Talk:Wolf/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Wolf. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

I'll get straight to the point: I think it would be appropriate to retitle all articles of gray wolf subspecies with the qualifier "gray", eg. Northwestern wolf > Northwestern gray wolf. Here's the reason: I believe their current names may mislead readers into thinking the animals are in the same category of the red wolf and Ethiopian wolf, which are distinct species. Adding the adjective "gray" is not only perfectly accurate, but it also removes any subspecies/species ambiguity. Mariomassone (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like common practice as far as I can tell, though. I can't find a source, for example, that calls an Indian wolf an "Indian gray wolf", nor can I find the Arabian wolf called any thing but that. So I'd have a problem adding the word "gray", as it is not accurate to what is actually used by reliable sources. I'd also mention that the taxonomy of the red wolf remains unsettled; see the recent USFWS reviews. Also, that the Ethiopian wolf's common naming is itself a somewhat contentious recent name. Historically, it was called a jackal, and it's local name in Amharic literally translates as "red jackal"; the push for the "Ethiopian wolf" name was based on a study claiming that it was more closely related to gray wolves than the golden jackal, though that is now known to be mistaken, as already shown in the cladogram here. So, in short, I oppose the proposal, as the common names of subspecies shouldn't be changed to add a word that is not actually, commonly part of the name. oknazevad (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's a good point, experts in these sources don't use terms such as "Indian Grey Wolf", but they don't have to. The don't need to mention the word "Gray" when they talk to other experts. We have a different audience. Sometimes our audience needs information omitted from scholarly articles to understand what the referent actually is or isn't. For example, consider the disambiguation parentheticals that we regularly add to article titles. Disambiguation parentheticals are added by us, not taken from the sources. We add them so that people will accurately understand the referent. For example, reading the titles "Ethiopian wolf" and "Egyptian wolf", readers might not be as informed as they would be of the fact that one is a subspecies of C. lupus and the other is another canid species. So we can see the merit to the proposal but understand the objection. Chrisrus (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Why does this article use American English? Canada has more grey wolves than US, yet Canadian English is not used. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Because it was started in American English. See WP:RETAIN. Yes, Canada probably has more wolves (though considering Alaska, I'm not 100% sure), but either way there are no strong national ties for any wildlife. the initial choice was arbitrary and has no reason to change. oknazevad (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect - the page was created by a South African national and academic. That makes it closer to British English. William Harristalk 11:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Gray wolf has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Following the unwarranted statement that only tigers pose a "serious threat" to gray wolves. Liz Bradley, a wolf biologist with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, has documented repeated instances of mountain lion predation on the wolves in her study, in the Bitterroot region of Montana. The wolves are typically killed with a single bite, which punctures the brain-case. ^[1]

Noahnoe (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this new text you want to add to the article? If so, where do you want it added? If not, what is it replacing? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

And what is the reliable source you are quoting from? - Arjayay (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

OK I've reformatted your request so your reference shows. - Arjayay (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Only several incidences are recorded, does not count as serious predation, and cougars actually avoid wolf territory, tigers, on the other hand, will almost clear an area of wolves: http://flatheadbeacon.com/2014/06/22/wyoming-study-finds-cougars-avoid-wolf-territory/

Is it really correct to say gray wolf's closest relative is domestic dog? Domestic dog is a subspecies of gray wolf, it is like saying plains coyote is closest relative of coyote, or golden jackal's closest relative is European golden jackal. Editor abcdef (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

See the "Relationship to the dog" section of the article for clarification. Mariomassone (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I saw it, it states dogs were most likely domesticated from European megafaunal wolf more than 15,000 years ago, why are European megafaunal wolves suddenly not Canis lupus? Editor abcdef (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Especially that regarding the lack of enforcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.33.148 (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Is the referent of Gray_wolf#Africa the same as that of Egyptian jackal? Chrisrus (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the Grey Wolves of Africa and the African Wolf (aka Egyptian Jackal) are different species. There is currently a dispute in taxonomy as to whether the Egyptian Jackal/African Wolf is closer related to wolves or jackals, but currently they are officially classified as a subspecies of jackals, and not wolves. Mediatech492 (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so then why are we using the same photo for both that article and this subsection? Which of the two is the animal in that picture? Chrisrus (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Mediatech, what do you mean by they are currently classified as subspecies of jackals, does "currently" mean the 1800s to you? Also 2005 is the not the most current date either. And you mentioned there is currently a dispute whether Egyptian jackals are closer to wolves or jackals, I want to see evidence that it is actually disputed currently. Editor abcdef (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The information you're asking for is all in the Egyptian jackal article. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

All it stated was that it was considered a golden jackal in 2005, and the reference's reference is in the 1800s, I'm not aware of any disputes or denials from the scientific community in the 2010s. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you missed the part where it mentions the "mtDNA" (Mitochondrial DNA) Studies. They did not know about the existence of Mitochondrial DNA in the 1800's. It is this very recently derived DNA evidence that has led to the current taxonomic dispute. Mediatech492 (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so which is this photo: File:Lupaster.png?

The journal states that it is Canis lupus. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, this photo is illustrating Egyptian Jackal Canis aureus (or lupus) lupaster and Gray_wolf#Africa because both are about the same thing. Is that right? Chrisrus (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes.

The problem is that this article and the golden jackal article directly contradicts the Egyptian jackal and subspecies of Canis lupus, both the former articles stated that lupaster is a subspecies of Canis lupus, yet in Egyptian jackal the species is Canis aureus (though "disputed") and the subspecies article excluded lupaster. Editor abcdef (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Can we find a way to get all these articles to agree? Chrisrus (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I request that someone adds to the section Range_and_Conservation/Europe/Recovery that:

On the 16. of October of 2012 a wolf was spotted in a national park in Thy, Denmark^[1][2]. This marked the first time since 1813 that a wild wolf has been observed in Denmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.238.107 (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This would seem to be a single unconfirmed sighting, three years ago. I think we'll need a more reliable source before we can make such an assertion. Mediatech492 (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

No offense but this section title is overly redundant, the current scientific consensus is that "gray wolf" is exactly equal to Canis lupus. What else is a "gray wolf"? All subspecies of C. lupus except for domestic dogs and dingoes?

I will like to see comments by other users as well. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Canis lupus often includes the dingo and the dog, but the term "gray wolf" doesn't always. For example, experts might say "Coyotes adapt better to human development than gray wolves." Chrisrus (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

In the ancestry section I don't see any information about ancestry of domestic dogs and/or dingoes, does this mean prehistoric Canis lupus are not considered "gray wolves"? Editor abcdef (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No, prehistoric canis lupis were all Gray Wolves. only in relatively recent times did the dog and the dingo branch off from their wolf forbears. Before they branched off there were no dogs or dingos, therefore there is nothing to be said about them in that era. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

So should the section title be reverted back to simply "Ancestry". Editor abcdef (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Dogs are not ancestors of gray wolves. Other way around, or close to it. Chrisrus (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

When did I stated that? I meant that, per what Mediatech said, all subspecies of C. lupus, except for dogs and dingoes, are gray wolves, the former includes prehistoric C. lupus. Therefore, "Ancestry of Canis lupus" is redundant and should be reverted to simply "Ancestry". Editor abcdef (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see. You're right. If you have an article about Kangaroos you can just put "range" and "ancestry". You don't have to say "range of the kangaroo" or "ancestry of the kangaroo" because we already know we're talking about kangaroos. Makes perfect sense to me, so, as far as I'm concerned I say go right ahead and change it. Chrisrus (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a watch on the Gray wolf page as I have little interest in it. However, I noticed Editor abcdef's latest edit while looking at something else, which directed me here. On what basis does Mediatech492 believe that "prehistoric canis lupis were all Gray Wolves"?William Harris • talk • 12:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in the fossil record that shows otherwise. And obviously anything that is not Canis Lupis is not a Gray Wolf. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

On what basis were they not? How would you define gray wolf then? Editor abcdef (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

When I have an answer back from Mediatch492, I had intended to ask you exactly that question. I trust you will have already done your homework and can supply an answer. (You have set the board and the pieces are now in play.) William Harris • talk • 13:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I posted the Wolf#Divergence section on the Gray wolf page. The diagram next to Ancestry shows the Gray wolf and dog branch and according to Skoglund that was 40,000 years ago. However, that small part of the diagram just before the branch, which shows the Coyote branch down to the dog/Gray wolf branch, what does that represent, I wonder? William Harris • talk • 11:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No suggested answer appears to be forthcoming? The branch represents what geneticists would classify as Canis lupus but we cannot be sure if Linnaeus would have recognised it as a gray wolf because he did not observe it. Additionally, we have no fossil remains of the immediate ancestor to test but genetically it would no longer look like a coyote and more like the gray wolf - or a Taymry wolf - or a dog. To answer abcdef's original question as to what is a gray wolf - a gray wolf is the collective name used to describe the extant subspecies of Canis lupus as observed by Linnaeus (give or take a bit of reclassifying). That is all. We assume the gray wolf looked about the same back to 40,000 years ago, but what the common ancestor was before divergence we do not know because the modern gray wolf is a specialised hunter for its environment, and that environment has changed since the Last Glacial Maximum. What other lines of c.l. that have lived and died since the coyote branch we are not sure. This is only my opinion, but it is one that fits with the current observations that we are seeing now. William Harris • talk • 03:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to make sense of the line in the section about fur, which says, "The ears are covered in short hairs, which strongly project from the fur." I'm thinking that the hairs already constitute the fur. Do the hairs project strongly from the ears? Yes. Do the ears project strongly from the head? Yes. And do the ears project strongly from the rest of the fur? Yes. I would edit the sentence for clarity, but I'm not sure of the meaning. Did the information come from Heptner et al.? Anyone have a suggestion? Berglopen (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The page statistics for this article (http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Gray_wolf) tells me that this page receives around 3,000 hits per day and has been viewed 77,026 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 2,212 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org. Additionally, it has 555 watchers. Keep up the good work, all. Regards, William Harris • talk • 22:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

