Talk:New Guinea singing dog

Recent edits and citation needed tags
This is what I understand. Let me know if you understand it differently:

---

Vanak et. al., disagree with the long-standing general consensus about them being wild-living.

They do not disagree that the literature contains that long standing general consensus.

V. et. al. in fact confirm that consensus exists in the literature.

They do not question the existence of that long-standing general consensus.

However, they challenge it. They doubt the long-standing general consensus.

They present their evidence and give their reasoning.

They present new DNA evidence that NGSD are genetically closer to New Guinea village dogs than they are to dogs not from the island.

That's different from saying that NGSD ARE village dogs, or that they are not wild.

It means they share a more recent common ancestor with them than with outside dogs.

But they reason that this evidence does kinda make them think NGSD might just have been village dogs, too, and never wild-living, as everyone seems to believe.

But that is not their main point.

Their main point is to disagree with the suggestion in the literature to have halstromi be considered a valid taxon based on their unique features and such.

They are genetically too closely related to other NG dogs for the taxon to be valid, they reason.

They reason that, the fact of the NGSD being part of the same general gene pool as NG village dogs means that halstromi is not valid taxonomy. This is their emphasis.

But that's not all.

Vanek at. al. also have a secondary point apart from their main point about the taxonomy.

They say the general consensus that about them being wild-living might be wrong.

They studied the literature that and were not convinced about them being wild-living dogs.

They read the evidence and claims and it didn't convince them. They point to the genetic similarity to the village dogs.

They say there's not enough evidence to conclusively establish as fact that NGSD did or do live as wild animals.

We simply don't have enough proof of them being wild dogs, from what's available.

They reason that, if they're most closely related to NG village dogs, that's reason to suspect that maybe they were just village dogs themselves, too, not wild-living dogs after all.

They say it's still possible they were/are just highland village dogs, and not wild-living dogs.

And so the general consensus, ''which they confirm exists, might be wrong about that, in their judgement. --- Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Name of this article
The name of this article is New Guinea singing dog, however that is not the common name that its scientific namer gave to it. Troughton named the dog Canis hallstromi in 1957 in his work "A new native dog from the Papuan Highlands". Later in 1971, his next work on it was titled "The early history and relationships of the New Guinea Highland dog (Canis hallstromi)". No mention of singing dogs. Recently an editor has added the name "New Guinea Highland dog" to the lead, and I concur. Given the recent media coverage regarding the latest find, I believe this term will become more popular. Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  09:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable to me. It does seem to be the nomenclature the recent stories have used, some with "wild dog" in place of "dog". But, given that this article also covers the domestic breed (or whatever it should be called), I think your proposed name is preferable (unless or until the article is split and/or the domestic section is removed). Mojoworker (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Highland dog" is listed secondarily because it hasn't been in use for some time. It may indeed come back into use, as predicted here above.  However, please wait for that to actually happen before the title of this article because "New Guinea singing dog" has been the common and expert term for this animal for a long time, so it's not for us to change that based on our personal points of view.  Chrisrus (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mojoworker. Agreed Chris, this is not a Move proposal but a beacon to let future editors know that they are not restricted to using the term NGSD, unless their reference uses that term. Regarding the recent "discovery", there is some doubts beginning to surface within the mammology community because feral dogs do live in the highlands and that these pix may show feral dogs living off the nearby mine's rubbish dump, nothing has been explicitly stated yet, however I have included the Type Specimen in order for readers to compare the pix to that and form their own opinions. Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  09:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right, we don't know how they live in their native New Guinea highlands. You are also right that there was a recent opinion that Halstromi not be valid because it's been shown that they share a more recent common ancestor with the New Guinea Lowland dogs, formerly known as Paupuensis, than they do with the other dogs they'd tested.  But I don't think anyone has said that they aren't obviously physically different from the lowland dogs and like each other, which they certainly and obviously are.  Chrisrus (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

LInk of `Video of New Guinea Singing Dogs "singing"` is useless
Most of what I can hear is people trying to howl like them. I can't pick out what's dog and what isn't.


 * If you have link to a better one, be bold. Mojoworker (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The article states "New Guinea singing dogs are named for their distinctive and melodious howl, which is characterized by a sharp increase in pitch at the start and very high frequencies at the end". The dogs in question were not singing, they were howling - actually more like whining - no different to any other dog, for the few howls that could be hear above the humans. The linked, downloadable audio soundclip under the External Links does not reflect what is cited. Here is a pack of huskies making similar howls. There are a number of dogs across the Malay Archipelago that almost meet the original breed description for the NGSD but are not quite there. I am concerned that both the singing sounds, and the number of pix in this article that are purported to be NGSD, are not genuine. Especially those dogs with a tail that curves over their back. I also believe that many of the dogs that are being "conserved" across the globe are not NGSD. These are my personal suspicions, and there is no solution to this issue until somebody finally finds a genuine NGSD, in New Guinea, that sings! William Harris •   (talk) •  10:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Guinea singing dog. 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/20110928080026/http://www.conservation.org/Documents/RAP_Reports/RAP45_Kaijende_Highlands_PNG_Aug-2005.pdf to http://www.conservation.org/Documents/RAP_Reports/RAP45_Kaijende_Highlands_PNG_Aug-2005.pdf

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) 01:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Breed box
I am replacing the current subspecies box with a dog breed box as per WP:BRD. My reasoning is:
 * 1) New Guinea singing dog is not a subspecies - Canis lupus dingo is the subspecies
 * 2) NGSD is a dog breed recognized by the American Rare Breed Association in their Category 5 dogs
 * 3) Refer Taxonomy section; in MSW3 Wozencraft classified both familiaris and dingo under a "domestic dog" clade
 * 4) The breed box has been modified to show the trinomial name as Canis lupus dingo

I understand that this is unusual, but we are dealing with an unusual case. Happy to discuss further. William Harris •  (talk) •  11:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)