User talk:William Harris/Archive 4

Wang and Tedford "Dogs"
I was travelling and had the chance to read Dogs- Their Fossil Relatives and Evolutionary History by Wang and Tedford. I was amazed- what a perfect piece of expository writing. I still have the last chapter on domestic dogs to go. Reading this excellent book I was humbled somewhat and I had one of those (uncommon for me) insights on how little I really know about this subject. Interesting to note however that since editing on wikipedia and delving into some of the actual papers I do feel I have got the jist of what's known today on the controversial subject of dogs. Wang is pretty definitive in his preference at his point in time (2008) that the dog is Canis Lupus Familiaris although he does explain alternative views of this from Coppinger et al. As vertebrate paleontologists, we prefer to use the subspecific designation Canis Lupus Familiaris, which captures the wolf-dog relationship.. Reading the book I was amazed at the sheer amount and relative speed of canid speciation. Also very interesting that short rostrums and rounded skulls are a sign of supercarnivorous bonecrackers, not just puppy features.

So I'm still on my quest to find out more- I still want to read most everything on the subject both in wikipedia "Dog" references and "Wolf" and "Paleolithic Dog" and others. Makumbe (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Good work Jeff, it remains an excellent text even after nearly a decade. Please go to Evolution of the wolf and compare the mandible of the wolf to the more massive one of the bulldog. One paper hinted that with these types of dogs, Borophagus genes might be making their appearance again - they have been waiting in the Canis DNA background for the right environmental conditions. Living with humans were the right conditions. William Harris •   (talk) •  04:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

William- a few questions for you: 1. Which WP articles are ones you've written or contributed to heavily? I'd like to start with those. 2.


 * Hi Jeff, go to User:William Harris, there is a table half-way down the page.

I looked at the bulldog pics in "Evolution of the Wolf" and I see that this illustration is of the skull of an Old English Bulldog from Shakespeare's time or so. I can see the massive jaw of which you speak and can see it still in the jaws of the hideous mess which is the modern English Bulldog- same lower jaw- deformed upper skull. Is there a link to the article which states this may be because of hidden Borophagus genes? Or is that the article you cited above?


 * Long forgotten Jeff, I was waiting for someone to further elaborate on that theme. However, hot off the press: here

3. In reading the "Evolution of the Wolf" article reference is made to dog's dentition being less robust than that of gray wolves'. This seems to me a great generalization and I have found that every JRT I've owned (3) has had very large, outsized teeth- in the case of one 18 pound dog I have now thick almost 1" canines (23mm)- larger than that of Retrievers and Labs I know. How do we know which skulls to judge for dog dentition?


 * No idea, Jeff, but based on the reference above the Evolution article will need to be updated shortly.

And finally 4. Why is the Dingo not used as a model for what Canis Lupus Familiaris looks like when man is taken out of the equation? The Dingo is basically a golden-colored wolf- a top predator and courser/chaser of large game. Does it not also have the "purest"ancient dog genes of today? Thanks for hearing me out- answer over time if you need to but I would like to get a list of your WP articles. Thanks, JeffMakumbe (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The dingo is a genetically divergent dog. What caused that genetic divergence is yet to be ascertained. Did it mix more with some form of wolf? Did it mix with something that was not a wolf? Or most likely, it has gone down its own evolutionary path to be slightly different to the dog - given time and isolation, these things happen! William Harris •   (talk) •  09:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

If you are interested in more general morphological adaptations, you might be interested in this review on carnivore adaptations: Déjà vu: the evolution of feeding morphologies in the Carnivora. Through time there has been a repeated cycle of convergent evolution, short-lived success and extinction of hypercarnivorous groups, the two most dramatic being the sabre-toothed cat and bone-crushing hyaena-like ecomorphs. These extreme adaptations are highly successful in a particular environment, but the specialisation makes them vulnerable to change. As mentioned above, bone-cracking appeared in the borophagines where the shorter snout of Borophagus helped with the crunching (as in the spotted hyaena, see Fig 9). If the domestic dog arose from a similar evolutionary trend within wolves, they found an unusual way of avoiding the fate of most extreme hypercarnivores.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 10:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jts1882, I will give it a good read. CVB did the key research on the Dire wolf article, and is also a senior member of the Leonard 2007 Beringian wolf team. Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  11:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

And what do they say here? "A total of 1021 specimens were analysed, including 750 modern domestic dogs, 205 modern Grey wolves (Canis lupus), and 66 Pleistocene wolves." Is one not the other??? William Harris •  (talk) •  12:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks William for the info. I'll be quietly studying now- you'll have a little break! Thanks again- JeffMakumbe (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

First paragraph of "Dog"- again
William- I have been thinking about the re-write of the first paragraph of WP "Dogs". I am not quite ready yet but I want to clarify the wolf/dog relationship sentence which we have discussed a lot and I also want to fix the last sentence which talks about the new research by B. von Holdt and the WBS connection to dog sociability and intelligence. The way it is written now it seems to say that dogs are dim retarded versions of wolves with a "syndrome" which is debilitating in humans. Adam Byoko of Cornell wrote of this study: "But, he said, it looks at a small number of animals, and although the genes it identifies are good candidates for producing hypersociability, more research on a larger and more diverse group of animals would be needed to confirm the results.". I find the notion very interesting but the study actually says that the same genes are affected in dogs, not that dogs have the syndrome. I also think that the intelligence demarcation between wolves and dogs is a bit fuzzy and working with "animal behaviorists" gets us into the squishy, subjective part of science. I would like to remove the last sentence as is from the end of the first paragraph and put it further down in the article. I would like to refer to this new research more generally- as in say: "new research seems to show that dog's sociability may be affected by the same genes as in humans..." Let me know what you think- sorry you didn't get much of a break- JeffMakumbe (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Jeff, I concur with your approach. I have not read the VonHoldt article as yet - still looking at something else - but she has been criticised recently for not using a wide sampling in her coyote paper last year (and being a good scientist she called for a wider samping to be done in its conclusion). The verbiage from the new VonHoldt article is interesting but challengeable, therefore it should go into the body of the text, possibly under "6.2 Behaviour". Even more appropriate, it should be relocated under Dog behavior and not appear on the Dog page at all, because "6.2 Behaviour" should reflect a summary of the Dog behavior page. Then you can get back to your "holiday". William Harris •   (talk) •  22:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Arabian Wolf
William- greetings! I am watching a movie on Arabian wolves in Israel's Jordan Valley and besides being amazed at how similar they are to dingoes (big ears, maybe shorter legs than the average wolf, maybe a more doglike orbital angle on the skull, tannish gray short hair and distinct whitish facial markings) I found a couple of things which make me think the Arabian Wolf article needs editing. First- these wolves are shown unambiguously howling- the article claims they don't howl. Second- the Arabian wolf is doing quite well in Israel and lives not only in southern Israel but also up in the Golan Heights and in the Jordan Valley- both in northern Israel. Is this worth correcting? Should I go to the Talk Page there first? I'm just coming back from quite an imbroglio on another Wiki page but I'm back on the dogs. Thanks for your help- Jeff TMakumbe (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * All of the Canis-related articles on Wikipedia could do with some editing, Jeff. The best approach would be to track down an article that says these things, and simply make the changes citing the article. Movies are interesting but not as reputable as a published, peer-reviewed article by an expert in the field.

