Talk:Canine transmissible venereal tumor

Geographic spread?
Is there any data on the geographic spread of this disease? --GSchjetne (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Species?
Can this reasonably be seen as a new (asexual) species? It seems there's little reason to deny it this status apart from its evolutionary origin. Evercat (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * we'd need reliable sources to say such in order to include it Dailen05 (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Note on dates
For discussion of the difference between the origin of the cancer and the common ancestor of extant cancers, see Rebbeck et al (2009) Note that Murgia et al's (2006) estimate was based on divergence of tumors from each other, and so only only estimates the time of the common ancestor. Especially note that Murgia et al say:


 * Whether this time period represents the time the tumor first arose or whether it represents a later bottleneck in the tumor's dispersion as a parasite cannot be resolved.

Evercat (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

New paper
"Transmissible Dog Cancer Genome Reveals the Origin and History of an Ancient Cell Lineage" by Elizabeth P. Murchison, et. al, Science 24 January 2014: Vol. 343 no. 6169 pp. 437-440. DOI: 10.1126/science.1247167 -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Another one: "The Evolutionary History of Dogs in the Americas" by Maire Ni Leathlobhair, et. al., Science 6 July 2018: Vol. 361 Issue 6397 pp.81-85. This article estimates the time of origin of the disease (<8225 years ago) and includes some information on lineage and speculation on location of origin.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Photo
There was a photo. It has been removed due to wikilawyering. Pity that it gets in the way of the progress of the article. 105.184.107.116 (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate taxobox
Canine transmissible venereal tumor is not a subspecies of Canis lupus. Canine transmissible venereal tumor is not a subspecies at all, nor a taxon of any kind. A taxobox is inappropriate, lends no pertinent information, and only confuses readers. The current taxobox is also manual and not automated, and automated is the consensus where relevant. The taxobox should be removed entirely. --Nessie (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why it couldn't be a taxon, considering even viruses (e.g.) are. Normally you wouldn't consider this for a tumor disease, but CTVT is special in that it does not carry the genome of the afflicted individual, and is transmissible. It could as well be considered a foreign parasitic organism, in which case assigning it to a taxon should be obvious. And following phylogenetic conventions, a placement within Canis would be apt. However, due to it being manual, there being no clear scientific consensus on this, and it still being an edge case, I agree that not keeping the taxobox was for the best. --Voliol (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * If it is a separate species, it might not be Canis. Compare Helacyton gartleri, which is derived from a human cell line but not classified as a human or even an animal. Perhaps an analogy to viruses is apt .... if a virus breaks off from some preexisting creature, it will be classified as a virus, not as part of the same family of its ancestors.  I'm not sure if viruses are known to have done this, but it's been proposed.    — Soap — 04:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Error error
There is not just three forms of transmissible virus. Cats can EASILLY transmit a leukemia virus. 2601:1C2:4E00:2100:54B8:D273:1747:18D0 (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The article is not talking about viruses, it is talking about cancers Snickerdoooodle (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)