On the map the colour for scandinavia is "extinct". That is now (since a decade or two) wrong. When wolves was new reesablished and there was a debate about eradicating them again and it was said that there was no record of wolves attacing people there was a serious atack in Finland, we have had a few serious atacks on people in Sweden too. At present there are more than 200 wolves in Sweden and we have provisionally been prohibited from taking the stock down to 200, prohibited by the EU-court! In Norway there are something like 10-20 individs but they are haunted.Seniorsag (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Where, exactly? Chrisrus (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Please zoom in on the map. The population in Finland and the population at the Swedish/Norwegian border are marked green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.61.118.194 (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The entire continent of Australia is shown as historical gray wolf territory, on the grounds dingoes (and presumably any wild dogs) are considered gray wolves. But as "Relationship to the Dog" observes, the clades are separate: dogs are wolves but not gray wolves. David Bofinger (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Else, the dog has been extirpated from two-thirds of the continent, and from the map that would include every state capital city. William Harris • talk • 10:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Somebody went over onto Wikipedia Commons and took the "Dingo map" and combined it with the "Gray wolf map" to give the "Gray wolf range" map we now see in the Taxabox. I understand that we go with MSW3 (2005) here on Wikipedia. Page 575 of that text gives the distribution of Canis lupus, and it looks nothing like what is being depicted in the taxabox as it does not include Australasia and South-East Asia. This last one does. I suggest that the graphic be changed. Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Wolf maps on Commons
• 
  dingo map
• 
  gray wolf map
• 
  gray wolf range
• 
  what it should be per MSW3

The map needs a further update: the removal of its African range, now that Canis anthus has been described. Mariomassone (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - are there any pixel-masters out there that are capable of amending and uploading the graphic, please? We need to reflect the natural distribution of the extant, wild subspecies of Canis lupus and that does not include Africa. User:Clint.hotvedt could you advise us, please? Regards, William Harris • talk • 04:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

We are compromised with this. Those users that had something to do with amending the various versions are no longer active. I downloaded the graphic, amended it in MS Paintbush, and tried to upload it but Wikipedia simply created another version of the one that we are trying to replace. I gave the file another name, but W would not upload it because a file with "the same content" already exists. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wolf_distr.gif We await the assistance of someone that knows what they are doing with graphics, which excludes me! Regards, William Harris • talk • 21:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, but you now see what I mean. William Harris • talk • 01:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Shortcuts to Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop include WP:GL/M. The "new request" button is on the tab at the top.

The graphics lab map workshop is excellent.

Just yesterday, for example, I added a "done" template to this thread: Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop#Combined_map_for_Marsupial_Mole. Chrisrus (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Chris, I now have that site bookmarked and will forward a request. (I am always amazed at what people do to help develop Wikipedia.) Regards, William Harris • talk • 19:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Mario had fixed it - a man of many talents. There was some technical glitch in my upload and my web-browser (Firefox) needed to be reset before I could see the changes. Problem solved. Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Technically, it's a bit of a mess. We could include all (semi-) wild canines that belong to the species C. lupus, or we stick to C. lupus lupus, though the latter only lives in the woodlands of the northern two-thirds of Eurasia. If we use the entire distribution of C. lupus, we'll see a nearly global distribution except for South America, southern Africa and some pockets where the land is just too inhospitable for supporting large mammals. It also raises the question about what to do with C. latrans "var" - the Eastern Coyote, which is basically a hybridization of C. latrans and C. lupus, both the wild as well as the domesticated version of the latter. If we include all the subspecies of C. lupus, we would also need to include C. lupus dingo as this species is either a subspecies of C. lupus familiaris, or C. lupus palliped, or a hybridization of both. I propose though, if we go this way, we keep the same two-colour scheme and leave the colouration per subspecies to a different map, as when the map is shown inside the infobox, and it contains different colours for nearly two dozen subspecies, it will look extremely messy in that size. Clint.hotvedt (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The referent of this article and its maps should be the likely intended target of users who search for "w-o-l-f", not dingoes or coywolves, although these should be mentioned as appropriate. Chrisrus (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and that's exactly the point I meant when I mentioned that it's a bit of a mess. The problem is, how do you keep it scientifically accurate without just picking and choosing which subspecies of C. lupus makes the cut to be a "wolf" and which one does not? At least for Coywolves, they're technically a subspecies of C. latrans, despite having a copious amount of C. lupus genes. Unfortunately, this is not the case with dingoes. The only thing I can think of is a disclaimer that C. lupus familiaris and C. lupus dingo are not shown on the map.Clint.hotvedt (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello , Clint.hotvedt thanks for responding. I think it best reflect only the "natural distribution" of the subspecies as was published in MSW(2005), plus or minus any new information on natural distribution since then. We should leave the dog/dingo clade out as there is strong evidence of human-aided distribution, which would not meet the natural distribution criterion. (I accept that the term "natural distribution" is almost meaningless because wolves once owned everything above the 20th parallel until humans came along.) We should probably keep away from the question of "What is a species?" - clearly now the taxonomists are not sure. Morphologists want species classified by phenotype (the old way), systemists want it done by phylogeny (evolutionary direction), and geneticists want it done by genotype (the new way, that would bring many more species into being and shatter both the gray wolf clade and the dog clade into many new species and subspecies: refer Subspecies of Canis lupus#Disputed subspecies and species and even the "dog" into 6! - Duleba, 2015 with more data that validates Pang, 2009). They have not agreed over the past 20 years with MSW3 being a poor compromise, and therefore the delay in MSW4 - should there ever be one. Back in 1993, a young geneticist proposed that the dog was genetically close to the gray wolf but warned that genetic closeness does not equate to ancestry. Wozencraft reclassified C. familiaris to C.l familiaris in MSW2 in the same year, and set nomonclature off on a partial step towards the geneticist's view of the world, opening up a Pandora's Box that can now never be closed. Fast-forward 20 years later and the now eminent UCLA Professor of Evolutionary Biology - and the guiding hand behind the research papers of Druzhkova and of his 2 ex-students Thalmann and Freedman - has been proven correct. Regards, William Harris • talk • 20:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe something like Taxonomy of lemurs. Chrisrus (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing I had in mind for a separate C.l. article. I had originally made an attempt to put something on the Gray wolf page - see above under the section titled "Ancestry of Canis lupus" - however some found it 'overly redundant'. My edit may have been removed on 5 June but that does not remove the issue that it was starting to address; the issue has been with us for the past 22 years. I now regard that option as no longer viable. We might possibly hold off until "Larson 2016", which will probably turn everything we know about the wolf and dog on its head and raise the profile of the role played by introgression in evolution. Regards, William Harris • talk • 20:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Gray wolf has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Despite the gray wolf's relatively widespread range and stable population, it is classified as Endangered by the KulumWoW (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

They are listed as Endangered, not least protected.

https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A00D

http://www.defenders.org/gray-wolf/basic-facts

 Not done. That only applies to the United States. Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia, not just a US one. overall, worldwide, gray wolves are not an endangered species, even if some subspecies or local populations are. oknazevad (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I am thinking of adding material regarding the recovery of wolves in the western US, especially in Washington State where they have recently shown a fairly rapid expansion of their range. The source of material would primarily be the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Thoughts? PRM4286 (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't make the edits, I am new and do not have "autoconfirmed" or "confirmed" status. PRM4286 (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

In the section "Historical Range" I would recommend adding "By the 1930's, there were no known breeding pairs in Washington State" ^[1] . In the section "Modern Range", I would recommend adding "In 2008, the existence of a breeding pair was confirmed in north-central Washington State. By 2015, there were 15 confirmed packs." ^{[2] [3]} PRM4286 (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello All, a request for information, please. Broadly, when two genetic specimens belong to the same haplogroup, it generally indicates descent from a common ancestor. In the article section on Haplogroups it states "...in Europe haplogroup 2 became outnumbered by haplogroup 1 but in North America haplogroup 2 became extinct and was replaced by haplogroup 1 after the Last Glacial Maximum." This is the work of Pilot 2010 and the North America Pleistocene haplogroup 2 samples she used were from Leonard 2007 that was based on the Beringian wolf. Given that Beringia was separated from the rest of North American by the Wisconsin glaciation during the late Pleistocene - which appears to have kept the Beringians and the Dire wolf separated from each other - that analysis would not have covered the Pleistocene C.l. samples found in the Rancho La Brea tar pits (along with samples of Canis dirus). The asphalt was good for preserving bodies but destroyed the DNA, so these would be useless for analysis. I cannot find any DNA analysis undertaken of Pleistocene C.l. samples found elsewhere in North America, assuming they have been found elsewhere. Does anybody know if this has ever been undertaken, please? (Basically, I am trying to ascertain which haplogroup these may have belonged to, if any. It would then have an impact on the G.W. article.) Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest new material on the gray wolf. I would like to add that wolves benefit an ecosystem.