Also- I notice in doing obsessive photo comparisons that always the wolf's legs are longer than the dingo's and most dogs. Especially the metacarpus. One of the reasons I thought the Doug Swingley Alaskan Husky used to illustrate the article Alaskan Husky was part wolf is those long legs. Any thoughts on this? Anything in the genes of what we might consider proto-dogs? Did the Beringian Wolf or the Goyet Dog or paleolithic dogs in general have shorter legs? I know this is well known but I don't know the concensus as to why dogs have shorter legs. A mystery as usual? Makumbe (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * All of the megafaunally-adpated wolves had shorter legs than the holarctic gray wolf (Canis lupus lupus), Jeff. This includes the Goyet clade and Paleolithic dogs. The modern gray wolf is better adapted to running quickly over longer distances (to bring down deer??). Soon we will have to face the reality of it - the modern holarctic wolf is the odd mutation, not the earlier wolves! So if the megafaunal wolf was the ancestor, then we should expect the dog to show the same. Else, the dog has had 15,000 years (minimum) living with humans, so it has moved off in a different evolutionary path, adding support to the classification of Canis familiaris. William Harris •   (talk) •  09:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Latest on the dog
Makumbe and Jts1882 -

From G. Larsen: ''Oh man. We've wasted all our time and money chasing dog origins. Turn the machines off guys, we've been scooped''  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09m1CzqDfbE

William Harris •  (talk) •  09:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll watch it. It looks very "realistic" ahemmm-emm! Best dog movie isWhite God- a Hungarian film. They trained 450 dogs to make it. Pretty cool.Makumbe (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Arabian Wolf attributes
William- Any suggestions for this? As far as I can tell the "no howling" legend comes from 1 internet source- "Encyclopedia of Animals". I'll do a more thorough search for original sources but this film from Israel unequivocally shows them howling. Maybe I'll try to contact someone over there. If you have a faster way to get a source please let me know. Thanks, JLT Makumbe (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Jeff, the cited source is: Lopez, B. H. (1978). Of Wolves and Men. p. 320. ISBN 978-0743249362. The total number of pages are 320, so the editor has not provided a page number and therefore the ref does not meet WP:CITE. I am going to place a template on the citation asking for a page number. If nobody has provided it in a months time, I will remove the reference. That is how I do it, although I am a bit WP:BEBOLD than most. William Harris •   (talk) •  09:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Reality contradicts the citation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBO5AXU9IxQ. Arabian wolves in Israel howl at 9:41. I'll try to find a source and then edit. I do understand I can't use the film as a citation. Even if we find the Lopez citation's page number I think what's really going on is that the Arabian wolves simply howl less. Makumbe (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The big question here Jeff: is Barry Lopez an expert on wolves whose work is WP:RELIABLE? The answer is no. William Harris •   (talk) •  22:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks William. I've written an email today to the Tel Aviv University Zoology department. Hopefully they'll send a good citation. Then I'll go to the Arabian Wolf Talk page- tell them about my edit and then change it. I learned last month not to just go in guns-a-blazin'...Makumbe (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * OK Jeff, or simply wait for me to remove the verbiage - problem solved. The complicating factor is that the Indian wolf occupies this range as well - do we clearly know which wolf was in the documentary? William Harris •   (talk) •  00:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the film is trustworthy. Filmed in Israel near the Golan heights. But as you point out it could be Indian wolves which they filmed- I didn't know they ranged that far west. I found this in print which is from the UAE Wolf breeding program. First sentence talks about Arabian wolves howling. You're right about the citation in the article- not dependable. I can wait unless I get a good citation- then I'll go to the Talk page for the article. JLTMakumbe (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Jeff, you could do that or you could go further. This article was created in 2006 and its creator has been blocked. It is still at Start Class on the quality scale after a decade. Looking at the edit history, these are all minor edits. Nobody has WP:STEWARDSHIP of this article. You might consider taking it under your wing and redeveloping it into something worthy of a C-Class. It does not have to be a major article, I did much of the small Greenland wolf article. Google Scholar awaits! To get you started: here William Harris •   (talk) •  10:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I will work on it William. How do I take "...it under my wing..."? Thanks for your confidence. I did read the article you sent before (I found it in a search) but found no mention of howling- if I edit I can just leave that out. I'll let you know soon- thanks! JLTMakumbe (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Just leave the howling alone for now; we have a template on it, and any editor is welcome to provide a page number (which will never happen) over the next several weeks. If none is provided after that time, then it becomes questionable and can be removed. To take it under your wing you do some research - the article itself provides some references but does not cite them very well in the body - and commence making amendments with a planned structure. The structure would include the sections we find in most other wolf articles - Taxonomy, Description, Range & Conservation - nobody can argue with these. Any changes you make need to WP:CITE expert WP:RELIABLE sources which other editors can WP:VERIFY. That's it, it can be very brief. Once you start making amendments that others cannot argue with, you gain some credibility and they will let you continue. Much of this stuff is already there but not well-structured nor well-cited. If you can find a paragraph on, for example, range from one source, you only need to cite that source at the end of the paragraph. Develop an entire section in your Sandbox, and when you are happy with it just drop it in and replace what is in the article. This article can become one can be yours Jeff. You will be the Wikipedia expert on the Arabian wolf by the end of the month. William Harris •   (talk) •  21:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help William- I will work on it. I will leave the howling alone although I did get an email from Eli Geffen of Tel Aviv University stating that the wolves do howl, just not very much. He sent me a couple of general papers on Israeli wolves including the one you sent before from 1999. One of citations says there is a difference between Golan wolves and the Negev wolves so I'm just going to assume the Golan wolves aren't necessarily Arabian. I'll try to make the article short and succint and use the format you laid out. Much I guess will remain unchanged- just better cited. I will redo the article in my Sandbox and then replace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makumbe (talk • contribs) 16:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC) Makumbe (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * So now you have expert contacts in the uni? Welcome into a bigger world! Store those emails away somewhere safe; you may need to contact them at some stage in the future. William Harris •   (talk) •  21:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes- I am in contact with Dr. Geffen. He also told me that they don't distinguish between northern Israeli wolves and southern as the "division of wolves into sub-species is not sound science". So I guess to be accurate I will have to be more general in the article. I discovered during my "Panzer" whoop-d-doo that I can just email people and they will usually email back! Love that Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makumbe (talk • contribs) 16:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Makumbe (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to bring it up again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipRv8szhSCY Don't worry. I won't use it as a citation...Makumbe (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume this footage was taken in some animal reserve where they all grew up together. A wild wolf pack would have chased off a hyena very quickly. William Harris •   (talk) •  10:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Arabian Wolf references
William- I've been scouring the internet looking for available Arabian Wolf information. I can't seem to find much free stuff on Google Scholar even though I have a UC Berkeley address so I'm going to get the articles from the UC Library but that will take some figuring out. I did find an actual citation for Arabian wolves in the Sinai but I need to see the whole article to clarify the sub-species status if it even addresses that. From what I gather from Dr. Geffen the people actually studying the wolves don't necessarily call them arabs or pallipes. I have read an excerpt from one article about wolves in Arabia which talks about genetic differences between the two and that in Arabia at least they are arabs. Anyway- I'm working on it. Any tips about Google Scholar would be appreciated. I think however I'm going to actually schlepp to the library... Jeff T.Makumbe (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW- don't worry about me over-writing the article- I will keep it short and succinct. I just want to know what I'm talking about. JLTMakumbe (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Google scholar is of some use but you have to search on different terms - Canis lupus arabs, Arabian wolf, Israeli wolf etc. You might glean some items from here, plus there may be some references at the end of this article that may be useful, Jeff. Most of what is already in the article can probably be supported by the sources given as references, but require adequate inline citations to give them authority. Good luck! William Harris •   (talk) •  09:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

William- I started with some editing in my Sandbox. I found out I have full access to the UC Berkeley Library so I should be able to craft a well-cited accurate article soon. I want to add a bit also about their more omnivorous diet (at least in Israel and Saudi Arabia) and their behavioral adaptions to live near humans. (Smaller groups, more independent foraging)Makumbe (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC) I still need to read more- having fun doing this. JLT


