Talk:Falkland Islands wolf

Most Closely Related Species
The article states that the most closely related animal to the Falkland Island Fox is the Patagonian Fox. This appears to be from an old article. Has there been any more recent research to back up this claim? --Dumbo1 19:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Most Closely Related Species
I found a conflicting source (at http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/derr-dog.html); it's hearsay, but theoretically verifiable. Metanoid 00:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Defence against humans
The article states that the animal "would defend itself from humans occasionally if it needed to". The quote given in support describes a fight between a Falklands wolf and "Pilot" – but Pilot was quite clearly a domestic dog, not a human. It does not describe the wurrah attacking Admiral Grey himself (and it does seem a bit unsporting to "settle the business with a rifle ball" – in my mind's eye I see Pilot as one of those irritating fox terriers who don't know when they're outclassed...). Is there any other evidence for attacks on humans?--Richard New Forest 14:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Evolution of species: remarks on extraordinary tameness
In this article, one of the reasons given for the tameness is the location and lack of predators. In Gavin Menzies book, 1421 The Year China Discovered the World, he proposes the possibility that the warrah was once domesticated but was possibly a cross between a South American fox and a ferral dog. The dog being being left on the island by the Chinese fleet under the command of Admiral Hong Bao, on his task to chart the world in his voyage 1421-24.

Do you think that this should be made part of the article? Pavillion32 (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "1421" is basically a great load of turd that Menzies pulled out of his rear end, and the stuff about the warrah is as nonsensical as everything else in that book. By that reasoning, why not mention that the warrah was living already in Pangaea before being isolated by continental drift, or that it was put there by visiting aliens (both of these "theories" being equally "proposed" by people with nothing to back them).--Menah the Great (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

landbridge
My geology isnt too good, but arnt the waters between South America and the Falklands far too deep to have ever formed a landbridge? In that case humans remian the only possibe vector for the species reaching the Falkland islands, but no way to know precisley who or when. 91.128.113.27 (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They are all part of the same platform, and as far as I know shallow enough to have been connected during at least some glatial maxima.--Menah the Great (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Disputed
Case solved (sort of...). See http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.09.018 Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My money is on humans taking the dog there. They did it in the Pacific, so why not there?220.244.75.200 (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Because no humans got there before the European sailors, who found the wolf already there. Pacific islands are a completely different case; settled by people who brought livestock with them.Dean1954 (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

recent good faith edits
Interesting that you have a source that says this information is out of date. In any case, i have tagged the info, told the newbie to provide a source, and will follow up to delete if he doesn't. Until then, try AGF. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am AGF, the the DNA evidence definitively identifies the origins and it isn't South American. This information is already in the article, so please don't revert again.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read the edit, it describes the origin as undoubtedly one of the South American canids in the relatives section. It isn't, the origins were revealed by DNA analysis.  And I see you've reverted again.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if I should comment or wait for the results of your AN3 complaint. In any case, "South American canid" is apparently a geographic term, not a genetic one--even though the Maned Wolf of S. America is noted as the closest relative by DNA analysis.  Also, the sections created by the OP seem helpful. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No its not, it says they're related to South American canids - they're not, they're from different genetic lines. My AN3 report is ready if you self-revert I will abandon it.  Your choice.  This is a stupid thing to edit war about, you didn't even allow me time to speak to the newbie.  I saw you'd posted there whilst I was posting a comment.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Not only are there published references for the newbie's claims, which I have added, and not only are your complaints that the FIW is not most closely related to other canids of South America unfounded, you are confused about WP:3RR. I have no intention of immediately reversing my edits. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You've intervened in a manner that created an unnecessary conflict, your claim is incorrect - it is not related to South American canids. You're now adding dated and incorrect information based on sources that are no longer valid as ongoing scientific research has show they are wrong.  I won't indulge you in an edit war but this was completely unnecessary.  Wee Curry Monster talk 22:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Be aware your continued assertion the animal is not related to s am canids is unclear. firts, the added material makes no genetic claim, 2nd, the refs say the maned wolf which is s am is the closest relative. Please walk me through your objection explicitly and at length because it is truly unclear to me. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The Warrah's ancestors did not originate in South America. The information is in the article:

A 2003 study of the comparative brain anatomy of several canid species[15] placed the Maned Wolf and the Falkland Islands Wolf together, grouping these along with zorros of the genus Pseudalopex, on the basis of their unique morphology of the brain sulci and the proreal gyrus. Further, Graham Slater's genetic research in 2009 found that the Falkland Islands Wolf's closest living relative is the South American Maned Wolf.[3][16] The DNA evidence from that same study also pointed to a common ancestor for these two species, diverging about 6 million years ago. This is an interesting date, since canids did not appear in South America until roughly 3 million years ago in a paleozoogeographical event called the Great American Biotic Interchange, in which the continents of North and South America were newly connected by the formation of the Isthmus of Panama. It would seem that the lineages of the Maned Wolf and the Falkland Islands Wolf would thus have had to have already separated in North America. In any case, the results of the Slater study speak against the previous hypothesis of human introduction of the species to the island. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have read that quote. The hypothesis that they split in N Am is interesting, but the clade is currently restricted to S Am, the source calls the maned wolf the S Am Maned Wolf, and the added material says nothing about origins or clades, using the phrase geographically in the same way as the source you quoted.  Please quote exactly what bothers you in the added text, and suggest how you would improve it.  μηδείς (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

copyright violation
Some newly added material was copied wholesale from www.petermaas.nl/extinct/speciesinfo/falklandwolf.htm, which is against copyright policy. I have deleted some of the material and rewritten the rest. μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

See and. Just about everything you revert warred to keep was a straight copyvio from that website. I imagine if we look at the newbies contribution, I kind of expect to find more. Would you care to take a guess at what I was doing when you started to revert war? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted to the last version before User:Dannymex's contributions. His entire entry is a copyvio from. Text from that website is still in the article - simply adding cites doesn't fix that problem. It needs to be completely rewritten. Please note reverting copyright violations is exempt from 3RR and edit waring to restore copyright material could lead to an immediate block. Added template to note removal of content. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPS
is a self-published website per WP:SPS, it would not be considered a WP:RS and used to verify material. I've removed it as a cite for that reason. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In additon there is, previously brought up at RSN with an exemption from SPS per expert publishing. Brought up at WP:RSN for comment.  Wee Curry Monster talk 17:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I hope the copyediting makes the substantive issues a bit clearer as well as getting rid of the copyvio. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Its getting there, who would have thought reverting a copyvio would be so difficult? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A bit of mutual incomprehension about South American canids was more of a problem I think. The snappy little things may live in South America, but their separate evolutionary history began in North America. I hope that everyone approves of the changes.


 * I think we need an admin to remove the copyvio notice. Do you want to ask someone? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It should be done in the normal course of events, once the revisions with copyvios have been deleted. I've left a comment on your talk page about the exceptions for SPS for SME, I did not find any indication the individual responsible for that website was an expert; though I acknowledge I only had a cursory look.  Wee Curry Monster talk 11:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Other sources, it turns out that the Peter Maas website had some plagiarism as well. , ,. There is the other SPS as well,.

Google books, ,. Hope that helps. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Any comments on the new draft text atTalk:Falkland Islands Wolf/Temp? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Its very good, my only suggestion would be to make it clear that it could not have come from South America as the separation of the lineage occurred before canids moved from North to South America. I only suggest this as Slater notes it deepens the mystery of how it got there.  Wee Curry Monster talk 20:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I purged the article of copyvios using Richard's draft and took the liberty of copy editing to move titles around. Added a spot of text, Ironholds has revdel all the copyright vios from the history.  We're done.  Wee Curry Monster talk 08:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * More or less :-) Thanks.

Isolation and evolution
I don't think anyone's ever suggested that its ancestors came from anywhere other than South America, so I've removed that bit. Correct me if I'm wrong. Actually the DNA evidence gives us a much clearer picture; the bloodline split off from all other known canids in North America about 6m years ago, and wandered through South America (where it died out in recent prehistory) to the Falklands (where as we all know it survived until very recently). Its relatives also wandered around South America and some of them survive there, but none of them made it to the islands as far as we know. I hope that's clearer.