Wolves Can Benefit Ecosystems

Wolves in Yellowstone were reintroduced to their natural environment. The wolves benefit other species in Yellowstone and making the habitat more diverse (http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2003/A-Top-Dog-Takes-Over.aspx). Wolves hunt the elk and deer which helps the aspens trees grow (http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2003/A-Top-Dog-Takes-Over.aspx). Scientists found a “hidden connection” about the songbirds (http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2003/A-Top-Dog-Takes-Over.aspx). The songbirds were around trees where elk decreased in the area (http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2003/A-Top-Dog-Takes-Over.aspx). In ecological terms, the wolves are serving as a keystone species for other wildlife in Yellowstone.

WMcDo111 (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think major cutbacks on the evolution section are needed, as well as in other places. It's seems way too bloated and convoluted for my liking. This page is at 200kb too, so why does this page need expansion when it should be greatly reduced? Not too long ago it was 160kb. The "New World gray wolf subspecies" subsection is a good example on what I mean, how is 70% of the content in the third paragraph necessary? Simplify it, not write a giant novel. Burklemore1 (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Burklemore1 Could you tighten it up a bit? Chrisrus (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think William Harris may have had part in the expansion, perhaps he has something to add? FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Funkmunk for the ping - I do not watch this page but I do drop in irregularly. My view:

1. Tread very careful on the Gray wolf page - there is about to be some growling and biting from the other contributors, and we should respectfully wait for the pack's input. (I carry many scars from this page!)
2. This page is 200kb in size with 550 watchers and 6,000 visitors per day, in comparison its sister the Dog is 100kb in size with 1,100 watchers and 10,000 visitors per day. However, I have recently moved much verbiage from the Dog page back onto its linked Main Articles on related topics, so the comparison needs to be considered in the light of that. The Gray wolf is not as fortunate as the dog in the number of related articles it has - perhaps it is time to review that situation.
3. Article size - 25% of this will be in citations (been there before). Plus there are some stakeholders who "prowl" this page that do not care how big it is. (You may be told this very shortly.)
4. I take full responsibility for the sections "Taxonomy", "Origins", and a small part of "Relationship to the Dog". The rest is the work/contribution/responsibility of others.
5. I would like to create a "Canis lupus" article separate from the "Gray wolf". It would cover its "Origins" and "Relationship to the Dog" only, then have links to extant Canis lupus: Gray Wolf, Dog, Origin of the domestic dog, Dingo, plus the extinct Canis lupus: Beringian wolf, Megafaunal wolf, Paleolithic dog and there are now some others that warrant their own articles. Therefore, "Origins", and "Relationship to the Dog" could be moved to that page with links back to the Gray wolf page; these take up 21kb. "Hybridization with other canids" might also be added there as it is largely about lupus crossing with lupus. However, there is a mind-set on this page that the Gray wolf IS Canis lupus and Canis lupus IS the Gray wolf, despite DNA evidence that the extant Gray wolf (i.e. what this article is about) only came into being just prior to the Last Glacial Maximum. However, the Canis lupus lineage is much older, and the Dog and Dingo are not Gray wolves (there are 8-12 mutations in the mtDNA control region that says so). Therefore, I am not proposing further work on this but am waiting on a major research paper to be released shortly on the origins of both the Dog and Wolf: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/science/the-big-search-to-find-out-where-dogs-come-from.html?_r=1 After that, we will have a changed landscape to work on.
6. As Chris always points out - there is always room for a reduction in verbiage by using better phasing.

Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Splitting Canis lupus from its common name seems a bit like WP:content forking. Something like "evolution/taxonomy of the wolf" or similar would be less iffy. Especially since whatever new paper comes out on the subject, it is guaranteed to be controversial. The least POV thing would be the keep Canis lupus/grey wolf as one, and cover controversies in more generally titled spin off articles. FunkMonk (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking at this again, it seems Wolf simply redirects here. Now that might be a good candidate for s spin-off article, as it is perhaps a wider subject than grey wolf. FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a capital idea, should it need to be progressed. Regarding content folking, I can attest that it is alive and well in the linked articles from this page, and a review will be in order shortly.William Harris • talk • 09:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

William Harris Could you tighten it up a bit? Chrisrus (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

FunkMonk Could you tighten it up a bit? Chrisrus (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If this article continues to seem "too long" even after it no longer seems "too convoluted", one thing we normally do is to spin off sub-articles like Wolf attack or Wolf hunting and just leave a brief summary and link behind. Chrisrus (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting discussion seen so far. For those who haven't seen my comments on FunkMonk's talk page, please read here. I'll only discuss this matter here from now on rather than polluting someones talk page with my paragraphs. I also like the puns William Harris was left here, nice to see some humour in a serious discussion. ;) Anyway: If citations only account for 25% of size, that only makes 50kb of the total article. So where does the 150kb go? The vast majority of it would go into prose, and if I recall this article has well over 12,000 - 15,000 words from the last time I checked it (I may be wrong, I just used some word counter). That also needs to be taken into consideration. For anyone who will tell me it doesn't matter how large an article is, may I recommend to read several guidelines.

William Harris, I hope you know I'm not trying to discredit your efforts and I apologize if you feel that way. Thought I'd let you know that. I've seen some articles you have worked on (origin of the domestic dog in particular) and I must say it's impressive. You also do come up with some appropriate proposals. However, FunkMonk's point about content forking must be considered. I'll have to agree that it's best to keep the two names as one, but "Wolf" could, as suggested, be a decent spin-off article. I'm all for anyone proposing appropriate ideas , the ones left below are some we could look into perhaps? Burklemore1 (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Burklemore. I find that humour makes light of potentially serious situations - there are 51 watchers who have visited our edits: the pack is out there just beyond the campfire light - don't make any sudden and too-early edits. As I have said in one of the sections above, I would only consider this other wolf article if: a) Larson's "flagship" report lends weight to it, and b) some key stakeholders on this page that I would invite agreed with what was in my sandbox and undertake to guard against content folking - brutally - else it would not be launched. I expect the flagship report will say that "The dog is a descendent of a now-extinct gray wolf population", given that it must be a compromise of Larson, Wayne, Savolainen and Germonpre - that will not be controversial because the heavy-weights intend to sign off on it, so there is no disagreement. Thus, I do little. If it says that "The dog is a descendent of a now-extinct Canis lupus population", then we have some issues as they need to explain what they mean by that. If it says "Based on whole-genome testing, the dog is a descendent of Canis variabilis with introgression into its genome from frequent mixing with the gray wolf over millenia, then we all have some serious issues! William Harris • talk • 09:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Let this article be about gray wolves, that is all, specifically (Canis lupus - dog).

The imperfect overlap between the semantic areas of the English word "wolf/wolves" and the binomial taxon Canis lupus causes a problem for encyclopedias, which need to have one article about dogs and one about wolves.

The referent of this article should be what people most often mean when they say wolf, not what experts mean by "Canis lupus". Specifically, the referent of this article should be gray wolves, only, as it naturally wants to be, despite the taxonomy. What matters here is an article about gray wolves without being also somehow simultaneously about dogs.

The intended target referent of searches and links of both "w-o-l-f"/"w-o-l-v-e-s" and "C-a-n-i-s_l-u-p-u-s" can be reasonably expected to be this one, the gray wolf.

Remember, we're just trying to help most people find the article/referent they are looking for.

Those that end up in the wrong place are supposed to be redirected by the hatnote at the top to Wolf (disambiguation), where they could be helped, and improvements to Wolf_(disambiguation)#Canids have been done to help them learn about the ambiguity and get where they want to go.

Similarly, most searchers and linkers to the term "Canis lupus" can be reasonably expected to be referring to the gray wolf.

However, as you know but as most people don't, the truth is, the term "C. lupus" has been among experts generally referring to (Gray wolf +dog) for quite some time. That makes it hard for us who can't reasonably be expected to merge this article with dog.

No one seems to favor an article about both at the same time, Canis lupus, even though this is what it often tends to mean in expert usage.

One suggestion might be to direct all "Canis lupus" links and searches to a new article called maybe Canis lupus or Canis lupus (disambiguation) and make them choose the gray wolf referent that they probably wanted. I wonder if that's a good idea though. Those links and searches likely just want this article as well.

Well argued Chris, as always. Whichever way the Larson report goes, I will need to reengineer the Dog Evolution chapter (the first half) of the Origin of the domestic dog article, as I have just done with the Dog Domestication chapter (the second half) of it. The story must be about both the ancestral dog and the ancestral gray wolf, there is no way of avoiding one without the other as both of their stories begin the same way. Should it still be called the Origin of the Domestic Dog? Probably not - you cannot split dog and wolf in the past as you can now with the extant sub-species. Whether that should translate into a new wolf article, or a renaming of the Origin article, is yet to be considered. (Mind expanding exercise, isn't it?) Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

There's an article for both dingo and dingo (taxon), so why not? Editor abcdef (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

There was also another idea to have Subspecies of Canis lupus house the taxobox and be the article for Canis lupus. Chrisrus (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Given that there has been a day elapsed since initiation of discussion, and given that there has been 51 watchers of our musings, I should probably get back to Burklemore's points and propose something for others to consider - or at least for them not be too alarmed once we agree to some editing.