 * And that is the most important thing, Jeff - if you are not having some fun and some intellectual challenge then don't do it! William Harris •   (talk) •  12:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Stuck on Arabian Wolf
William- I am getting the Arabian Wolf article together but I am stuck on a couple of weird points. Almost all internet lore has it that these wolves have two middle toes fused together "similar to African Wild Dogs" but I can find no reference to this in any actual scientific paper or reputable wolf book (Mech, T K Fuller or even the 1930s article by Pocock). In fact I can find no actual description of the Arabian Wolf anywhere. Another thing I'm stuck on is the supposed long hairs on their back "an adaptation to solar radiation". In photos I see what is described but I don't think that is necessarily good enough. The internet lore writers must have gotten their info somewhere- but I can't find it. I have worked on the article in my Sandbox- I have a reference for almost every fact I've used so far but the article's going to be rather short at this point- I think a lot of what is in the original article is BS. I do want to add a section on the current thinking about the wolf's taxonomy (separate from pallipes, possibly mixing with dogs) and maybe a better photo. They are fascinating creatures, similar in lifestyle in many places to Italian wolves- eating garbage, slightly acclimatized to people. If you can suggest where to get an actual scientific description that would help. I do now have access to the Berkeley Library so just point me. Thanks- JLTMakumbe (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There is only one sure way, Jeff. Can you locate a scanned copy of: The Annals and magazine of natural history, Series 10, volume 14, page 636? Yes, Pocock's original description in 1934! Then nobody can disagree with you. It is part of the Taylor-Francis stable here. Also try Pocock's next work here. Try Clutton-Brock here. William Harris •   (talk) •  11:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The Annals and Magazine of Natural History are available at the Biodiversity Library.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 14:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oops, but only up to Series 9 in 1923. Strange cut-off date as it doesn't seem to fit an obvious copyright limit. Neither is very helpful on the Arabian wolf, although the second is more extensive on other "races" of wolf.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 14:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jts1882. I have rented the original Pocock article on "Races of Canis Lupus" and found a cursory description there: "not much bigger than a jackal". I think at this point it'll have to do. When I'm at work and can access the library I will try to find the original articles you've pointed me to- thanks very much.Makumbe (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The young megafaunal wolf pups begin to grow bigger and sharper teeth; soon they will be ready to hunt in a pack. William Harris •   (talk) •  10:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you check my Sandbox?
William- some of my work so far on the Arabian Wolf article with references is in my Sandbox. Can you take a look when you have time. It's not done by a long shot- I want to clean up the references; probably remove the "fused toe" statement; possibly the Biblical stuff at the end will go; I want to remove one illustration (Israeli wolves at night) and put in a better one and I want to make it more readable generally. I did find a reference for group size where you had put in a template. Anyway- can you check it out? Thanks much, JLTMakumbe (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Jeff, the source of your problems can be found here. I have done some edits that you can step through to see how I have approached it. I see in parts that you appear to have copied and pasted directly. You will need to rejig it into similar but other words, else you will be in trouble for plagiarism. Wikipedia uses software to track this down, and your pastes will simply be deleted. Please fix. I have already removed the inappropriate "In culture" section from the article itself; if someone has an issue then I am happy to chat with them. I think it is developing well. Once it is just about ready to go, you can decide what is important/interesting for the lead paragraph. Yes, it will be short, but it is ticking all the right boxes!


 * The section "Citation generator" is a tool to stay in your Sandbox and you will find it useful in the future. Once you have the citation button installed - it will show up between the "Show changes" and the "Cancel" buttons when you are editing - then give me a call and I will show you how to use it. William Harris •   (talk) •  10:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much William. I did copy and paste under "Taxonomy"just to start- I was going to re-write it all after I cleared it up in my mind. I do understand plagiarism although I didn't know about the software. I appreciate your working on the various paragraphs- I think I can have it ready soon. I'll have you check it then. Thanks again- JLTMakumbe (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Citation generator installed
Hi again William. I installed the citation generator- successfully I think. Just giving you a holler- Thanks, JLTMakumbe (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * OK Jeff, leave that whole section called "Citation generator" in the bottom of your Sandbox for good, you will be using it soon. Go into edit mode in your Sandbox and you will find that the first line in that section and I have entered the doi number of one of your references. Now press the "Citations" word that should by now be sitting between "Show changes" and "Cancel" and watch the magic - it will fetch the full citation for you! William Harris •   (talk) •  09:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks William- I played with it but I'm still not clear on how it works. At this point I'm going to finish Arabian Wolf and run it by you. Talk to you soon- JLTMakumbe (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Almost "go" for The Arabian Wolf
William- I have finally gotten most of what I need to re-write the Arabian Wolf article. I have hard copies of both Pocock articles from 1934 and 1935 as well as at least six more current ones. I can find no reputable reference about the fused toe which if comparable to an African wild dog is actually fused pads on the bottom of the foot. The wolf is a small (possibly the smallest) Canis Lupus which is a garbage eater and harasser of small animals and domestic ones also. It chases larger ungulates of the region on occasion. It is rare outside of Israel and the wilds of Saudi. So I'll try to write it this next week, put it up in my Sandbox and have you critique it. I will need help making the citations correct and I want to change one of the images to one which I found on Wikimedia Commons- I'll need advice on that. My plan is to re-write everything- I think I have a pretty good handle on it now. In a week or two there should be a new Arabian Wolf article. Thanks for your advice and help- Jeff T.Makumbe (talk) 04:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Go for it, Jeff! You might be able to use this:

The cranial length of the adult Arab wolf (Canis lupus arabs) measures on average 200.8 mm, which is smaller than most wolves.

William Harris •  (talk) •  09:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Arabian wolf fused paw pads
William- I am almost done with the article on the Arabian Wolf. If you want check it out on my Sandbox- critique away please! However- I emailed Dr. Geffen in Israel and he told me that the whole fused paw pad thing is true in some individuals- he gave me some references to use which I can't get 'til next week. These little wolves are very weird! So I'm not quite done- I don't want to just write in in the article and use my email as a reference! Anyway- soon it'll be done and I'll need instruction on how to migrate it to the official Wikipedia page. Thanks much, Jeff T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makumbe (talk • contribs) 15:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Makumbe (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello William Harris
Hello William Harris! I just wanted to inform you that the Negev is a part of Mandatory Palestine. Is it okay if I add Palestine to the list? Please explain why or why not on my talk page because I have a little bit of trouble understanding some vague directions. Thanks a lot for your help! I would love to make helpful contributions to Wikipedia in any way I can. 98.191.196.7 (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Ready to push the button
William- I'm ready to go with this article. Don't exactly know the procedure however. Could you check it for me and maybe help me migrate it? I added the part about c. l. arabs shorter cranial length that you suggested. I will get confirmation of the fused paw pads but for now I left that out. If anything I think the article is over-referenced but I'd rather lean toward too much than too little. I did notice your edits (at least I think they were yours)- thanks very much. Please let me know what you think- thanks, JLTMakumbe (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The article looks good Jeff. The process is the exact opposite of how you got the article into your sandbox. In your sandbox, go into edit mode, then select and copy everything from the first "{" that begins the subspecies box all the way down to the last "}" at the end of the reference section. Then go to the Arabian wolf article, and in edit mode select the same area, then paste. Do a Show Preview on it and if it looks fine then Save Changes. Make a general edit summary before you save, such as "Rewrote article to meet WP:CITE". Nobody can argue with that. You have done the good work Jeff, so the honor to publish it belongs to you! William Harris •   (talk) •  09:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

OK I did it! I would call this a successful collaborative effort- you've helped me a lot. I will put in the "fused paw" text as soon as I get a reference. Thanks much William- Obi-Wan!Makumbe (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking good. However, the diet section is repetitive, mentioning the prey and human excess several times. The three sentences are independently referenced, though, so I'm unsure how to consolidate with the correct reference.   Jts1882 &#124; talk 17:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jts1882. I'll try to make it flow better when I add in the part about fused paw pads. I should be getting that reference soon. I'll try to clean it up a bit then. Thanks for your help too.Makumbe (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The article is now yours, Jeff, in the sense of WP:STEWARDSHIP. I am sure you have a Watch on it, and I will keep one on it for a month or so just to help keep the predators under control. Then I will leave it in your capable hands as I have a number of others to watch over. Any probs, you know where to find me. Perhaps later you might find another unloved wolf article in need of TLC. Happy editing! William Harris •   (talk) •  09:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there a procedure or do I just have WP:STEWARDSHIP? Thanks for helping me with this experience- I probably will try to find some other orphans. Gratitude William!Makumbe (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No procedure, you are just it if you want it! Please see the section below this one and my message on that editor's Talk page - I don't want to see the revamped article set up for an edit war over the Palestine/Israel issue. William Harris •   (talk) •  10:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