How it arrived on the islands remains a mystery, but Slater's study makes things a little clearer, in that the Wolf had too much genetic diversity to have originated since the Ice Age from a tiny founding population like a single pregnant female (which might possibly have drifted across in more recent times). The ice bridge theory at least gives a credible way for a largish founding population to have arrived, on the supposition that the animal could actually live there during glacial maxima. Alternatively, I suppose that if several unrelated founders were brought over by natives in canoes, that could also account for a genetically diverse recent population. It's all interesting stuff. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No thats wrong, they didn't wander through South America as the bloodline split (6m years) before NA canids entered SA (3m years) when the two continents joined. Thats why it is such a bio-geographic mystery, one thing solved but more questions created.  Wee Curry Monster talk 09:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And the canoe theory is wrong as well, as the Warrah predated human inhabitation. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the genetic data gives an estimate of when the last common ancestor lived, not how or when the beast crossed the South Atlantic. It does imply that the isolated population must have been of reasonable size long before the peopling of the Americas and this does make the canoe hypothesis less likely, and pretty much excludes the "single pregnant post-Ice Age founder on a log". But the natives could I suppose have brought dozens of the things over, which could have given the observed modern genetic diversity. One merely doubts that they did... in fact I'm really impressed that they managed to make the crossing at all and I don't quite see why they would have brought any canids whatever with them. (There again, the things were tame and had very good fur, and the historically-recorded natives of Patagonia were much better in the local seas than I'd ever be.) This leaves us with an ice bridge / ice berg theory, with Ice Age survival on the expanded islands, as the most likely of several improbable solutions.


 * As for how the ancestors travelled from North America to the Falklands, they walked most of the way. I really don't think you will find any reliable (or sane) source that suggests the founding population in the islands came from anywhere other than South America. The picture is that the ancestral species separated from the ancestors of all other extant canids 6m years ago, spread south across the Panama isthmus with the ancestors of the other South American canids, spent 3 million years happily evolving in North America and then another 3 million years in South America, and only then got to the Falklands somehow. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, or if I can explain any further. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The only evidence for a canoe journey has been the discovery of the remains of a canoe. However, that is not definitive evidence of human visitation as an empty canoe could have drifted across the sea.  The human introduction hypothesis seems highly unlikely as the mitochondrial DNA evidence indicates it was established there before humans were established in South America.
 * Whether it came from South America across an ice bridge or whatever is speculation. If there were a land bridge for example, why was the Warrah the only native land mammal?  We can attribute the opinions - which contradict one another but the fact remains it separated in North America and how it got to the islands is a mystery; further amplified by a gap in the fossil record.  To assert its ancestors came through South America is also unclear as the two continents were only connected after the bloodline diverged.  Thats what I've put into the article.  Wee Curry Monster talk 12:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

GA?
It's looking good, thanks. What do you think we still need to do to get it up to Good Article standard? Assuming that we now have a fairly stable version in the next couple of weeks, I think we need to get the references a little better-presented, and perhaps to have a little more description of the animal itself in the lede. But the rest looks fairly good. GA standards:

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and (c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, no worries, I'd planned to tidy up the references. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok they're tidied up. I think we should look to get rid of Messybeast as an SPS. Although there is some indication its reliable, I've nothing to back it up. What do you think?  Wee Curry Monster talk 20:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No insult intended to Messybeast, but I agree. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

<- Possible source noted for later. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Revert of IP edits
is a copyvio from messybeast.com. IP editor has received information on wikipedias policy on copyright. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Origins of the Falkland Islands Wolf, recent research
We have some recent work which seems to solve the origins of the Wolf fairly definitively. There is. This shows that the last common female-line ancestor of the population lived about 330,000 years ago.

This is supplemented - not in any way contradicted - by, which shows that until some 16,000 years ago the wolf's ancestors were part of the mainland population of Dusicyon.