1. The hatnote: "For the Turkish nationalist organization, see Grey Wolves (organization)." That would fall under "For other uses, see..." would it not? Other uses should include a reference to both Grey wolves and Gray wolves - it is not hard to do. I see no reason why a terrorist group should get prime position on the Gray wolf page; it is becoming political, and real wolves have no use for human politics.
2. Under "In heraldry and symbolism", the Emblem of the Serbian "White Wolves" to be banned from any wolf-related pages that we are aware of. (Check the background - I find it inappropriate and some may find it offensive.) I see no reason why a group mentioned by the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia regarding atrocities in Bosanski Samac should get mention on the Gray wolf page; it is becoming political, and real wolves have no use for human politics.
3. Under the section "Evolution", the sub-topics of "Sub-species", "Relationship to the dog", and "Hybridization with other Canis" should be made their own full headings - these are not about evolution of the species but they relate to sub-species and hybrids.
4. WP:SIZERULE advises a rough limit of 100kb article size, but like the Labrador article at 74kb just by itself (overweight Labbies again..) nobody around here really cares about that. However, some reduction is in order because there is always new information that is more relevant and should find a place here rather than some of what is here now. (The recent research report - "Warring Brothers" - should definitely be reflected here - if there was some room. Similar for the Talk topic above: Wolves Can Benefit Ecosystems - good proposal, little room, no further action.)
5. Quick and dirty fix a) The section titled "New World gray wolf subspecies", paragraph 3 being singled out, plus paragraph 4, should be relocated under the existing article “Subspecies of Canis lupus#Disputed subspecies and species”
6. Quick and dirty fix b) The section titled "Relationships with humans" should be WP:SPINOFF to its own article ( as it says more about humans than it does the gray wolf)

The trouble with the quick and dirty fixes is that while solving the problem for us, they just pass the problem on to someone else. A solution with a bit more work, but more responsible, would be:

The following sections content largely moved back under their associated Main article pages, with only 1-2 short paragraphs and the link:

• Relationship to the dog to Main article: Origin of the domestic dog
• Hybridization with other Canis to Main article: Canid hybrid

The section titled "Relationships with humans", the following sub-sections content largely moved back under their associated Main article pages, with only one sentence and the link:

• In mythology and folklore to Main article: Wolves in folklore, religion and mythology
• In heraldry and symbolism to Main article: Wolves in heraldry
• Attacks on humans to Main article: Wolf attacks on humans
• Hunting to Main articles: Wolf hunting and Wolf hunting with dogs also the section titled Uses appears to be based on Quarry section of the Wolf hunting article
• As pets and working animals to Main article: Wolves as pets and working animals

Then consider whether the section titled "Relationships with humans" should then be WP:SPINOFF

The section titled "New World gray wolf subspecies", paragraph 3 being singled out, plus paragraph 4: para 3 to be seriously pruned, in that citations 5, 56, 57, are all publicly available so they do not require the level of elaboration that currently exists and interested readers can go to the cited works. Citation 59 is not and warrants elaboration, but perhaps reduced in verbiage. They should then be relocated under the existing article “Subspecies of Canis lupus#Disputed subspecies and species”. Consider whether "Disputed subspecies and species" should be WP:SPINOFF into its own article.

For your consideration. (Let the growling begin!!) Regards, William Harris • WikiProject Dogs • talk • 09:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I've just skimmed the article and I have 2 suggestions to help shorten it and remove its rather convoluted style.

• The lead section nowhere near covers the breadth of information in the main body. If a major section is not worth mentioning in the lead, it may not be worthy of a place in the main body of the article.
• Many of the sections are linked to a "main page" tag. These section then dive into great detail when that should be, or is, in the main page. Almost all these section could be considerably shortened. I suggest by 50%.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry all, I could resist no longer. Under "In heraldry and symbolism", the Emblem of the Serbian "White Wolves" is now gone. (The "megafaunal wolf" makes its first kill.) William Harris • talk • 09:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your original point 3, the subspecies sections belong in taxonomy, not evolution. The two topics, evolution and taxonomy, are pretty strongly related, however, so shouldn't be too far apart.

That said, the sections on halpotypes and such are way too detailed for a general intrest encyclopedia and spend far too much time chasing the latest ideas in the field by relying on primary studies, instead of a proper secondary survey of the literature. That could most certainlyy be trimmed to provide a broader overview without getting bogged down in unverified results as it currently does. That's one way to make the article both less convoluted and easier to read for the general audience. oknazevad (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

oknazevad is spot on, and generally my main concern. I'm surprised by the amount of cooperation that has been going on, I thought there'd be some opposition "howling" that the more detail, the better. True in many cases until you create a giant mess. It's better to have a nice, detailed and well-written article instead of five stubs that could be redirected under a single article. Other than that, very detailed proposals and ambitions to improve the article. In regards to making wolf a standalone article, we should receive more feedback as both sides bring up valid points. I'd be happy for a standalone article, but William Harris does bring up some excellent points and, being as that guy who knows hardly anything about the taxonomic and evolutionary history of the Canids, I can't really make such alternative proposal. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

We have not heard from the "Beringian wolf", which leads me to assume that he is not uncomfortable with proposals that are conservative, cosmetic changes that do not impact on core-Gray wolf material, and based on what I have read above they come none too soon.William Harris • talk • 07:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

Editor	Comments
Burklemore1	Major cutback in Evolution and elsewhere, bloated. Article convoluted. Support Funkmonk if Wolf spinoff article. Support for Oknazevad position.
FunkMonk	Canis lupus remains a redirect to Gray wolf. Wolf redirect could be used for wider meaning article.
Chrisrus	Search on Wolves and Canis lupus should end on Gray wolf. Canis lupus to Cl disimbag - then choose?
DrChrissy	Lead does not cover the expanse of the topic. Main article sections reduced by 50%.
Oknazevad	Subspecies belongs to Taxonomy, not Evolution, and keep them close together. Haplotypes and such reduced, keep it general encyclopedic.
William Harris	As listed under the section "To Work"

KEY DECISIONS:

Issue	Description
Issue A	Use of Canis lupus: either redirects to Gray wolf or redirects to Canis lupus disimbag? (Need to keep in mind the other page titled "Subspecies of Canis lupus", and not "Subspecies of Gray wolf")
Proposal A	Leave as it is for now, revisit post Larson report, may require a C.l. Disimbag page depending on the findings. Same for any further discussion on the appropriateness of a separate Wolf page
Issue B	"Sub-species", "Relationship to the dog", and "Hybridization with other Canis" should be made their own full headings. "Sub-species" should fall under "Taxonomy"?
Proposal B	"Relationship to the dog", and "Hybridization with other Canis" should be made their own full headings. "Sub-species" to fall under "Taxonomy", with a merge to the main topic page "Subspecies of Canis lupus" and link provided.

PROPOSED CONTRIBUTIONS: (Depending on time constraints, availability and interests) All editing changes to bear the description: Refer Talk:Gray wolf#To work

Editor	Contributions proposed
FunkMonk	Review the scope of this article. What should be included, what is missing and should be included, what should its structure look like?
Chrisrus	Review the Hatnotes, key redirects and disimbags - are they appropriate and doing what they are supposed to be doing? Once the material has been relocated, decide if the separate article "Subspecies of Canis lupus#Disputed subspecies: the Disputed subspecies be spun off as its own article.
DrChrissy	Once structure is confirmed, review lead paragraphs (i.e. that appear before TOC) for relevance based on the material then in the article.
Oknazevad	Once material reduced, decide if "Relationship with humans" is to be spun off. If so, do we keep "Livestock" as a part of the Gray wolf article, perhaps within "Range and Conservation", as it may be a limiting factor on GWs range and conservation.
Burklemore1	Under the section titled "Relationships with humans", the following sub-sections content largely moved back under their related Main article pages, with only the lead paragraph from that article page reflected back on the Gray wolf page with the link: In mythology and folklore to Main article - Wolves in folklore, religion and mythology; in heraldry and symbolism to Main article -Wolves in heraldry; Attacks on humans to Main article - Wolf attacks on humans; Hunting to Main articles - Wolf hunting and Wolf hunting with dogs; Section titled Uses appears to be based on Quarry section of the Wolf hunting article?; As pets and working animals to Main article - Wolves as pets and working animals. (If its some editing action on the Gray wolf page you sought, then "Beware of what ye seek, lest thee may find it" !!)
Editor abcdef	Check the "External Links" section for broken links and appropriateness. (You know that you want a piece of this action!)
William Harris	Deal with species/subspecies with link under Taxonomy. Origin section - reduce/remove to more general encyclopedic. Reduce to 1-2 paragraphs with links: Relationship to the dog to Main article - Origin of the domestic dog; Hybridization with other Canis to Main article - Canid hybrid.

For your consideration. Regards, William Harris • talk • 07:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• In response to the scope, I think especially the evolution and relationship with humans sections cut be cut down, especially since there are spin off articles for these already. I'm not sure why taxonomy is separate from evolution. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll get onto this shortly. I'm free for the entire weekend so I can focus on this for the day, and do other things that I need to finish off. The article is already looking great again! Burklemore1 (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Already removed some content, may do this further and then move some to related articles, just so the text still exists in more relevant areas. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The gray wolf has now dropped weight from 200kb to 150kb. It is leaner and meaner than it was, flows better, and I do not think that it has lost any of its core material. This Talk Page is another matter - it is over 100kb and warrants another archive process. Regards, William Harris • talk • 10:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gray wolf. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nuigalway.ie/geography/documents/wolf.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wolf.org/wolves/news/pdf/fall2008.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"The gray wolf (Canis lupus[a]) is the name of a species of canid whose nominate[3] subspecies is the Eurasian Wolf (Canis lupus lupus),[4] also known as a the common wolf" should be changed to "The gray wolf (Canis lupus[a]) is the name of a species of canid whose nominate[3] subspecies is the Eurasian Wolf (Canis lupus lupus),[4] also known as the common wolf."