So do I just keep an eye on the edit history and the text itself? I have a watch on the page but it doesn't seem to notify me anywhere. BTW- I am going to re-do the "Diet" section as I have a new source. Again- thanks for your help- I'm finding this a lot of fun. JeffMakumbe (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * At the top of your screen, right hand side, you can read coming back from the right the buttons: Log out, Contributions, Watchlist. I click on my Watchlist each time I visit Wikipedia to see what has been happening. I have mine set up to cover edits over the past 5 days. If you have a watch on a page, and there has been an edit, you can see THE MOST RECENT edit listed here - you will then need to check the page to see if there have been earlier edits for that day.
 * You might find this interesting: The Two Wolf Subspecies (Canis lupus arabs Pocock, 1934) and (Canis lupus pallipes Sykes, 1831) in Palestine By: Prof. Dr. Sc. Norman Ali Bassam Ali Taher Khalaf-Sakerfalke von Jaffa William Harris •   (talk) •  09:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting you should bring up the 2 species. I recently took out Fauna Palestina- The Mammals of Israel by Mendelssohn and they talk quite a bit about the 2 species. Apparently pallipes lives in most of Israel (they think) and arabs only in the way southern Negev. Also- Dr. Geffen wrote in an email that the "...division of wolves into subspecies is not sound science. There is no real distinction between the northern and southern wolf population in Israel." So I'll check out that article- there seem to be 2 opposing views. What a shock in canine studies!Makumbe (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * To be thorough, you might like to express both views in the article and leave it up to the reader decide what they think about it. William Harris •   (talk) •  21:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused on the taxonomy but I'm going to leave that section as is for now. Another paper basically says that the wolves in Israel were all pallipes but in recent years the Golan wolves are getting bigger and tested genetically closer to C.l. lupus. I think Dr. Geffen is right that in Israel at least the taxonomy is not "sound science". A picture of a Golan wolf which attacked hikers seems to show a scrawny pathetic specimen: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.655653. Anyway- I hope the article isn't over-cited...Thanks, JTMakumbe (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, we are looking at Canis soup. Phenotype classification is only one step away from saying that an elephant is a grey coloured mammal with four legs and a tail, a mouse is a grey coloured mammal with four legs and a tail, therefore a mouse is an elephant! William Harris •   (talk) •  03:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

In his email Dr. Geffen was very clear that he thought the whole kit and keeboodle were arabs from the Golan to the Negev. Just leave it as is? I like Canis soup. Since you introduced me to the concept and the more I study and learn the more it does seem that is the best description for what we know. I now think dogs are a unique and separate group- I used to be a radical Canis LUPUS familiaris guy. Now I'm not sure of any of it. BTW- I'm thinking of attacking the Indian Pariah dog article- it's a mess and maybe there's something there. Makumbe (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Now you are ready for your next step. The grey wolf lineage only dates back genetically to 80,000 years ago (Kobbelmuller 2016), yet there are fossils going back to 800k. The coyote lineage only dates back genetically to 56,000 years ago (vonHoldt 2016), yet there are fossils dating over 1 million years ago. Huh? I have not put it up on Wikipedia yet but our Italian friends propose that Canis can be compared to a plant with lots of stems, and as one stem breaks off (extinction) another stem evolves to take its place as though nothing had happened. This is probably through parallel evolution. Descent from a common ancestor (a Canis ancestor) and parallel evolution is the reason C. areaus could not be distinguished from C. anthus until 2015 when genetics told otherwise. William Harris •   (talk) •  03:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Which Italian friends? Any links? I always wondered about those discrepancies. I always "knew" that coyotes went back 1 million years yet now there're genetics showing a much later evolution. ditto the wolf itself. It should be completely uncontroversial that dogs are lupus since they diverged so recently but again now genetics shows an unknown wolf ancestor. As far as anthus I was worried that the Arabian Wolf article was inaccurate in stating it's the smallest wolf because I remembered that it was C.l. anthus (lupaster)for a while and thus the smallest wolf. It's fascinating...


 * C. anthus is not a subspecies of lupus, so your article is correct. The article is here and states: "In light of the latest discoveries about fossil and extant Caninae, a more appropriate approach in investigating the evolutionary history of fossil forms could be a pattern better represented by a branching tree instead of a linear succession to present-day species."

The Indian pariah dog is a mess and is still at Start class after all of these years. You can clearly see the position taken by some editors in the past, that somehow the dingo and the Carolina dog and the Pariah dog are much the same "species" because they "look the same", emanating from the work of Laurie Corbett back in the 1990s. I have already "cleansed" the Carolina dog and the dingo of that notion. If you get any comment it will be from my friend Chrisrus from the US. You can see his past comments on the Talk page. He would also make a powerful ally if you can convince him. Also 7&6=thirteen has been reverting edits there recently - I have found him to be firm but fair and reasonable. You will need to have your facts right for this one, and you may have to represent two points of view (for several months, at least). There is also a relationship with Pariah dog. This might help get you started: http://indog.co.in/  William Harris •   (talk) •  09:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hares
Hey there! Have seen you a lot editing mammals! I was wondering if the Smith's red rock hare and the Natal red rock hare were ready for a GA. Not really much data on the two hare species (in fact the four species of the genus have very less data available). Could you say if it was complete enough for a GA? Thank you very much and I hope you have a great day! Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Adityavagarwal, what a pleasant surprise. I note that you have quite a bit of experience with GA/FA yourself. I am a "wolf" person and no expert on "rabbits", and so it would not be an appropriate for me to review these two articles, but I believe some fine work has been done to bring both articles up in quality and these are almost ready for GA. (Don't be too daunted by the current huge Natural Science GA requests, most of these are student assignments posted onto Wikipedia and probably will not be assessed. Rest assured, someone will pick up the hares within a couple of weeks of listing them for GA.)

Some comments:
 * these are not large articles but that should not preclude a higher quality assessment
 * the GA reviewer will give you further questions on how to improve the article; hopefully they have some expertise in hares etc
 * we have the predators of the NRH but not the SRRH - is this available?
 * Nope, no information. Unable to find anything anywhere on the SRRH's predators. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * who are their competitors - is that available?
 * This is unavailable either. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * we write for a largely North American audience that likes things simply spelled out and does not always follow the links on important information, so where the first sentence in both articles says: "is a species of mammal in the family Leporidae," I would include immediately after that "the same family as rabbits and hares," and then continue the sentence. That way we have underlined that it really is a hare and not some misnaming that has happened with some other species in the past.
 * Spelled out! Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Is any photo or sketch available on SRRH?
 * Sadly, no, we do not have any image on commons... Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * as both articles have been badged under Wikiproject Mammals, we need to go with MSW3 taking the priority in Taxonomy. I will do that section in each for you - it gets complicated and the difference between both species is not clear.
 * Thank you so much! Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  22:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I will reclassify both articles at quality=B level now.
 * Once we get the items above sorted out they will be ready for your WP:GAC.
 * Thanks a bunch for your help! Thank you very much for your msw3 taxonomy thing too! Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, if you have any material on both the species and the alpine pika, would you please send me (maybe msw3 pages)? :P They would help in expanding the article. Thanks in advance! Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Taxonomy complete! (I mentioned that it was not easy.) With Smith's, you might remove the list of subspecies from the Hoffman list in the text body and just let the taxobox do that work - your decision. Here is the MSW3 page you were looking for here, just cite it the way I did in the hare articles. Happy editing your rodents and good luck with the GAC nominations! William Harris •   (talk) •  11:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Does it look good now? I have removed it from the Taxonomy section. Thanks a ton for helping me out. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You are most welcome, and they are ready to go. I didn't know there were hares in Africa! William Harris •   (talk) •  12:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lol, the four hares in the genus are so cute. :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added the subspecies and synonyms for the alpine pika. Could you say if I got them right? No idea how to get those (esoteric :P). I think I got the synonyms right, but as for the subspecies, I am sure I might have gotten O. a. sayanica (A. Smith, 1834) and O. a. nanula (A. Smith, 1834) wrong (maybe one or two more?) I used iucn and this too, as there was nothing about sayanica and nanula in msw2 (or should I have just left sayanica and nanula as they were not present in msw2?).
 * In MSW3, when the author provides a list of synonyms they will bold the names of those that are subspecies. Plus, you add the nominate subspecies, which is what the original classifier was looking at. The remaining synonyms we just leave with the one-word name, as we do not know - without looking it up - if their classifiers were proposing them as a subspecies, a species, or even a different species. William Harris •   (talk) •  10:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a ton! It was so very helpful, and I now understand it. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The "Real" dog today
Hi William- I've been doing some googling and you-tubing and reading about dogs in general and I realize that dingoes are probably closest to the proto-dog whence all modern dogs come from. I wonder also about all those village dogs and street dogs worldwide. The number 75% is thrown around a lot. In your opinion or experience do dogs which are left alone by man devolve back to a proto-dog type?


