Talk:Indian wolf/Archive 1

Created this page
I am looking to start my contributions for Wikipedia and was looking through the Request's page and found Indian Wolf so I created it. Feel free to expand it, as I am just starting. I will add more data as I aquire it, but feel free to edit/change/delete anything I input, but please let the article live.

Shadow Blade 06:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your contribution. I made a few standard changes so that the article conforms to the other subspecies pages. I also removed the picture, as it lacks a source and probably would have been deleted anyway. I decided to leave the subspecies map, but I suspect it may be deleted in time, as well. Remember to check the copyright status of any image you upload in the future to avoid complications. -GrittyLobo441 08:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Distinct species?
According to an article in the Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research ''The phylogenetic reconstructions of cytochrome b sequences, however gave significant statistical support for the inner branches supporting genetic distinction of the two Indian wolf lineages within themselves as well as from all other wolves of the world, including individuals belonging to subspecies C. lupus chanco and C. lupus pallipes to which the two Indian wolf populations have been traditionally assigned. Their genetic differentiation relative to worldwide variation of wolves supports the suggestion to treat them as separate wolf species, C. himalayensis and C. indica.''

That does by far not mean, that C. indica is already recognized by the ICZN as a valid species. --Altaileopard (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Pallipes.JPG
The image Image:Pallipes.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --04:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem with "canis indica"
The Mammal species of the world site on canid taxonomy makes no mention of "Canis Indica"

http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?id=14000691

Secondly, the article on their uniqueness in the external links section does not mention such a name, and says they MIGHT be a new species.

The journal mentioned earlier by Ataileopard suggests that they are a distinct species, but there is no indication whatsoever that their proposal has been accepted by peers.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118496914/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

The reference on the infobox has this to say:

Disclaimer: The NCBI taxonomy database is not an authoritative source for nomenclature or classification - please consult the relevant scientific literature for the most reliable information.

I propose we merge this to the Canis lupus pallipes article.Mariomassone (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I find this post very convincing. The articles Subspecies of Canis Lupus; Canis Lupus, Wolf (disambiguation) should all agree on the facts about “Canis Indica”.  Chrisrus (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * UMish Animal Web search came up with nothing for "Canis Indica"


 * Someone has changed the binomial to "C. indica" again. How can we have a primary infobox name which doesn't appear in Mammal Species of the World as the primary binomial in the infobox?  Canis lupus pallipes is still the official name of this species.  We need to have this out because otherwise it's going to conflict with other articles: we can't have articles contradicting each other.  When the editors of Mammal Species of the World at least acknowledge that there might be such as thing as Canis indica we have to leave it as Canis lupus pallipes.   I'm undoing the edit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 07:28, 24 January 2010


 * Yes. The usual ref on WP for mammal taxonomy is MSW3.  If we want to use something else we need a very good reason, and I haven't seen such a reason yet.  We already have discussion of the alternative name, with its refs, and that's enough for the moment.  Richard New Forest (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Could someone who knows the procedure merge the two articles? I've been meaning to re-write Canis lupus pallipes for a long time. The whole Indica debacle has been given more attention than it really deserves, and should be treated merely as a subsection, not a basis for a whole article.Mariomassone (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. Richard New Forest (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion
This source, citation #14 at the moment,, http://www.mexicanwolf.0catch.com/Human%20Toll%20articles/e-liite%202%20Hazaribagh%20wolves.pdf, contradicts itself. It says they "rarely attack humans", and then goes on to detail how they actually do attack humans fairly often. For this reason, this article also contradicts itself in the same way, which it should not do. We should not say that they rarely attack humans and then go on to list hundreds and hundreds of such attacks. It may seem rare to you or to Kiersten Sing Rodgpurohit and her editors at the Ambio Journal of the Human Environment, but it might not seem rare to a reader who goes on to read the rest of the paragraph or the Ambio Article. For example, it doesn't seem rare to me.

This article "Child Lifting, Wolves in Hazaribad, India, is the source of the statement in this article that they "rarely attack humans". I propose that this intoductory clause be deleted on the grounds that it is vague, and contradicts the information in other sources and itself, and is not a statement of fact but a point of view.  It is only true or false depending on one's personal point of view, and as such is not a matter of fact: whether the attacks are rare" or not completely depends on what the word "rarely" means to an individual reader. Chrisrus (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)