Signed and date-stamped for archive purposes only.  William Harris |talk  00:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

the grey wolf is also in southern oregon http://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp

Signed and date-stamped for archive purposes only.  William Harris |talk  00:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I checked the IUCN Redlist and the Canis lupus was indeed under Least Concern. However I think there should be brief mention at a regional level such as in North America and Europe that the Canis lupus is at endangered or threatened level.

Under U.S Fish and Wildlife https://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A00D It is stated that Canis lupis as endangered, however due to population recovery, it has been proposed to be delisted.

This may help readers understand that although the listing is of "Least Concern" there are regions that the Canis lupis is at higher risk level such as endangered or threatened.

Thank You I hope this helps.

Signed and date-stamped for archive purposes only.  William Harris |talk  00:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I find it weird that a totally legendary being such as the "chupacabra" is seriously mentioned in this article, even if described as "putative". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:5CE2:0:400A:43B5:E8B7:4F27 (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I have been bold and edited the sentence to remove the material. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

My edit was reverted - so we have an editor (@Mariomassone:) who appears to believe this article should include information suggesting a mythical creature exists. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Nope, just removing a really inelegant and illogical sentence. In tests performed on a carcass, subsequent tests revealed that it was a coyote–gray wolf hybrid sired by a male Mexican gray wolf.. Read what you write before you post it. Mariomassone (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check the links which you post... DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on an article for the she-wolf of Roman mythology. I propose changing the redirect from here to the disambiguation page. That would tidy up the hatnotes and seems to make more sense. I'm not sure how many users are looking for this page when they search for "she-wolf". Comments? Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2016‎ (UTC)

Bozkurt or gökbörü (in asian) means "gray wolf" and it is very important for Turkic history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.191.155.139 (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Gray wolf has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

remove

Huntsman380 (talk) 13:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Can you provide a reason? st170e 13:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

If you had followed the link that was provided then you would have been able to answer your own question. The editor did not articulate well what they were suggesting, however if you follow the link to Canine reproduction you will find that article is specifically about reproduction in domestic dogs and not wolves, and also contains the pix of the two wolves mating in it. I assume the editor is indicating that the pix of the wolves should be removed from the Canine reproduction article, and the link to that article should be removed from gray wolf. A valid point, I would have thought. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 12:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the link was because of ansloppy copy-and-paste job. The anon was asking to remove the image of the wolves mating. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, the answer is no.oknazevad (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that was not my interpretation of exactly the same set of facts, however my point still stands. Given that the word "canine" covers all members of the genus Canis, the scope of the Canine reproduction article could be expanded to cover more than just the domestic dog, and could be fertile ground for a major development. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 12:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggest putting the comments at the article that they relate to.North8000 (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly what should happen after there was a show of support from Gray wolf to have the Canine reproduction article reflect wolf reproduction as well. That would mean including a different breeding cycle, gestation period, litter size, and pup development. However, if there is no initial support forthcoming from editors on this page then there would be no point in making a recommendation on that page. Do you have a position on this matter that you would like to share? Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 07:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, my opinion is that you are unlikely to get input because this is very confusing. My suggestion was intended to make it less confusing. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that I figured it out and I agree with you. North8000 (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Given my recent edits with two references in the article regarding the range of the gray wolf to be across mainland China, the natural range of the gray wolf in the taxobox will require amendment to include southern China. William Harris • (talk) • 19:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

My recent edit on Gray wolf is intriguing. Reader ensured that all species in MSW3 were given a common name, and so all of the subspecies of C.l. were designated the common name "wolf". Reader also wrote on page xxxii of MSW3 that "there are no rules regarding vernacular names". This implies that where Wozencraft wrote "dingo [domestic dog]" and "familiaris [domestic dog]", he was implying that both fall under the vernacular domestic dog [clade] as they were both domesticated variants - but did not specifically spell that out. This then implies that all of the other subspecies fall under another vernacular name - grey wolf we assume - but MSW3 did not say so. Therefore, we would be correct in assuming that the article Gray wolf is specifically about the non-domesticated subspecies. I have formed the opinion that Gray wolf is NOT about Canis lupus, it is about the wild subspecies of Canis lupus and the article should focus just on that. Articles on the dog and the dingo exist elsewhere. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 03:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point and I think it's come up before.

It's not unusual at all for there to be imperfect overlap between the referents of English word and taxon.

I remember a suggestion of moving Subspecies of Canis lupus to Canis lupus and adding an introduction. I'm trying to remember why it didn't happen, but there must have been good arguments against. Or maybe it was a good idea that just didn't get done.

Instead of having the Canis lupus redirect, we merge Subspecies of Canis lupus with some text explaining the situation in the intro.

Canis lupus wouldn't link here anymore.

Maybe they worried the work would keep getting undone.

If "Canis lupus" searchers is moved to Subspecies of Canis lupus, the taxobox here would have to move there as well. Right? Wolf would have no taxobox. We'd likely have editors in the future keep wanting to put the taxobox back.

So this might be a hard edit to defend long term. We'd have to keep explaining and it might prove futile and we'd end up with two articles with the same taxobox, which is highly unorthodox and confusing.

We'd also have explain everything at the top of S-s of C.l., with the word "Wolf" linking back to this article in as upfront a way as possible so as to redirect "Canis lupus" searchers to where they most likely want to be.

Some "Canis lupus" searchers might get lost or inefficiently directed, because this article is probably what many want when they search for that.

Editors might start expanding that article with information that duplicates this one here, and then calls would come in to merge the articles and at some point it'd be undone.

Point is, we'd have to be careful to do it in a very clear way to minimize such foreseeable problems.

However, I like the idea because when the semantic overlap between a taxon and an English word are imperfect, there's really nothing for it but to try to confront that reality head on and deal with it in the best way for that particular case. And not just sweep it under the rug, or crudely insist that the English word conform to the taxon when it just doesn't.

The important thing is, we're going to have separate dog and wolf articles even if zoologists say that dogs and wolves are the same species.

No way that an encyclopedia doesn't have one article for dogs and another for wolves.

We have to separate them, but in the interest of precision, we're going to either have to freak out a few "Canis lupus" searchers by fashioning a separate "umbrella article" or come up with some other way of explaining that Canis lupus and "wolf" don't overlap anymore, and have taxobox struggles, because it's the right thing because it's true.

Then there is the problem dog familiaris and dingo. This article should spend minimum time on the purported distinction between dogs an dingoes as possible.

Already experts say dingo (taxon) is no longer used or considered valid. It's like some kind of mistake of history.

Hopefully experts will see the error of their ways and make wolves and dogs two separate species again, just like the rest of us.

Through all these fashions and whims of experts, the referents of dog and wolf remain firmly separate, so will their main articles on Wikipedia. Chrisrus (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Chrisrus, well reasoned as always. (In addition, we have the complication of the geneticists referring to "gray wolf" as the extant Holocene phenotype that Linnaeus saw and named, and an increasing number of them referring to the Pleistocene wolf as "Canis lupus" separate to "gray wolf" due to its genetic and phenotypic differences that have not as yet been formally classified, but we should leave that alone for now.) I just wanted to document the rationale for our scope here and had not intended to raise a taxobox issue, however your insight raises a valid point. I concur that there will be future reverting issues, and we want to keep those to a minimum. The current binomial-level taxobox should be reflected on Subspecies of Canis lupus, more so than here. Then, one quick solution might be to create a "dodgy" taxobox here on gray wolf at trinomial level that lists the MSW3-recognized subspecies but excludes dog and dingo. In that way we have the species box where it belongs, and we have a trinomial-level box for gray wolf as we have for dog and dingo. It is easy to do; in the taxobox code where the code says "| subspecies =" we just list them all separated by either commas or semi-colons. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 20:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gray wolf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411134739/http://www.wolfsregion-lausitz.de/verbreitung/verbreitung-in-deutschland to http://www.wolfsregion-lausitz.de/verbreitung/verbreitung-in-deutschland
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411134739/http://www.wolfsregion-lausitz.de/verbreitung/verbreitung-in-deutschland to http://www.wolfsregion-lausitz.de/verbreitung/verbreitung-in-deutschland

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The wolf on the image has a characteristic of Canis lupus italicus: the dark line on the front legs [1] compare [2]]. Gray wolf is a synonym for Eurasian wolf Canis lupus lupus [3]. Sciencia58 (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Canis_lupus_subspecies.png Sciencia58 (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Are the dark lines on the front legs of a wolf limited to just the Italian wolf, and if so do you have a reference for that? The map that you offer does not depict any wolves in China except for the proposed Canis lupus lupus in the border regions - the wolves living there are certainly not C. l. l. and there is no mention of C. l. chanco at all. Is there any reason why you offer it? Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

www.dbb-wolf.de is the very recent official German Government site. In 2016 the size of the German wolf population was 61 pack. Growth is approx 30% per year for the last 10 years. Latest numbers for the French wolf population (57 zones of presence) can be found in http://www.oncfs.gouv.fr/Bulletin-dinformation-du-reseau-Loup-download130, Swiss wolf population is documented in kora.ch (3 packs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.209.79.2 (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Gray wolf has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