 * It is a proposal that has, as far as I know, no evidence to support it. Who would have done the study over several hundred years no note the proposed regression?

I'm very interested in the Moscow street dogs as many seem to look a certain way- ditto Indian village dogs, who also seem to resemble Tijuana garbage dogs etc. etc. I started out wanting to work on the Indian Pariah dog page but now I'm not sure that's even doable. I hear a lot of Coppinger theories- some may be right but he cherry-picks facts and leaves out stuff which doesn't fit. For instance- I'm still not sold on the "dogs have smaller teeth" theory- I think that many dogs have smaller teeth than wolves but personally I've known many dogs that have teeth as big as wolves'- my Jack Russell Max being one of them. I'm also not completely sold on the dogs' tiny brain. I guess I'm asking you if there is any genetic evidence for a dog closest to the first dogs living today. Is there any genetic evidence that Indian Pariah dogs are close to dingoes?


 * Have you ever seen a 70kg Bull Mastiff's teeth? I am glad they are on our side! Dogs have smaller brains to skull size in comparison with wolves, however Homo sapiens have smaller brains in comparison with Neanderthals - are we saying that makes us less smart? The brain size is not of importance, and the brains of both humans and dogs have more "wrinkles" around the outside - something to do with more processing power as we both became "domesticated"; I am unsure of the biology.

Also- I fear that worldwide the horrible influence of the Victorians is introducing bad genes and worthless dogs in the form of "purebreds". Does the genetics of these dogs screw up that of real landrace type dogs which still exist? Please excuse the babbling- I'm trying to get the Dog straight in my mind and having a hard time!Makumbe (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Google scholar will reveal some recent works that criticises the loss of genetic diversity in the "Victorian-era" dog breeds, suggests that breed clubs "loosen up" their rules, and allow some cross-breeding among the European lineages to occur.

PS- I downloaded the article you cited about Canis etruscus but still haven't read it. I can't wait for the 2018 report. Think there'll be any answers to this mystery in there?


 * Based on GL's previous strategy on animal domestication, we can probably expect some hard-hitting papers to be released on the origin of the wolf and the dog earlier, followed by "the master himself" wrapping it all up as a "secondary source" - perfect for Wikipedia. I believe it will answer many questions, raise a whole lot more, and leave us all still staring at Canis soup! William Harris •   (talk) •  12:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess I don't mean regression so much as re-wilding like pigs do. After a few generations loose on their own domestic pigs apparently revert back to looking pretty boar-like. Ditto for dogs? The Moscow dogs actually have been studied a lot and seem to end up a certain way with a certain look. I DO realize that 99% of what I read on the internet and watch on youtube is speculation or outright BS. I just find it interesting. Another example is the wild dogs in Australia who are mostly domestic dog who've taken over the dingo's niche in the Blue Mountains. I know- I better read the Dingo paper referred to above! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makumbe (talk • contribs) 17:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC) Makumbe (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Pigs reverting - "you gotta cite for that?", as we say in the editorial reverts. :-) This you might find interesting:http://www.cell.com/cell-reports/pdf/S2211-1247(17)30456-4.pdf  William Harris •   (talk) •  09:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually yes! : It's actually common knowledge (gotta love that common knowledge!) - pigs revert to wild form after a few generations- I mean in appearance- I don't know what goes on genetically obviously... Another (not WP| CITE) example of what I speak: https://www.quora.com/Do-domesticated-pigs-revert-into-wild-boars-when-they-are-released-into-the-wild Makumbe (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Your reference tells me on page one that a feral pig is a domestic pig that has returned to the wild; it has not said that they revert to a wild form in appearance. (Nonetheless, I live in Australia, I have seen them in the bush, and they have a tough hide, dark fur, the males have large tusks and they are fearsome!) William Harris •   (talk) •  22:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Just bear with me- I think you understand what I mean. A few generations-in-the-wild hog looks very different from his barnyard brother. Where I was going with this is to wonder whether this happens with dogs also. It seems that left to their own devices they end up looking like dingoes or pariah dogs. Don't know where to go from there...

Also- I am taking a dog biology course online. It should help reading the papers you recommend and with understanding Canis Soup.Makumbe (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you are now ready to handle this one. See what he says about the dog and brace yourself! - DOI: 10.18699/VJ15.036 William Harris •   (talk) •  04:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow. I read it! I hate to sound like a pompous ass but that is where I was headed in MY thinking! When I started obsessing about Pariah dog and Dingo I thought it was weird that dogs down there seem to "devolve" into yellowish, pointy-nosed, prick-eared 45 pound creatures, not that much like wolves except for a bit the little Arabian or possibly Indian wolves. Dogs never seem to get Cls long legs. The curly tail thing. I guess Linnaeus was right all along! This plus all your careful guidance has prepared me to accept Canis familiaris as more accurate. Thanks for showing me that paper- it will be interesting to see how it jibes with the upcoming Canine Armageddon paper in 2018!