We also have a finding that the channel between the islands and the mainland was only about 20km across at the last glacial maximum, and may well have frozen over forming an ice bridge. The wolf had very good fur and was the only local land predator; I picture quite a lot of them trotting about on the edges of the land/ice throughout the ice age. The genetic studies together are consistent with a fairly large population becoming isolated on the islands when the ice melted. The studies reinforce each other; Cooper et al constrain our interpretation to late isolation, Slater's last common ancestor of the wolf would have lived on the mainland many millennia before the last glacial maximum. Slater and Cooper together constrain us to a large founding population. This does not seem easily compatible with the human-transport idea, and together with the likelihood of a ice bridge, seems to give us the ice bridge as the only real possibility.

I hope this is clearer. As I'm obviously having trouble getting the message across I'd be grateful for any ideas on how to make it clearer for readers of an encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Your conclusion that the data of Slater et al. (2009) are not in conflict with the results of Cooper et al. (2013) is inconsistent with Slater et al.'s own interpretation of their data. They state that "Based on mtDNA sequence analysis, we estimated the age of the most recent common ancestor of our Falklands wolf samples to be 330 thousand years ago (kya) (Figure 1; 95% HPD = 70–640 kya). Genetic and archaeological evidence suggests that humans first arrived in the New World no earlier than 20–15 kya [10], implying that a human-mediated origin of the Falklands wolf is unlikely [3,9]." In other words, they are saying that their data argue against colonization of the Falkland Islands by this canid within the last 20–15 kya, precisely what Cooper et al. claim happened.


 * One might be able to resolve the apparent conflict if separate colonization events by animals not closely related occurred for East and West Falkland islands, creating two populations that subsequently evolved in parallel without mixing. However, without separate last common ancestor dates for the two islands' populations to compare with that for the combined population of both islands, we can't assess this possibility.


 * However, there may not really be a conflict if Slater et al. were only attempting to calculate the most recent common ancestor of the restricted mtDNA sequence they obtained data on, because the "most recent common ancestor" for such a restricted sequence can be orders of magnitude farther in the past than the most recent common ancestor for the organism as a whole. In that case, I would say that their data isn't very informative about the colonization timeline and process, and that they were guilty of sloppy writing and/or thinking for not being explicit about this. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no conflict. Really. Slater shows that the mitochondrial Eve of the island wolf lived hundreds of thousands of years ago. (The same would probably be true of the human population, historically known to have arrived much more recently.) Slater's data demonstrates only that IF the colonization happened in the last few thousand years, THEN it must have been by a number of unrelated individuals. Cooper et al show that the wolf interbred with its mainland relatives until a few thousand years ago. In combination these two studies point clearly to a recent and fairly large founding population. Since nobody has seriously suggested that the locals could have brought large numbers of animals over (there's no definite evidence for any human visitor before the age of Discovery, nor that any human ever kept wolves as pets), and it seems inconceivable that they could have swum, it seems that the wolves must have walked there. The discovery of a rather small, potentially frozen-over, channel at the height of the Ice Age provides an obvious solution that is compatible with all the data. Is this clear, and do we need to explain further in the article? I don't want to commit OR or synthesis, but we do need the logic made clear to the casual reader. I presume that all would be obvious to the intended audience of the academic papers, but we can't assume that our audience here is familiar with the arguments involved. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If Slater et al.'s data is good and they have done their calculations correctly, then the mitochondrial Eve for those specimens they analyzed is at least as old as the most recent common ancestor of the mtDNA sequence they obtained. Exactly what that implies in terms of the size of the founding population is not clear. But whatever we believe, my point that Slater et al. were under the impression that their data is inconsistent with a Falklands colonization 16,000 years ago is valid. No one here has questioned any aspect of the colonization scenario except for the relevance and implications of Slater et al.'s contribution, and how that should be presented. I remain unconvinced that we need to describe scenarios that are now ruled out. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You have produced an excellent solution, avoiding OR and un-necessary confusing detail. Thanks. Slater et al don't draw out all the relevant aspects of their findings or the logic behind their statement on colonization date, and as you say we don't need to go through all the ruled-out scenarios. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Cloning Possible?
Can the warrah be cloned? Can its DNA be extracted? Can this species be resurrected, given that its closest living relative is the maned wolf, and that there are stuffed specimens? --Scottishwildcat12 (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