104.33.113.124 (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 22:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gray wolf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150225134333/http://www.snowleopard.org/connect/catcam/field-guide/wolf to http://www.snowleopard.org/connect/catcam/field-guide/wolf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130730121050/http://albertawilderness.ca/news/2013/2103-03-27-awa-news-release-alberta-government-has-lost-control-of-wolf-management to http://albertawilderness.ca/news/2013/2103-03-27-awa-news-release-alberta-government-has-lost-control-of-wolf-management

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Gray wolf has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

add how they breed Skylaqueen66 (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It has been proven that wolves can be deterred from hunting livestock by playing recordings of other wolf packs. The wolves will think it's another pack's territory and stay away. This has been tested with positive results. Wolfgirl81 (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

A) Do you have a reference for that? And B) how would you include it in he article? Because Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing the contents of the article, not general discussion on the article's subject. oknazevad (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not convinced that it has been proven, but it was proposed as an experiment back in 2010:https://www.eenews.net/stories/93834 The researchers have since moved on to measuring wolf populations through their replies to the "howl box". William Harris • (talk) • 09:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gray wolf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120617132035/http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-499-01-0001.pdf to http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-499-01-0001.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything about the lifespan of a wolf? can that be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.7.244 (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The map provided for the current and extirpated wolf range is slightly off. The current range should include the northeast of Minnesota, upper Wisconsin and the UP of Michigan. I just noticed because I'm from Minnesota :). I don't know how to edit images in Wikipedia so if anyone could update that, it would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JorikThePooh (talk • contribs) 23:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe this applies to the entire section Range and Conservation but i note it when reading Range/North America/modern range. The second paragraph (on Canada, "Canada is home to ...") contains disconnected points on hunting without any attempt to explain connection to range change. This is unsubstantiated data if meant to inform on range. Range data should be both more clearly separated from conservation and more directly tied to _demonstrable_ changes in range. Merely saying people can hunt in certain jurisdictions is a biased attempt to imply that current hunting and government programs have led to the current range, implied as diminished. Where historical associations are shown fine, but that paragraph makes no attempt to demonstrate cause and effect. Thanks. Eco ant (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please include the following new "physiology" section near the preexisting "anatomy" section:

Generally, wolves have a high heart weight of 0.93%-1.07% total body mass compared to the average mammal at 0.59% total body mass (Constable et al 1998). Wolves have a decreased heart rate, increased QRS duration, QT interval, and Q, R, and S voltage suggesting cardiac enlargement and hypertrophy. The Tibetan gray wolf, who occupies territories up to 3,000 above sea level, has evolved a heart that withstands the low oxygen levels (Zhang et al 2014). Specifically, these wolves have a strong selection for RYR2, a gene that initiates cardiac excitation. Human presence appears to stress wolves, as seen by increased cortisol levels, in instances such as snowmobiling (Creel, Fox, Hardy, Sands, Garrott, & Peterson 2002) and zoos (Pifarré, Valdez, González-Rebeles, Vázquez, Romano, & Galindo 2012). However, captive-born wolves might experience less stress over their first two years at the zoo (Escobar-Ibarra et al. 2017). Like wild wolves, captive wolves experience higher cortisol levels during the reproductive season as well as among higher ranking and elder wolves (Escobar-Ibarra et al. 2017). The greatest increase in cortisol is caused by husbandry procedures, increasing it from its basal level of 24.0-48.4 ng/g to 1000% higher within 48 hours (Molnar et al. 2015) which declines after two days (Escobar-Ibarra et al. 2017). The larger the pack in free-ranging populations, the lower the cortisol levels, which raise significantly when a pack member dies (Molnar et al. 2015). Hematological values for wolves are typically as follows: total CO2 (mEq/L) 20.2 +/- 3.3, Sodium (mEq/L) 147.3 +/- 2.0, Potassium (mEq/L) 4.9 +/- .3, Chloride (mEq/L) 111.0 +/- 2.3, Calcium (mg/dl) 9.4 +/- .7, Phosphorus (mg/dl) 3.6 +/- 1.3, Glucose (mg/dl) 92 +/- 50, Creatinine (mg/dl) 1.01 +/- .10, BUN (mg/dl) 46.2 +/- 23.5, BUN/creatinine ratio (mg/dl) 47.5 +/- 22.2, Bilirubin (mg/dl) .24 +/- .10, Cholesterol (mg/dl) 168 +/- 33, ALP (U/L) 75 +/- 87, CIALP (U/L) 17 +/- 36, ALT (U/L) 109 +/- 50, AST (U/L) 123 +/- 103, CK (U/L) 364 +/- 189, Total protein (g/dl) 5.99 +/- .43, Albumin (g/dl) 4.00 +/- .33, Total T4 (nM/L) 15.4 +/- 7.6, Total T3 (nM/L) 1.10 +/- .30, Free T4 (pM/L) 11.5 +/- 8.3, Free T3 (pM/L) 4.6 +/- 2.0, TSH (mU/L) 21.4 +/- 10.6 (Constable et al 1998). Free-ranging wolves have lower sodium, chloride, and creatinine concentrations as well as higher potassium and blood urea nitrogen (BUN). BUN to creatinine ratios, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and creatine kinase activities are also higher in free-ranging wolves. These factors might be related to a recent meal or intense exercise (Finco & Duncan 1976; McKeever, Schurg, Convertino 1985). It appears only dominant male and female wolves urine mark, and this is positively correlated with testosterone levels (Asa, Mech, Seal, & Plotka 1990). This tends to increase during breeding seasons, fall and winter. In males, progestin and estradiol tend to be higher during the non-reproductive season (Barja, Silván, Rosellini, Piñeiro, Illera, & Illera 2008). In females, these two hormones increase along with testosterone during the reproductive season. In captivity, anestrous wolves have progesterone values between 1–2 ng/ml, estradiol-17β concentrations between 5–20 pg/ml, and LH values between 0.1–2 ng/ml (Seal, Plotka, Packard, & Mech 1979). Estradiol-17β varies between 10–20 pg/ml during proestrus, peaks at 30–70 pg/ml late in proestrus, and fluctuates between 10–30 pg/ml during pregnancy or the duration of luteal activity in nonpregnant wolves. The preovulatory LH rise, 5–15 ng/ml, occurs simultaneously and following the peak estradiol-17β values. Progesterone peaks 11–14 days later at 22–40 ng/ml.

References

Asa, C. S., Mech, L., Seal, U. S., & Plotka, E. D. (1990). The influence of social and endocrine factors on urine-marking by captive wolves (Canis lupus). Hormones and Behavior, 24(4), 497-509. doi:10.1016/0018-506x(90)90038-y

Barja, I., Silván, G., Rosellini, S., Piñeiro, A., Illera, M., & Illera, J. (2008). Quantification of sexual steroid hormones in faeces of Iberian wolf (Canis lupus signatus): A non-invasive sex typing method. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 43(6), 701-707. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0531.2007.00974.x

Constable, P., Hinchcliff, K., Demma, N., Callahan, M., Dale, B., Fox, K., . . . Kramer, L. (1998). Electrocardiographic consequences of a peripatetic lifestyle in gray wolves (Canis lupus). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology, 120(3), 557-563. doi:10.1016/s1095-6433(98)10066-1

Constable, P., Hinchcliff, K., Demma, N., Callahan, M., Dale, B., Fox, K., . . . Kramer, L. (1998). Serum biochemistry of captive and free-ranging gray wolves (Canis lupus). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, 29(4), 435-440.

Creel, S., Fox, J. E., Hardy, A., Sands, J., Garrott, B., & Peterson, R. O. (2002). Snowmobile activity and glucocorticoid stress responses in wolves and elk. Conservation Biology,16(3), 809-814. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00554.x

Escobar-Ibarra, I., Mayagoitia-Novales, L., Alcántara-Barrera, A., Cerda-Molina, A. L., Mondragón-Ceballos, R., Ramírez-Necoechea, R., & Alonso-Spilsbury, M. (2017). Long-term quantification of faecal glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations reveals that Mexican grey wolves may habituate to captivity. The European Zoological Journal, 84(1), 311-320. doi:10.1080/24750263.2017.1332111

Finco, D., & Duncan, J. (1976). Evaluation of blood urea nitrogen and serum creatinine concentrations as indicators of renal dysfunction: a study of 111 cases and a review of related literature. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 168(7), 593-601.