 * Not to mention how the dog will be handled in MWS4 here William Harris •   (talk) •  21:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You might be able to get a preview of the dog handling from the new ASM database, which is run by the committee that used to handle Mammal Species of the World. The database is only in beta and rather rudimentary at the moment, but here is the Canis listing. No dog, but Ethiopian wolf, African golden wolf and red wolf are now separate species, which they weren't in MSW3.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 14:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. I note that anthus is referred simply as Golden wolf in the pix.
 * This dates back to 2015 at Bucknell: "ITEC and web application developers helped Dee Ann Reeder reimagine her popular OER, Mammal Species of the World. This 4th edition (in the final stages of development) uses a visual interface that is easily navigated and edited by over 30 biologists collaborating on the project." We may find that all of the action will take place here at Bucknell, however there is nothing behind it yet.  William Harris •   (talk) •  21:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Dingo "controversy"
FYI: the latest paper on the status of the Dingo has just appeared, and it stands to greatly complicate several Wikipedia articles, most notably Dingo and Dingo (taxon), both of which you have recently edited. Nutshell: not a species, not a subspecies, just a feral domestic variety, therefore Canis familiaris. See 138.23.68.6 (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this article; it has been written by all the right people. Please note that I have already captured Jackson and Groves position under the "Taxonomic debate" section of both articles, quoting their WP:SECONDARY source "Taxonomy of Australian Animals", which carries more weight on Wikipedia than a WP:PRIMARY source such as this article. I appreciate your message and I will give it a thorough reading. I have also included in the articles Fan 2016: Worldwide patterns of genomic variation and admixture in gray wolves - the dingo is a phylogenetically basal member of the domestic dog clade. Why that is so should be the main question, rather than academics playing around with an antiquated, two centuries old, three-tier Latin classification system that is almost meaningless in the 21st Century. Give me its 2.2 billion base pair DNA code any day! Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  12:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have read the article and it is a literature review, which means that it rates on Wikipedia as secondary sourcing. I have included it in the Dingo article. It contains some assumptions which the opponents in this debate will seize upon shortly in their rebuttal. However, I understand that MSW4 is being prepared and therefore this work is timely for the classifiers to consider. William Harris •   (talk) •  09:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * A very nice review. I particularly liked the sections on the nature of species and domesticate naming, especially the discussion of the IUZN ruling and Gentry et al (2004), which is useful generally beyond the Dingo discussion. Going back to the discussion of the opening paragraph in the Dog article, I thought that "dogs (including Dingoes) originated from domestication of the Gray Wolf or its immediate ancestor" was a nice uncontroversial way of putting it.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 09:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Given that Wozencraft placed both the Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo into what he referred to as the "domestic dog clade", there were several of us who had tried to fight that battle in the past, however W was not completely clear and other editors invoked WP:PRIMARY TOPIC to have only familiaris represented in the dog article and the dingo was completely removed! Then the "dingo pack" removed the dog from the Dingo article! Around 18 months ago I attempted to do some major edits on Dingo but these were reverted. However, over the past 6 months I have slowly rewritten the Etymology, Taxonomy and Lineage sections along the lines of how I think they should be, whilst maintaining a WP:NPOV (which draws criticism from time to time), and worked the dog back into that article under the Taxonomic debate. I worked the dingo back into the Dog article under Taxonomy. I would like to lift the quality of Dingo from C class to B class, but it is going to have to be by patience and stealth rather than a quick, front-on assault. One of my colleagues from those days has just put the dog back in the lead of the Dingo article. I think the time is almost right to put the dingo back in the lead of the dog article. If you progress it, then be prepared for a battle from others. Else, the past may now be in the past. William Harris •   (talk) •  09:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The "Altai dog" is not a wolf!
Makumbe and Jts1882 - Gentlemen, Freedman & Wayne have supported Anna Druzhkova's 2013 mDNA finding that the 33,500 year-old "Altai dog" IS a dog! That makes Central Asia the oldest archaeological finding. Now all we need is for Larson to agree with them. The article is a well-explained description/critique of all of the genetic research to date: 10.1146/annurev-animal-022114-110937  William Harris •   (talk) •  10:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't access it until tomorrow or later this week. I've ordered it from our library. Can't wait...Makumbe (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I read the Altai Dog part- don't have time yet for the whole thing but I find the graphs on village and native dogs really interesting. I don't understand quite all the time and effort spent on deciphering the modern Victorian eugenic breeds; I don't see the point unless it is to get rid of that notion. I think at the end of the paper this question is actually addressed and they recommend outcrossing- I still have to read more carefully. Very very interesting- thanks for the link! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makumbe (talk • contribs) 18:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Makumbe (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I read the whole thing- (as much as I could understand) and I find that the conclusions reached are pretty much what we know here in our little clique. Thanks to you William. And thanks much for the link to that. One thing I don't get though- where are "village dogs" in the big circular dendogram of dog and wolf breeds? Do they sit with Basenjis or just generally in "ancient breeds"? It seems to me that a lot of the history of the Victorian breeds is semi-confirmed by the dendogram but I thought it is also well-known historically that most of the AKC and UKC histories are BS- for instance I thought the English Bulldog was really created with Chinese dogs crossed with bullys. The circular dendogram doesn't seem to show that.Makumbe (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The dendogram lists only the "recognized breeds" Jeff, it does not include the majority of dog types in the world! William Harris •   (talk) •  10:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I was right about the bulldog but I guess that really has nothing to do with the dendogram in the article. Bulldogs were created with pugs but I can't understand genetics to figure out how that would affect the dendogram of breeds...Makumbe (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The vonHoldt 2010 - the dendogram - I have successfully removed it from across Wikipedia because few understand what it is trying to depict. If you are interested, take a look in my Archive 1, topic 20.1 - Overhaul Dog Type. It is depicting the degree of genetic divergence, with the innermost the most divergent (coyote, wolves) and the outermost the least divergent. Due to cross-breeding and genetic bottlenecks during the Victorian period, the outer shell is the least divergent. That is what it shows, and I believe that any other interpretation is just academic conjecture. William Harris •   (talk) •  10:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks- I read your archive 1-20.1 on the dendogram. I guess I made the classic rookie's mistake- I read it wrong. I thought also that that was all dogs known (by the authors) when really it's just a tiny fraction of dogs. Thanks again- I can see by your archive that you've been down all these roads before- thanks for your patience-Makumbe (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * And thank you for your willingness to learn new things and to explore different ideas. William Harris •   (talk) •  08:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Tibetan Wolf
In obsessing over village dogs and looking at internet images I branched off into looking at pictures of Tibetan wolves. They do have some rather dog-like characteristics- the yellow fur, the white markings, the shorter legs and the husky-like fur. I know they are basal genetically to modern Canis Lupus- does that make them anywhere in the running for contributing to Canis Familiaris or are they just coincidental phenotypes? Of course when I look at some photos I also imagine I see shorter snouts too. Makumbe (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I realize it's not the ancestor of dogs- I guess it just shows that dog characteristics are very old (something like that)...Makumbe (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not ruling anything out. Have a read of the Himalayan wolf - what is it? The "dog" genome has been introgressed by the ancestral gray wolf (Freedman 2014) and later by populations of the more recent subspecies of the gray wolf (Fan, Kobblemuller 2016). Therefore, its genome shows signs of being the closest relative to the gray wolf. The researchers keep looking for a simple answer to a complex question, and in doing so they have not considered other possibilities. What the "dog" was before gray wolf introgression has not been fully explored. William Harris •   (talk) •  08:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Sock Puppet
William- I have been accused by someone of being a Sock Puppet named LargelyRecyclable on another article (Panzer Ace). I'm not sure exactly what that means but I am 100% NOT a sock puppet and I have only this Wikipedia user name. Can you help me with what to do about this? Right now I just wrote that I'm not a sock puppet and will just let it play out.Thanks for your help- Jeff T.Makumbe (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Ref WP:SOCK - If you two are not the same person, then relax. There will be a check of both of your IP addresses by a special type of admin that handles these things. It will show that you are serviced by an ISP in California and L.R. is serviced by one in Rhode Island or similar i.e. no connection. Then the accusing party will be on the public record - forever - as being a person of questionable judgement.


 * On a separate issue, be aware that there are sociopaths loose on Wikipedia that will say or do anything to get their own way; I have had a recent run-in with one of them on a Canis-related page. Fortunately for me, "the pack" then ripped them apart. William Harris •   (talk) •  10:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks William. I figured if it wasn't true then Wikipedia would sort it out. I know I can be a bit persistent and I dare say annoying but I never expected this sort of internet discussion board type weirdness here. I innocently walked into the History woods and soon discovered not all Wiki people are as helpful and nice as you. I'm sorry you had a run-in lately- Homo sapiens are a pain...Makumbe (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Please bear in mind that this is not a sock-puppet "investigation", it is an ISP check. If you both have the same ISP then there may be an investigation. However, the other party's case rests largely on you and your counterpart both having commenced editing on W. a decade ago - I dare say that a lot of people started editing on W. a decade ago....... William Harris •   (talk) •  09:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Canine Biology Course
William- On a more positive note- I am taking an online course about canine biology. It is given by Carol Beuchat who is a biologist who has taught here at Berkeley. So far it is excellent- I'm learning very basic genetics and so far there is a lot of emphasis on dingos and village dogs as models of early dogs. She had one section where she put in order all the big genetic papers on dog origins since 2004- interesting to watch the site of origin move around- from S E Asia (Brown and Sacks) to Europe (Thalman) to Siberia (Frantz) back to Europe etc. etc. I guess now Central Asia is in the running. The one thing (which is so obvious to me now) about village dogs is their natural breeding- this makes them very interesting as they seem to be generally of a type- especially in Asia and America- yellowish, 40 lbs., long nose, curly tail... The class is really good- soon I'll understand a lot more of the jargon in papers- SNPs, LDs, Mt lineage, Y- lineage...Makumbe (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Good work Jeff. Bear in mind that the dingo does not have a curly tail over its back. These dogs appear to be similar in size etc because that is the phenotype of a hunter/scavenger in their habitat - recall the Arabian wolf? William Harris •   (talk) •  09:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly! The Arabian wolf! I know about the dingo's tail- in fact I'd say the Dingo is close to a wolf in many ways- especially the little Cl arabs. I watched an amazing Japanese video on the Arabian wolf filmed in the Negev. They seem to be semi-dependent on people. As far as the sock check- I can't really believe it. The guy they think I am knows his stuff a lot more than me. I guess it's a left-handed compliment. Talk to you soon- JeffMakumbe (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

New dog study
Demographic history, selection and functional diversity of the canine genome. Written by three heavy-weights: Ostrander-Wayne-Freedman. doi:10.1038/nrg.2017.67 and once again we see a trend with revisiting the use of the name Canis familiaris.


