Talk:Eastern Timber Wolf

Proposed Merge
I like the information in the Eastern Wolf page, but I think it would be better merged with Eastern Timber Wolf, which is lacking for information.

The Eastern Canadian Wolf, canis lycaon, and the Eastern Timber Wolf, canis lupus lycaon, are two different wolf species according to recent research. Eastern Wolf and Algonquin Wolf were both common names being thrown around before "Eastern Canadian Wolf" gained a measure of acceptance and is now used in the majority of scientific research since 2003. The Wolves of Algonquin Park PHVA Final Report, PDF notes many of these changes (pages 5-7 are of particular note). See more information on the Eastern Canadian Wolf on the Red Wolf page. Additionally, the page on the Gray Wolf links to both the Eastern Timber Wolf and the Eastern Canadian Wolf.

I would like to make a special note that this information is going to be particularly fluid for the next 10 or 20 years as taxonomic distinctions are made and it is going to be particularly hard to keep up with research due to the myriad of names that will be used as researchers attempt to distinguish various wolf populations according to genetic testing. This information will change, but we should all try to be diligent in trying to keep up with new research. --Waterspyder 03:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

lycaon priority and accuracy tag
If the Eastern Canadian Wolf and the Eastern Timber Wolf are recognized as separate species, then only one of them will retain the lycaon designation. This would be the one that matches the type. Based on the papers cited here that looks like it might be the Eastern Canadian Wolf. The Eastern Canadian Wolf would then require another designations. If it matches canadensis de Blainville 1843 or ungavensis Comeau 1940, then it would adopt one of those names. Otherwise it stil requires naming and should be designated as Canis lupus ssp. or Canis lupus ssp. indeterminate in the article. It might also be a variant of C. l. nubilus. My point is that both varieties are definitely not named lycaon simultaneously. The use of lycaon for both in these articles is probably an artifact of multiple editors/sources. --Aranae 05:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added a disputed tag. There is simply no way that both of these forms of wolves can have the same name and my earlier post does not seem to have been noticed.  --Aranae 16:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the problem is that the scientific community is trying to sort it out. Right now the Timber wolf is Canis Lupus Lycaon (Genus, Species, Subspecies), and the Eastern Canadian Wolf is Canis Lycaon (Genus, Species), these are not the same scientific designation and are unique names for each. The Eastern Canadian wolf is not a Canis Lupus (or a part of the grey wolf family), it is actually closer to the Red Wolf family and therefore "Lupus" appears nowhere in its classification. Lycaon was retain in the name because for close to 200 years, it was thought that the Eastern Canadian Wolf... or Wolves of Algonquin Park, were Timber Wolves. The article isn't perfect, but I am going to remove the tag since the reason the the factual accuracy is not correct.

--Waterspyder 15:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's simply impossible for the reasons I stated above. ICZN rules do not allow it.  The name lycaon will only go with one of the two, end of story.  This is determined by identifying the type specimen.  If it is a Timber Wolf, then that subspecies will be named Canis lupus lycaon and a new name will be given to the Eastern Canadian Wolf.  If the type is an Eastern Canadian Wolf then that species will be named Canis lycaon and a new subspecies name will be given to the Timber Wolf.  I'm sorry, but without a citation for why both taxa can have the same name, I'm going to have to restore the tags.  Right now we're spreading inaccurate information.  --Aranae 16:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Aranae is right: within the genus Canis, the epithet lycaon can appear only once.

Waterspyder's description of the taxonomic situation above is not quite right. As far as I can tell, there are two competing hypotheses: These hypotheses are explained in a bit more detail in "The Wolves of Algonquin Park: Population & Habitat Viability Assessment (PHVA)", 2000 (page 17).
 * 1) The traditional theory, based on morphology: two separate groups: the Eastern Timber Wolf, Canis lupus lycaon, and the Red Wolf, Canis rufus.
 * 2) Wilson et al. (2000), based on DNA analysis: a single species, the Eastern Canadian Wolf, Canis lycaon. (See "DNA profiles of the eastern Canadian wolf and the red wolf provide evidence for a common evolutionary history independent of the gray wolf", Can. J. Zool. 78(12): 2156–2166.)