"Malvinas zorro"
The writers (Consorte-McCrea, Ferraz Santos, and Sillero-Zubiri) are Argentine – like your edit summary said, "Google is your friend". In what strange world are non-native-English speakers authoritative sources on English-language names for anything? The fact that no native English speakers use this term for the animal (which is unsurprising, given neither "Malvinas" or "zorro" are English words), is a big clue that those writers are not WP:Reliable sources on this matter. The other big clue is that they cite "Malvinas zorro" as the primary term for the animal, which is laughably false. (I cannot, of course, pretend to know the writers' intentions – whether it is simply a bad translation, or an attempt at being provocative, or just ignorance.) &#161;Bozzio&#33; 17:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Only one of them is Argentine:
 * Adriana G. Consorte-McCrea grew up in Sao Paulo, Brazil. She has a degree in Biological Sciences from the Federal University of Sao Carlos and a PhD in Ecology from the University of Kent. She currently lectures at the Canterbury Christ Church University, UK. This information is also at page XXI of the book.
 * Eliana Ferraz Santos is also Brazilian, born in Campinas. She has a master and a PhD in Biology, from the Universidae Estadual Paulista Julio de Mesquita Filho. I can't find anything related to works in English but certainly she isn't Argentine, and she is a reliable source in Biology.
 * Claudio Sillero-Zubiri is Argentine. But he has a PhD (DPhil) from the University of Oxford, and a senior research position at the Department of Zoology of that university, and at the Lady Margaret Hall. He's also a professor there. He's specialized in threatened species and wild canids.
 * However, a search for further sources turned nothing of similar value.. so you may be onto something here. -- Langus TxT 03:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Falkland Islands wolf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130604174006/http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS0960982209016959.pdf to http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS0960982209016959.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Falkland Islands wolf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004131813/http://www.falklands-museum.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=181&Itemid=262 to http://www.falklands-museum.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=181&Itemid=262
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402084902/http://www.falklands-museum.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=192:the-first-sighting&catid=63:stories-of-the-warrah&Itemid=267 to http://www.falklands-museum.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=192:the-first-sighting&catid=63:stories-of-the-warrah&Itemid=267
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402084940/http://www.falklands-museum.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=188:a-falklands-wolf-in-london&catid=63:stories-of-the-warrah&Itemid=267 to http://www.falklands-museum.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=188:a-falklands-wolf-in-london&catid=63:stories-of-the-warrah&Itemid=267

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Falkland Islands wolf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.falklands-museum.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=192%3Athe-first-sighting&catid=63%3Astories-of-the-warrah&Itemid=267
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.falklands-museum.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=188%3Aa-falklands-wolf-in-london&catid=63%3Astories-of-the-warrah&Itemid=267
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706084815/http://www.ege.fcen.uba.ar/materias/general/Broken_ZigZagMACN_5_1_19_.pdf to http://www.ege.fcen.uba.ar/materias/general/Broken_ZigZagMACN_5_1_19_.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.falklandsconservation.com/publications/warrah-index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Falkland islands stamps 2009 warrah.jpg
 * Warrah (white background).jpg