 * Crikey Jethro, this is a secondary source and there is enough material in here to rewrite the current Dog breed article into a dog genetics article! Basically, that is all the breeds are - a certain bunch of genes that are slightly different. William Harris •   (talk) •  10:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I read about 1/3 of it today but now I can't connect for some reason. I like it! To understand for sure that some of the characteristics were fixed early (short legs, sled dog function, carb eating etc.) and that the effects of the idiotic Victorian incest fest are bad and obvious. Deleterious alleles, inbred depression, all from man's hand. Interesting that some of the problems like hip dysplasia and cancer seem to be ancient. I can hardly wait to finish it tomorrow. BTW- how long does this Sock check take? Am I restricted in any way? I want to edit something soon. Thanks, JLTMakumbe (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You are under no restrictions unless "the system" tells you so through a message on your talkpage from an admin or a bureaucrat, so keep on editing. The check will be done when someone gets around to it - you might notice that you are on a long queue. William Harris •   (talk) •  08:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The Nature website is still down- I can't finish the article. Are you actually going to revisit the Dog breed article? I notice that many of these papers seem to leave out the JRT- maybe because it was never "purebred" and even now the Jack Russell Terrier name is not allowed to be used by the AKC or UKC- no "purebred" dogs in the JRTCA club! These are interesting little terriers- really they seem a vestige of the original terrier landrace- fierce little hunters with huge teeth for their size (many of them anyway). I have an 18 pound dog who has 7/8" canines and huge carnassials- he looks like an alligator. His canine teeth are larger than a 80 pound black Lab I know- I measured both! I have a coyote skull- the canines are 7/8+ inches but thinner and the skull is much longer. I notice (from videos in the canine biology class) that dingos also have thin albeit very long canines. My little terrier lives but to kill small animals and to enthusiastically dive into disgusting holes in the ground. Interesting how ingrained and innate his behaviors are. I really want to finish the paper- they seem to touch on behavior/morphology stuff. Talk to you soon-JLTMakumbe (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "The Jack" is a recognised breed down here in Aus, Jeff: http://ankc.org.au/Breed/Detail/48 and yes, the teeth are the last part of the dog's anatomy to shrink down to size. I won't be tackling the article Dog breed until we see the flagship report next year. It may turn out that there is not just one thing referred to as "the dog", but a collection of Canis with "distinct lineages" (as the EBs put it). You may have completed your dog genetics course by then and want a piece of this action. William Harris •   (talk) •  09:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The Parson Jack Russell and the Russell Terrier are the 2 AKC breeds here- the AKC is in the process of ruining these 2 types but the Jack Russell Terrier Club of America successfully sued to not allow the use of the name by the AKC. "Real" Jack Russells are determined as much by function as looks and have to pass a behavior test at 1 year. No inbreeding allowed.

Do you think the Canis lineages of the dog will actually be separate? Like almost wolf/dog separate? Seems that right now the northern European dogs and the Asian dogs are separating out- with the European dogs representing many if not most of the Victorian breeds. Very interesting how genetics is proving some of the breed histories. Makumbe (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Back in 2015 someone (Duleba?) found 6 mDNA monophyletic clades exist within "the dog". My interpretation of that is that these could then be 6 separate subspecies (of lupus currently), some may warrant further separation. The dog is on average 8 mutations away from the wolf, and the coyote 20. One particular dog mDNA sub-group is 12 mutations away from both the wolf and the dog(!) - picture a triangle rather than a line - that certainly needs further explaining. William Harris •   (talk) •  22:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

William- I read the whole paper- probably 2 1/2 times. I still don't completely understand but with the class and familiarity with the terms it's getting easier. By "demographics" they mean the study of specific populations- correct? This seemed to be one of their empahases- that studying populations will lead to a clearer picture genetically. I find it interesting that some of the afflictions dogs carry including hip dysplasia and cancer have ancient roots in that first bottleneck. The fact that some characteristics selectively bred for carry with them "bad" genes in the same loci is obvious but official now that it is explained genetically.

What is the doi of the 2015 paper? I want to read it. I know that people are about 7 mutations away from random strangers- how is it possible for a dog to be 12 away from both other dogs and wolves?

Again- as usual- thanks for turning me on to another paper- the Ostrander-Wayne-Freedman review - it's boggling my little mind. They even mention the Von Holdt study on sociabilty. A great review and I'm caught up!Makumbe (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Demographics - they are referring to "populations", and so we assume slightly different genetic types. The issue, and the Duleba reference, can be found under Post-domestication gene flow. Be aware that now in 2017, when we talk about an ancient dog/wolf hybrid - up to a third of the wolf is dog!


 * Knowing your interests, you might find this better reading: "Diversifying Selection Between Pure-Breed and Free-Breeding Dogs Inferred from Genome-Wide SNP Analysis" - Pilot 2016. William Harris •   (talk) •  08:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Wolves and hybrids in the wild
William- Have you read this? "Trophic overlap between wolves and free-ranging wolf × dog hybrids in the Apennine Mountains, Italy" doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2016.11.002. Pretty interesting- reminds me a bit of the wild dogs in the Blue Mountains of Australia- supposedly bad for dingoes. Why is the mixing of wolves and dogs or dingoes and dogs considered a negative? Is it not just the continuation of the roiling Canis soup? The reason I ask is that it seems that in the case of the Italian wolves there is really no difference in prey or behavior- they are like wolves. Ditto for what I have read about the wild dogs of the Blue Mountains- they're hunters- live in packs and hunt large kangaroos and other wild animals- basically they live exactly like dingoes. Arabian wolves seem to be introgressed too a bit but they already lead pretty dog-like scavenging lives (not always I know). So is it problem of genetic "purity" or is it a worry that wolf adaptions and behaviors will be lost?

I still haven't read the 2 papers you recommended but I'm working on it. Talk to you soonMakumbe (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Jeff. In the case of the dingo, it is still arguable that they are a separate species or a separate subspecies of lupus compared to familiaris. Either way, once they are gone due to hybridization then they are gone forever. The situation is the same for the Italian wolf - it is about conservation. There are approximately 1 billion dogs on this planet living domestically, in remote villages, semi-wild or wild. They could potentially absorb all of the other members of genus Canis and still be genetically dogs. As a greater percentage of them continue to move from a domestic state into a wild state then instead of being man's best friend they could become man's worst enemy. We humans must start thinking in terms of global control of them. William Harris •   (talk) •  21:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. How could they become man's worst enemy? By absorbing and thus exterminating other Canis species or literally a danger to man? Rabies, livestock predation, human predation...? Here in the US there are a couple of cities that have literally gone to the dogs- East St. Louis and parts of Detroit. Free ranging feral dogs have taken over abandoned areas. Is this what you mean? What would global control be? I think the best we can hope for is the preservation of large tracts of land for all wild Canis. Very interesting- I never thought of our friends this way. I think cats are actually more of a danger environmentally. Interesting...Makumbe (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You are correct with both proposals, Jeff. Absorbing all other Canis so that there were not wild species left, plus predation - livestock and humans - and the spread of diseases. If "avian/swine/horse/seal flu" were to mutate among dogs then we might be largely finished as a species. The compulsory desexing of dogs unless a permit to breed is held is something I believe in strongly. Dogs are an ice age canine whose evolutionary advantage over her sisters is the ability to mass produce puppies that can fend for themselves very early. The whole process is designed to expand into new niches. Even if the dog had not teamed up with humans, the ecological changes that occurred at the end of the Pleistocene spelt the rise of the dog and the demise of her relatives. William Harris •   (talk) •  03:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Not a sock puppet!
Case closed. I'm not a sock puppet. I'll stay WELL AWAY from History! Homo Sapiens too crazy! JeffMakumbe (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Some articles are just not worth it, Jeff. You need to develop your wolf nature - wait and watch, then know when to attack relentlessly or simply just trot away. William Harris •   (talk) •  08:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Golden Jackal
Hello Mario. We have under the Taxonomy section the sentance: "Jackal-like fossils appear in South Africa as late as the Early Pleistocene, though remains identifiable as the golden jackal only appear beginning with the Middle Pleistocene." The reference at the end of that paragraph is:

