven” by seperate genetic studies! And all dependent, of course, on the human motives and political leanings of whomever were sponsoring them. If this study is correct, to me all it is saying is that they have a genetic timeline of when the black color phase in wolves began to appear–of course it had to have a beginning somewhere! To say that it came from DOGS definetely makes it more dramatic and attention-getting, and such tactics are immediately suspect to me, especially when describing a time when dogs were likely little more than semi-tame wolves anyway–not yet distinct from the wild population. The other thing that makes this claim seem preposterous to me is why, if such cross-breeding could introduce a specific color into the wolf population from dogs(if, indeed there were distinctly different dogs at the time), why are there NO OTHER specific dog characteristics noted in these wolf populations? No other color varieties, or conformation differences, etc.? Just the one black color? And no trace genetically of any other crosses for 45,000 years? Despite plenty of access and opportunity throughout history for such crossing? Just doesn’t make sense, and is too “Coppingeresque” to me, which means that such a theory is made, and then everything else that doesn’t fit it is swept under the rug and ignored or denied to try and push it across(like the blunt and incorrect statement that there are NO black wolves in Europe and Asia). Like ignoring the fossil record to try to make it fit. It’s way too early yet to be so sure…..
Compared to DNA evidence all the fossil record is just circumstantial evidence.
Let me explain: If you didn’t know better how would you know chihuahuas and great danes were the same species?
You can’t just by looking at the bones. All you can tell is they are both canids.
DNA tells you they are actually species.
This is why I am a very strong doubter about the red wolf being an ancient wolf species. It may have a similar morphology to that ancient canid, but no one has found DNA evidence to prove it– just microsatellite analsysis that shows Eastern wolves from Canada and red wolves are related.
Darwin didn’t know about DNA or Mendel. In fact, not being able to explain heredity caused him to make gross errors in his later works.
I’m sure that if he saw that analysis of DNA, both nuclear and mitochondrial analysis, that he’d agree that the fossil record, although interesting, is not the best evidence for his theory.
Not every ancestor is preserved in a fossil, but one can easily trace ancestry using DNA. It fills in whatever gaps exist.
The only reason why paleontology uses morphology over DNA is it gets impossible to extract DNA after a certain age and it’s hard if they are old fossils anyway.
DNA evidences makes the fossil record redundant with more recent and modern species.
The fossil record is meaningless? I think Darwin would disagree. DNA is not so clear as to always “trump” the fossil record. Moreover, the big problem with DNA is that the “timeline” for mutations is not absolute. That is — in no clade does the mutation rate occur exactly the same. Some genes apparently mutate easier than others, etc. So when one asserts that DNA trumps the fossil record, I have to disagree with you. It is like saying gravitation trumps electromagnitism. The fossil record might be misinterpeted or missing, but it shows that “A” existed. If DNA says “A” could not have existed, then sorry, the DNA is “wrong” or our understanding of the DNA is wrong.
I’m happy to agree that the K gene probably occured at or about the same time as domestication. I can’t agree that DNA “proves” it came from dogs. All DNA proves is that it came from the same source for dogs & wolves. There is no proof provided that it did not come from a wolf — some of whose progeny remained wolves and some of whose progeny went on to be part of domestic dogs (by progeny, I mean F1 generation). The assertion that it was the other way — a domestic dog’s progeny went to become wolves, is just that, an assertion. DNA does not “prove” either scenario.
And by the way, the “Italian wolves” bit doesn’t explain the existance of wolves with black (K or a — one only knows if the animal is in fact DNA tested) coloring in NA — having only the ONE gene? no other canid characteristics? that would be very strange. It’s easier to believe a black wolf folded into dogs, the coloring preserved because either people liked it (as with merle) or because in the K gene, it provides a benefit in terms of the immune system.
Peggy Richter
DNA always trumps it, because you cannot hide heredity through DNA. The fossil record is much less complete than DNA. Phylogeny based upon DNA is far, far, far more accurate and complete thatn the fossil record. You don’t even need the fossil record to prove evolution.
It is clear.
These are not idle speculations. Stanford University is not a kindergarten where they make little guesses about DNA.
The study, if you read it, is much sophisticated than any one of the critics on this post claim it is.
I read the study. I reread the study–I read each link you gave. One article gave misinformation. Another blatantly said, and I quote,”biologists are UNSURE(emphasis mine) whether black wolves hybridized with dogs” to get the black color, and that they discovered NO RECENT EVIDENCE that this wolf population hybridized with dogs. It is ABSOLUTELY NOT A PROVEN fact at this point, IF you read those articles carefully. It apparently involves ONE population of wolves–the Greater Yellowstone area wolves. Why would these wolves only have bred once with Native dogs 45,000 years ago and then never again, according to their evidence, despite all the opportunities? That, to me, is sign of a glaring error. “Sophistication” because of where it comes from(Stanford University) and the people it is associated with DOES NOT mean it is correct! The status of the people involved doesn’t keep them from making mistakes! Wow, a lot of “sophisticated” politicians sure wish everyone would just take their word for things because, well, they are “sophisticated” and rather high-up in the social hierarchy! And these scientists make mistakes–which is why I mentioned the very different Red Wolf genetic study results–they can’t ALL be correct! But the fact that the one article you provided a link to, Retrieverman, blatantly said about this conclusion that “biologists are unsure” says it all to me……
I’m done with comments on this post.
I’d rather argue with Kent Hovind’s followers.