It's not for Wikipedia to resolve this issue; we have to wait for a scholarly consensus to develop. So for the moment I think it would be reasonable to have articles on all three of the Red Wolf, Eastern Timber Wolf, Eastern Canadian Wolf, provided that we explain the taxonomic issue and its currently disputed status. Gdr 20:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

W. Christopher Wozencraft, in MSW3 (pages 576-577), lists C. lupus lycaon and C. lupus rufus. Quoting in part: "Wilson (2000) argued for separation of the Eastern Canadian Wolf (as C. lycaon) and the Red Wof (as C. rufus) as separate species based on mtDNA, but see Nowak (2002) who could not find suppot for this in a morphometric study. Nowak 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). Although hybrids are ot 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) 23:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

UtherSRG definitely stated the case well. However, when it comes to nomenclature, which is a brutally complex thing, as there are a lot of exceptions. I have never been taught that you may not name one subspecies with the name of another species. I do know that you may not name an animal with the same genus-species combination regardless of whether one is a squid and the other is a monkey. The bottom line is there are a handful of scientists trying to sort this out and one can only assume the research and documentation on this will only get better with time. --Waterspyder 04:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a starting point is to determine the authority for both C. lupus lycaon and C. lycaon. If they are both Schreber, 1775 then there's clearly a problem with priority.  --Aranae 01:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's what it comes down to: species and subspecies are both considered "species-group" names under the ICZN (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature), and within a genus all species-group names must be unique. This is why you can't have C. lupus lycaon and C. lycaon.  Priority is irrelevant in this case; what matters for the purpose of who gets the name, as noted above, is whether the original description was based on what would now be considered the timber wolf or the eastern Canadian wolf.  Since descriptions of the time usually didn't designate types and may not have the detail necessary to separate them, this may be a problem if it's really decided to be a separate species (although that seems unlikely to me).  KarlM 05:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

C. (l.) lycaon
There is a lot of confusion about status of eastern wolf populations in North America, but one thing is clear: Canis lupus lycaon and Canis lycaon is one and the same. "Lycaon" is a subspecies described by Schreber in 1775. No type location is given in Banfield (1974), but Banfield cites the following: "A small dark subspecies that inhabited all of southeastern Canada. It has been exterminated in southern Quebec south of St. Lawrence River and in New Brunswick since about 1880, and in Nova Scotia prior to 1900. There appear to be no reference to wolves on Prince Edward Island." F. Reid (2006) in her "Mammals of North America" uses different name "Eastern Timber Wolf (Canis lycaon)" and shows its range from western Ontario to Labrador, but not in the United States. She states specifically that Eastern Timber Wolf does not occur in USA, but shows range in Manitoba. The range shown in the book is incorrect as "Gray Wolf" or "Timber Wolf" (Canis lupus) occurs north and east of Lake Superior. Those I have seen were typical Canis lupus, and not reddish coyote-like "lycaon" from Algonquin park. Currently local offices of Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources work with trappers to obtain tissue samples from wolves in the Lake Superior area and compare with those from Algonquin Park. My bottom line: it is very confusing and complicated issue, and contributors with limited knowledge of the matter and animal systematics should abstain from writing on this matter. Vitoldus44 18:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * However, people doing Original Research on this or any subject should not post on that topic. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Canis lycaon and C. lupus lycaon describes the same animal. "Eastern wolves are mainly viewed as: (1) a smaller subspecies of gray wolf (Canis lupus lycaon)...      ...Although debate persists, recent molecular studies suggest that the eastern wolf is not a gray wolf subspecies, nor the result of gray wolf/coyote hybridization. Eastern wolves were more likely a distinct species, C. lycaon" (from C.J. Kyle, A.R. Johnson, B.R. Patterson, P.J. Wilson, K. Shami, S.K. Grewal and B.N. White: Genetic nature of eastern wolves: Past, present and future. 	Conservation Genetics, Volume 7, Number 2 / April 2006. Pages 273-287)
 * So both articels must be fused. A proper Name for the article would be Eastern Wolf. I will do that in near future.--Altaileopard (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

query
Is it true that timber wolves bark a lot? 76.18.92.82 04:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag
Instead of cluttering up things with the "Disputed tag," I wish people would just fix the problem and put a footnote on it. That way people don't get distracted while reading the encyclopedia. WriterHound 04:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)