McKeever, K. H., Schurg, W. A., & Convertino, V. A. (1985). Exercise training-induced hypervolemia in greyhounds: role of water intake and renal mechanisms. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 248(4). doi:10.1152/ajpregu.1985.248.4.r422

Molnar, B., Fattebert, J., Palme, R., Ciucci, P., Betschart, B., Smith, D. W., & Diehl, P. (2015). Environmental and intrinsic correlates of stress in free-ranging wolves. Plos One, 10(9). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0137378

Pifarré, M., Valdez, R., González-Rebeles, C., Vázquez, C., Romano, M., & Galindo, F. (2012). The effect of zoo visitors on the behaviour and faecal cortisol of the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 136(1), 57-62. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2011.11.015

Zhang, W., Fan, Z., Han, E., Hou, R., Zhang, L., Galaverni, M., . . . Zhang, Z. (2014). Hypoxia adaptations in the Grey wolf (Canis lupus chanco) from Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. PLoS Genetics, 10(7). doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004466

Tessa at lawrence (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Tessa / May 7, 2018

Not a definitive answer, but I think the proposed change is too technical and unnecessary in an encyclopedia article. - Donald Albury 12:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I agree, this looks to have too technical of a tone. I'm not sure if it's necessarily too long (especially if it was changed to meet the current citation style), but I doubt it would be understandable or useful to the average reader. LittlePuppers (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Understood; how about the following for a new "physiology" section? :

       Generally, wolves have a high heart weight of 0.93%-1.07% total body mass compared to the average mammal at 0.59% total body mass (Constable et al 1998). Wolves have a decreased heart rate suggesting cardiac enlargement and hypertrophy. The Tibetan gray wolf, who occupies territories up to 3,000 above sea level, has evolved a heart that withstands the low oxygen levels (Zhang et al 2014). Specifically, these wolves have a strong selection for RYR2, a gene that initiates cardiac excitation.
       Human presence appears to stress wolves, as seen by increased cortisol levels in instances such as snowmobiling near their territory (Creel, Fox, Hardy, Sands, Garrott, & Peterson 2002). Wolves experience higher cortisol levels during the reproductive season as well as among higher ranking and elder wolves (Escobar-Ibarra et al. 2017). The larger the pack, the lower the cortisol levels, which raise significantly when a pack member dies (Molnar et al. 2015).
       It appears only dominant male and female wolves urine mark, and this is positively correlated with testosterone levels (Asa, Mech, Seal, & Plotka 1990). This tends to increase during breeding seasons, fall and winter. In males, progestin and estradiol tend to be higher during the non-reproductive season (Barja, Silván, Rosellini, Piñeiro, Illera, & Illera 2008). In females, these two hormones increase along with testosterone during the reproductive season.

References

Asa, C. S., Mech, L., Seal, U. S., & Plotka, E. D. (1990). The influence of social and endocrine factors on urine-marking by captive wolves (Canis lupus). Hormones and Behavior, 24(4), 497-509. doi:10.1016/0018-506x(90)90038-y

Barja, I., Silván, G., Rosellini, S., Piñeiro, A., Illera, M., & Illera, J. (2008). Quantification of sexual steroid hormones in faeces of Iberian wolf (Canis lupus signatus): A non-invasive sex typing method. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 43(6), 701-707. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0531.2007.00974.x

Constable, P., Hinchcliff, K., Demma, N., Callahan, M., Dale, B., Fox, K., . . . Kramer, L. (1998). Electrocardiographic consequences of a peripatetic lifestyle in gray wolves (Canis lupus). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology, 120(3), 557-563. doi:10.1016/s1095-6433(98)10066-1

Creel, S., Fox, J. E., Hardy, A., Sands, J., Garrott, B., & Peterson, R. O. (2002). Snowmobile activity and glucocorticoid stress responses in wolves and elk. Conservation Biology,16(3), 809-814. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00554.x

Escobar-Ibarra, I., Mayagoitia-Novales, L., Alcántara-Barrera, A., Cerda-Molina, A. L., Mondragón-Ceballos, R., Ramírez-Necoechea, R., & Alonso-Spilsbury, M. (2017). Long-term quantification of faecal glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations reveals that Mexican grey wolves may habituate to captivity. The European Zoological Journal, 84(1), 311-320. doi:10.1080/24750263.2017.1332111

Molnar, B., Fattebert, J., Palme, R., Ciucci, P., Betschart, B., Smith, D. W., & Diehl, P. (2015). Environmental and intrinsic correlates of stress in free-ranging wolves. Plos One, 10(9). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0137378

Zhang, W., Fan, Z., Han, E., Hou, R., Zhang, L., Galaverni, M., . . . Zhang, Z. (2014). Hypoxia adaptations in the Grey wolf (Canis lupus chanco) from Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. PLoS Genetics, 10(7). doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004466

Tessa at lawrence (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Partially implemented Thank you, Tessa at lawrence. I've included some of your text and sources in the article. However, I did not follow your suggestion to create a separate subsection under the name "Physiology." An excerpt regarding cortisol response in the presence of humans was added to the human-wolf interactions section of the article. I added an excerpt regarding heart physiology to the anatomy section of the article. I added a sentence regarding cortisol levels on pack-member death to the section regarding wolves' social behavior. I've not added any of your other excerpts yet due to time constraints. If somebody wants to pick up the rest, please do. AlexEng^(TALK) 16:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't have much experience suggesting wikipedia edits and am sorry if the format is incorrect.

The artie says that grey wolves are the largest species in the canis family. However, I believe this is incorrect considering very large dogs such as the Great Dane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.157.37 (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The Great Dane is a breed, not a species. And their size is not significantly different than the largest known wolf specimens. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Further, the Great Dane is a dog (with the English Mastiff weighing even more). According to the huge genome-wide study by Fan 2016, the dog is a gray wolf. Therefore, lupus remains the largest species in genus Canis. Part of the misunderstanding is that many people cannot picture the true size of the large, northern-most wolves. Thank-you for your interest in Gray wolf. William Harris • (talk) • 08:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the views of 3 long-serving Gray wolf contributors were overlooked with this WP:MOVE decision. It would appear that this article now reflects what "most people are looking for", and that WP:PRECISION was ignored. What most people are looking for is the modern (Holocene) grey wolf Canis lupus. The scene is now set for the creation of the article about the extinct Pleistocene grey wolf Canis lupus, which is not the modern grey wolf. Things are about to become unclear. William Harris • (talk) • 00:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Wolves, including medium-to-giant dogs, have killed humans as food. This is rare and out of character. It has happened, and it is documented. The essence of man-eating is two elements: first, a killing of a person, and second, significant consumption of the person's flesh as meat. This rules out scavenging (which a domestic cat could do, but a domestic cat is highly unlikely to kill a human), but it does not rule out a defense of territory that becomes lethal.

This said, wolves are much less likely to kill humans for food than bears or Big Cats. With a dog, the chance is so slight (and it usually involves human misconduct) that the hazards of dogs and wolves are far less than those of encounters with large herbivores. Even a horse, probably the best-behaved of giant herbivores, is more lethal than a dog.

There is no question of ability. Dogs and wolves have the power, speed, agility, strength, cunning, voracity, keen senses, and sharp claws and teeth characteristic of such animals as bears and Big Cats that make those animals lethal. They are simply better behaved.Pbrower2a (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No, wolves are not man eaters. Wolf attacks on humans are, as I understand it, extremely rare. The societal image of a wolf pack tracking, killing, and eating a human is an incorrect imaginary meme [edit 4 September: although evidence further down the page documents one known instance], probably used to frighten children not to wander off into the woods. And is this about adding the category:Man-eating species, which you did and which was correctly quickly reverted? Wolves aren't even close to being a member of that category, maybe on the same order as including Red Panda. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The capability to eat a human is not sufficient qualifier to define a species as a maneater. There is no doubt that Killer Whales are quite capable of eating humans, but such predatory attacks are unheard of. Likewise wolf attacks on humans are extremely rare. In the last century there were less than 100 documented wolf attacks on people in North America. In the vast majority of these cases the cause was attributed to disease (most often rabies), or human encroachment on wolf habitat. While many such cases result in injuries, there are few that involve a person's death; and in even fewer cases are the victims eaten. Confirmed cases of healthy wolves attacking humans for food are virtually non-existent. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, some of these "recorded" attacks are largely based on non-WP:RELIABLE sources including sensationalized media articles, some of which date back into the 1800s. I have left a message on the Talk page of this category asking its creator (i.e. User:Pbrower2a) to define its purpose and scope - what defines a maneater, and which expert reliable sources say so? William Harris • (talk) • 21:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Any documented predatory attack (which may begin with a defense of territory) that results in the killing and partial eating of a person is man0eating.

There are plenty of stories in Wikipedia on "Wolf of..." There is no question that wolves and dogs are potential man-eaters by ability. I am fully aware that there is no documented case of a healthy wolf making an unprovoked attack upon a human being in North America. But that's not to say that all wolves are healthy, and I would certainly never provoke a wolf.

It is possible that those medieval accounts reflect a time in which wolves were more aggressive, perhaps because humans were less likely to be in large groups and did not yet have the sorts of weapons (firearms) that made humans too dangerous as prey.

Now -- were the accounts reliable? Maybe they weren't all reliable. Death was commonplace, and anyone who died unseen was going to be scavenged. Blaming the wolf was easy.