"(in Italian) Lapini, L. (2003), Canis aureus (Linnaeus, 1758). In Boitani, L.; Lovari, S.; Vigna Taglianti, A. (ed.). Fauna d'Italia: Mammalia III. Carnivora, artiodactyla, 47–58. Calderini publ., Bologna"

Assuming that you have placed this citation, and given that my knowledge of the Italian language is just enough to get my menu order accepted in a fine Italian restaurant, can you confirm for me that the authors were referring to Middle Pleistocene fossils in Eurasia or Africa. If it is Africa then it would not be the Golden Jackal, it would be the African golden wolf, therefore it should not be used in the article? William Harris •  (talk) •  04:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * User:William Harris, the book talks about Middle Pleistocene fossils in North Africa, so it's definitely outdated now. Mariomassone (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Many thanks M, that is just what I thought. Curiously, there are no GJ fossils older than 20k, and mDNA dates the lineage to 35k from India! Almost a return to vonHoldt 2016 with DNA indicating that the coyote and grey wolf split only 55k years ago. (Koepfli's figures were based on the Coyote fossil that was found in sediment dated at 1.1m years which all of the researchers refer to. If the sediment dating is incorrect - something Tedford always advises in his work - then the dating of the entire phylogenic tree for the extant genus Canis provided by Koepfli et al is incorrect. All of the other genetic analyses that used the golden jackal as an "outgroup" are now questionable. William Harris •   (talk) •  08:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Well M, that is taxonomy and lineage sorted; it is always the most difficult part. Now it will be just a less-complex slog checking the rest of the article for references and applying similar grammar. I am sure you have already removed irrelevant or uncited material. I note my favorite Russian zoologist is cited a number of times, so I will assume that is your work and that it is correct. William Harris •   (talk) •  11:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * User:William Harris if you're referring to Heptner, then yes, it is my doing. I think it's all in order, but you're welcome to double check. Mariomassone (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I trust your judgement; there are few on Wikipedia that I do. William Harris •   (talk) •  08:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Brace yourself, M. Regarding the latest Description update, we must now enter a world of American spelling and their more simplified grammar. This will make it easier for when we come to the Guild's review of the article. (We write largely for a North American audience, and your proper grammatical application of the comma and conjunctions now come to a close......)


 * Of interest, Linnaeus originally entered under the heading "aureus" the following: "Canis lupus aureus" - perhaps he was better informed than we are, based on what we are seeing now. William Harris •   (talk) •  00:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello M, I am approaching the end of my development of this article, which has been increased in size from 65kb to 92kb. I have been aiming to have it FAC-assessed before Xmas. This is because a few of the key FAC promoters are Australian and they will disappear from Wikipedia over the Xmas/New Year holiday period down here, adding another month or so to the assessment time. As part of that process, the "Main article" and "See also" items need to be absorbed within the text body, therefore the "Jackal coursing" entry will need to become a hyperlink in the text of that section. (Regardless of what WP:MOS allows for the other articles, these folks follow their own shared interpretation regarding a global "encyclopedic standard" of FA. I have also come to believe that the result looks better.)


 * Separately, I note that the "Jackal coursing" article is only 4kb in size and will probably never develop beyond that. My thoughts are that its golden jackal-related material should be absorbed into golden jackal (which it has), and the black-backed jackal material should be absorbed into that article (which it has), and the article be tagged for deletion - however that is completely your decision and has nothing to do with the current undertaking. I am leaning towards transferring the quote by Thomas Francis Dale to "Jackal coursing" because it does not give us any insight into jackals, as contrasted with the earlier quote by Oliver Goldsmith; if you have any preference please let me know. William Harris •   (talk) •  21:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Mark Derr/ Coppinger
William- do you know much about Mark Derr? He features prominently in the canine biology course I'm taking. Not sure what to think but I do agree with his takedown of Coppinger and the garbage dump thesis of domestication. The course itself is neutral on the matter- Coppinger features prominently also. Derr seems to have some of the same vague notions I have after studying all this material- especially about how the study of village dogs and wild dogs like dingoes is where it's at- he seems to have the same disgust I have for the Victorians and modern Western dog breeds. One thing Derr says that interests me- he claims that RK Wayne gives a figure for the first dog of about 100,000 years ago. Is this true? Interesting that the genetics can push the date back so far- do you think The Great Canine Genetic Study coming out next year will have answers for this? I have questions William-sanMakumbe (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "The Force is strong in this one." You ask the right questions, Jeff! Mark is a dear online friend of mine. We chat regularly and share ideas or prompt each other about the latest research, and I am a contributor to his blog: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dogs-best-friend - take a look at the reply to his latest article. Mark has known RKW for many years. The figure of 100k was a based on mitochondrial DNA, calculated by Carles Vila and RKW back in the 1990s. However, they stated their assumptions (1) assuming that the 1m year old fossil attributed to the EXTANT coyote was actually a coyote (they used the coyote as an outgroup) and (2) that the EXTANT wolf was the ancestor of the dog ELSE there was a now extinct ancestor of both and the divergence was much more recent. These guys got it right back in the early 1990s - it took us another 20 years to validate the alternative proposal of a more recent common ancestor. RKW thinks new thoughts widely, looks at all of the alternatives, and he - and his students - tends to get it right. Additionally, we now think that the extant coyote dates back only 50k-100k years (VonHoldt 2016). We also now know there is a timing difference between mDNA and nDNA. The report next year will need to be a compromise between the various factions, and I believe GL is the only person that can negotiate one of these. He has stated to me online that he has had to "drink his own Kool-aid". It was Mark that explained that US term's meaning to me. Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  10:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Gregor Larson features very prominently in the class also. He seems like he could do the negotiating necessary- very personable and enthusiastic person. I do find that all people scientists included seem to wax silly when trying to figure out how the first domestication events happened- it is a story so opportunities for anthropomorphizing and fantasy abound. What do you think of Scottie Westphal- aka Retrieverman? He also has been used in the course. He is a great writer but I don't know about his grasp of the subject... Interesting how non-scientists can influence the discussion also.Makumbe (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are anthro-centric, where once humans "domesticated" wolves. They found abandoned wolf puppies; where have you ever heard of wolves - which live in a nurturing pack - abandon puppies? When was the last time someone was out in the wild and found a wolf puppy? Now we have this one - it is IMPOSSIBLE to domesticate an extant wolf: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/science/wolves-dogs-genetics.html?emc=eta1 Although RM has raised some interesting proposals, I do not follow him because these are not scientifically based. William Harris •   (talk) •  08:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The NYT article was part of our class. I actually think there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that wolves can be tamed but very difficult to keep as pets. Every once in a while someone does- maybe a wolf with less fear response-eh? What I mean about fantasy is how most scenarios even the ones put forth by scientists always seem to think of a cause and effect as a modern person thinks. One of the only other mammals other than dogs who can doggedly hunt down prey by chasing it is man. If you ever google "Hunting elephants with spears" you'll see a video of African men killing an elephant with spears- no dogs involved. Man the hunter did not need dogs really at least to hunt. Dogs are useful but not necessary for hunting- as food, for pulling stuff, as guards more likely. I like Mark Derr's ideas because they're kind of squishy about exactly what happened to bring dogs to us. I find the Pat Shipman hypothesis about dogs and Cro-magnon man killing off the Neanderthals because of the advantage from dogs silly. What do you think Obi-wan?Makumbe (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello William Harris: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.