Hoax translation?
"Foolish dog of the south" is not a translation of Dusicyon australis. A google search of references that say it is all seem to be low quality that repeat this 2009 addition to this wiki site. The best reference I could find is |this but even that seems to be a copy of what appears to be a hoax. Aris Makridis highlighted the dubious, if not simply wrong, translation back in May 2020. If Streona is reading this, could you please comment. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like my son has been on my account again.Streona (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, we move on... Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Dubious
In section, these assertions follow the named reference Hamley_2021: There is, however, no definite evidence that humans ever visited the Falklands before the Age of Discovery nor is there any evidence that the ancestors of the wolf were ever domesticated. Both assertions seem to me to be unsupported by the reference; perhaps the opposite is true. Thoughts? yoyo (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no evidence for the latter, just unsupported speculation on the authors part. We do not take extraordinary claims of individual papers at face value per WP:PRIMARY. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Is there any evidence for the domestication of the Warrah or it's ancestor on the mainland? I understood that recent papers on the Warrah indicated the most likely explanation was the ancestor of the Warrah crossed on an ice bridge during the last ice age before becoming isolated.  It seems that we are falling victim to recentism, giving over emphasis to a recent paper that makes a lot of assumptions and leaps to conclusions where the evidence is shaky at best.  This is leading us to ignore other work, which is built on a more solid foundation.  WCM email 07:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A couple of news reports on the controversial nature of this work ,. WCM email 10:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's look at the sentence in the article we have describing the 2021 paper: ''A study by a University of Maine team in 2021 reports evidence of potential visitation to the islands by indigenous South Americans before the Age of Discovery. The authors speculated that the ancestors of the wolf were domesticated and brought with the visitors.[26]''

It is clear from the wording that it uses the words 'potential' and 'speculated', it is presented in a neutral way and not as fact, though arguably the sentence/claim could be strengthened based on the carbon-dating data and archaeology detailed in the paper. The claims above on 'recentism' and 'not taking claims at face value' do not match the way the paper is presented in the article text. Is there a political slant to this discussion as the 'controversial' claims are coming from Argentinian sources only?

At present, the text in the 'dubious'-tagged closing sentence is biased original research, it discards the published research as 'not definitive evidence' based on...personal opinion presumably. A solution to lend more neutrality would be to find a couple of reputable and non-politicised sources that disagree with the findings of the 2021 paper and add them as references to say 'the findings of the paper are not universally accepted due to XYZ' rather than just write a dubious unreferenced claim as we currently have (hence the dubious tag). In my opinion the whole final sentence should be removed at present until credible counter-claims can be added, the research paper comes from a very senior multi-departmental team of researchers and isn't a shoddy piece of work. Mountaincirque talk 10:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you dismissing commentary based on the fact it's from Argentina? If so, I would propose to take this to WP:RSN right now, because that's outrageous.  There is similar commentary from my friends in the Falklands who point out that the presumption of the anthropometric source of soot in layers based on the presumption that lightning induced fires are rare is plain wrong.  The Falklands are extensively covered in peat, much of it dry and there are usually 2-3 fires per year in February; at least one other study ,] chose the Falklands because of this and other scientific literature being available that shows fires are relatively common . WCM email 14:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Those critical sources with Argentinian aren't even used in the article at present so no need for referral, by all means include them if you think they are fit and proper, at present the closing sentence that we are discussing as 'dubious' is completely unsourced and would have probably been removed if not for this discussion on it. Do you 'friends in the Falklands' have a citable source dissecting the problems with Hamley's paper by any chance? What did they think about the piles of animal remains that were dated before 1000 BCE? Mountaincirque talk 15:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Well as in the article I noted above, without tool marks the conclusion that the pile of bones is of anthropometric origin is doubtful and could have a natural explanation. I only referred to friends in the Falklands to demonstrate that the criticism of this paper is not political.  If anything I would expect the opposite response, that the nationalists in Argentina would see this as reinforcing their position.  I do think that in the interests of balance the sentence under discussion should be replaced by some of the commentary on this paper.  WCM email 17:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There are some interesting relevant details in the paper that aren't controversial, like the fact that the oldest radiocarbon dates for the warrah are over 3000 years old, that are worthy of inclusion in this article, but I agree that the main conclusions of the paper are speculative and mostly irrelevant to this page, and if included should include criticism from other workers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree but again there is an explanation for the lack of fossil records. The soil in the Falklands being peat based is not conducive to preservation of bones, a fact that was in their earlier paper but not this one. WCM email 17:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is pretty clearly mentioned in the Hamley et al. paper The Falkland Islands are largely composed of acidic peat, which is poor for bone preservation and may account for the apparent scarcity of warrah fossils. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes you're right, I got that wrong. WCM email 18:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)