Talk:Domestic Dog

I want to change this redirect so that it leads to a separate article here called Domestic dog. Let me explain why. I find this necessary in order to refer to the "ligature" (What's the correct word for such a taxon) that exists in the comments of both the Canis lupus familaris and Canis lupus dingo pages at MSW3.

Here are the pages I refer to above. Notice where it says "comments". Also look at the relevant sections of the comments on the Canis lupus page, which is the third link below:

http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000752

http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000751

http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000738

In this case, the word term "domestic dog" is being used as a specific, taxonomic, technical term. There may be a need for a disambiguation page that would allow one to distinguish between a common term and this technical term. Chrisrus (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Improving the article

 * MSW3 didn't state alot of the stuff you wrote, the sources don't say it.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your interest in discussing ways to improve this article. Please feel free to fix the errors you refer to in the interest in improving the article, or to use this discussion page to discuss ways of improving the article.  This discussion can leave this topic briefly, but please refrain from the topic of me.


 * You say "MSW3 didn't...say it." Can you explain this idea more fully or explicitly?  Chrisrus (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit
With regard the this recent edit:

While the previous version had read By including the words "Domestic Dog" in single brackets under the comments section for these two subspecies, the editors of Mammal Species of the World indicate that these two subspecies are significantly more closely related to each other than they are to the other subspecies of Canis lupus, closely mirroring the alignment of separation between "dog" and "wolf" in languages such as English. , it now reads

According to Mammal Species of the World both are artificial variants that were created by domestication and artificial selection with Canis lupus dingo provisionally separate. Mammal Species of the World stated that this may stretch the concept of subspecies but retains the correct allocation ofvsynonyms.

Where you say "both", you seem to mean "c.l. dingo" and "c.l.familiaris",. Should we edit this to make this explicit? Chrisrus (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you disagree that by so uniting these two subspecies, MSW3 instructs/allows us to use this term when referring to both subspecies at the same time?

You seem to be saying that MSW3 is not saying that these two subspecies are more closely related to each other than to C.l. subspecies not so designated. Is this correct?

You seem to have changed this topic of this section from what MSW2 does to why they did it. Should we not have a sentence that simply states what they did (united these two subspecies while at the same time holding them to be provisionally separate), and then another sentence with regard to the comments under Canis Lupus where they explain why?

Should we be reading into what they meant by "domestic"?

Are they not saying that these two subspecies are more closely related to each other than they are to other subspecies? Is this not safe to say?Chrisrus (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The stuff I deleted was NOT stated on MSOW3 site and so the logical assumption was that you interpretated the sources in your own way at that is forbidden here.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What does: "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)." mean to you?  Would you prefer I went through it clause-by-clause first, or would you like to go first? Chrisrus (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)