Almost all accounts of wolves eating human flesh in modern times involve scavenging, which does not fit the category of 'man-eating'. But in pre-modern times? The dense forests of medieval Europe were places from which children never returned, and wolves were the presumed culprits. Feral dogs could also be the killers -- but wolves and dogs are the same species, anyway.Pbrower2a (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

For the record, there are documented cases of healthy wolves attacking humans unprovoked in North America (see for example the source for the 2010 case in the Attacks on humans section of this article). Also, why is the qualifier "In North America" constantly brought up? Canis lupus isn't endemic to that continent and there are hundreds of cases that have been verified by biologists in India.
That said, I don't see the point in the category. Mariomassone (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

As has already been explained, wolves attack for many other reasons than food. Only a minuscule fraction of cases of wolf attacks on humans have ever been attributed to predation. In the 2010 case the wolves was also evidence of bear presence, which puts doubt on whether the victim Kenton Carnegie was in fact killed by the wolves. The evidence in tha case supports the proposal that the wolves were only opportunistic feeders on an already dead corpse. This would make them scavengers, not predators. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Mediatech492, Carnegie was killed in 2005. The 2010 case involving Candice Berner was unambiguously the work of wolves, and you can check out the full report here. Mariomassone (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mariomassone: You obviously did not read a word of that report. For starters, the body of Candice Berner was found recognizably intact, which itself is evidence that it definitely was not a predatory attack. Had the wolves hunted to eat, the body would have been reduced to bones and scraps within a matter of hours. Try to find some evidence for your argument that doe s not refute itself please. Mediatech492 (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mediatech492, The wolves didn't have "a matter of hours":
Based on the short amount of time that elapsed between the last known location of the deceased (fax sent from Chignik Lake School) and the discovery of her body two miles from Chignik Lake (approximately 50 minutes), and the number of events that transpired prior to the discovery of her body, it is plausible that she encountered the wolves soon after starting her run. p. 12
Furthermore:
When a group of residents returned to retrieve the body, it had been moved farther down the hill to a location with brush cover, and more of it had been consumed. p. 18
This appears to have been an aggressive, predatory attack that was relatively short in duration. p. 18
Further details from Nick Jans, who interviewed the investigators for his book "A wolf called Romeo":
Berner had suffered numerous bites, including fatal punctures to her neck, and portions of one buttock, shoulder, and arm had been eaten. If her body hadn't been recovered, it would likely have been consumed down to hair and bone fragments, like any wolf kill. p. 80
You'll excuse me then if I defer to the conclusions made by the people who actually investigated the scene. Mariomassone (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, you base your conclusion on the flawed report, the conclusions of which have been heavily criticized. The report shows the wolves scavenged the body, but that does not mean they made the kill. The wolves had plenty of time to consume the body had this been a predatory kill. The very fact that the body was recognizable without forensic identification is proof enough that this was not a feeding kill. Also wolves do not usually move a kill, however bears do; and there was abundant evidence of bears in the vicinity. The fact that wolves scavenged the corpse is not at issue, the questions, which the report fails to establish, is did wolves kill the victim; and the evidence for this is dubious. Even if the wolves did kill the victim, the fact that the body was mostly intact shows the did not do it for food. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You really do appear to be confusing this case with the Kenton Carnegie case. No one ever brought up bears in the Berner case, and most wolf advocating organisations accept the wolves' culpability in it.
Let's break this down:
1. You say "The report shows the wolves scavenged the body, but that does not mean they made the kill". Actually, it gives a detailed description of the tracks left on the scene, which clearly showed the victim turning upon seeing the wolves, being chased, knocked down twice and losing a lot of blood in the process. See page 10.
2. You say "The wolves had plenty of time to consume the body had this been a predatory kill." Less than fifty minutes, during which the wolves had to spend time tracking her, chasing her and killing her before they could begin feeding. What happened to your "matter of hours" claim?
3. You say "The very fact that the body was recognizable without forensic identification is proof enough that this was not a feeding kill." The wolves didn't have time to make her unrecogniseable, and they ate parts of her arm, shoulder and buttocks.
3. You say "Also wolves do not usually move a kill, however bears do". Wrong. See Linnel et al. 2002, specifically page 16: The bodies are often dragged away and consumed unless the wolves are disturbed.
4. You say "there was abundant evidence of bears in the vicinity". False. See p. 9. The only tracks found at the scene were wolf ones.
Do yourself a favor and actually read the report instead of pretending to have done so. Mariomassone (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Mariomassone, good analysis, although I haven't clicked on the report (hesitant to do random clicks). Do you recall from the report how many wolves that the DNA, fur, scat, tracks and tracking evidence showed were present? Did scat analysis provide important information? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

One more question (as Columbo would say that time he convicted a wolf of murder). How long did it take for the hunting parties to hunt down and kill these wolves, and what did the animal autopsies show? Randy Kryn (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Randy Kryn Berner was killed on March 8. Two wolves were killed on March 15, five on March 25, and another the day later:
At least two wolves left DNA on the body and clothing. One of these wolves (2010-037), an adult female in excellent body condition, was killed on March 26 near the location where the attack occurred. Samples from this wolf were most prevalent in the collected forensic samples. The other wolf is unknown as it was not one of the wolves culled near Chignik Lake. The DNA investigation also concluded that as many as three to four wolves may have left DNA evidence, but that conclusion is less certain due to a lack of data replication. It was also recognized that there could have been more than four wolves involved in the attack as some individuals involved may not have left adequate or recoverable DNA - p. 17
As to the autopsies:
All eight of the culled wolves tested negative for rabies and distemper. The histopathology reports from the Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory (Washington State University, Pullman, Washington) found parasites that are considered clinically insignificant. No conditions were found that would have predisposed these animals towards aggressive behavior. When viewed as a representative sample of the wolf population in the vicinity of Chignik Lake, these findings greatly reduce the possibility that the wolves involved in the attack were in an abnormal condition that would have predisposed these wolves to an attack. Six of the eight wolves culled were in good to excellent condition - p. 16 Mariomassone (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you again for a good analysis. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

An interesting conclusion to this tragic event: "Jogging alone and other solo activities in remote parts of Alaska entail inherent risk, but an attack by wolves is not considered to be a risk commensurate with bear attacks, inclement weather or personal injury." William Harris • (talk) • 00:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

In colonial times, children got lost in Australian forests and never returned - is it your contention that wolves were responsible for that as well? With "wolves and dogs are the same species, anyway" I assume that you observe no behavioural differences between the two, and that Dog should be designated as a maneater? What about human cannibalism - should we badge Human as well? You state that "Any documented predatory attack (which may begin with a defense of territory) that results in the killing and partial eating of a person is maneating." - are you able to WP:CITE expert WP:RELIABLE sources which other editors can WP:VERIFY to support that position? That is what Wikipedia requires. If you can supply that, and it matches wolf behaviour, then I am satisfied.

(You do realize what you have done coming here, I trust? The conservation and rebuilding of wolf populations after 10,000 years of human persecution that was leading towards their extinction is not helped by you labelling them as "maneaters" based on a comparatively few cases. I use "few" when comparing the recorded cases with the hundreds of thousands of wolves that have lived in historical times. Wolves have a bad media reputation that is unwarranted - people on this page are aware of that, and will challenge proposals that are not supported.) William Harris • (talk) • 21:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

"Little Red Riding Hood" (or is it Big Bad Wolf?). All the proof we need. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

That work was responsible for much of the prejudice against wolves across all of the English-speaking world and much of Western Europe, for a thousand years, and it was drummed into us as impressionable children at school. (It is also one of the reasons why I no longer trust the Education "system".) William Harris • (talk) • 21:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I did not know the story is over a thousand years old. A long-lasting and deeply injuring meme. And as you point out, a prejudice which has affected human perception and decision making regarding wolves (one of the most intelligent and loving species) for over a millennium. Our Little Red Riding Hood page here, and the Big Bad Wolf article, should have descriptors of the incorrectness of this meme in their lede paragraph or two (if they don't have now). And maybe this Wolf page should have it accented in the lede as well. If those additions can be made, if they don't exist now, then the attempt here - an attempt to put wolves on the man-eating animal list for pete's sake (literally for Peter's sake) - may actually result in an increase of correct encyclopedic text. Text which enhances Wikipedia reader knowledge and perception levels as well as adding neutrality to the thousand year old inaccuracies contained within the tale. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Fictional accounts, and especially fairy tales, are never reliable sources on animal behavior, according to Wikipedia. Thus Peter Benchley's Jaws is not a valid source for putting the Great White Shark on the list of man-eating species. (Those sharks do not hunt humans, as human flesh is too low in fat to satisfy them).

This said, children who got lost in the woods often never got home. They usually died of thirst or exposure and of course were scavaged. A wolf doing exactly what a scavenger would be expected to do, often got undue blame, unlike a vulture. But there are medieval accounts of wolves taking children. Were the children alive or already dead? Child mortality was extremely high in the Middle Ages.Pbrower2a (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Could I remind everyone that talk pages are not forums for general discussion, and that articles must be based on reliable sources, not editors' opinions or personal knowledge, which cannot be verified and are therefore disallowed as original research. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Scavenging does not count as man-eating, or we would have to include such animals as domestic cats as man-eaters. An incident that can be explained as scavenging is thus not man-eating, even if by one of the most fearsome of predators. Are reports by semi-literate or illiterate people of the Middle Ages reliable sources even if someone writes them down in sincere belief? Of course not -- as we would need to accept as reality accounts of witchcraft that science now debunks and the validity of convictions for the 'crime' of witchcraft. So perhaps the stories of "Wolf of..." that identify wolves as man-eaters in medieval times are not valid. Pbrower2a (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

wolf paw can be as big as a male human hand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.52.12.21 (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The article mentions wolf howls being heard to an area of even 130 km square kilometers. That would mean to an average radius of just little over ten kilometers or some seven miles. And that sounds a bit silly, because in good conditions, for example in the mountains, voice can carry really far. Ten kilometers would be maybe like closer to average hearing distance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BB:81:A198:8809:E6CA:8B17:A937 (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

One could counter my arguments by claiming that as the energy carried is proportional to distance the average are must be about the same every time. However the energy spread is proportional to the VOLUME created by the radius r from the howling spot. Thus one can understand that in some situation more of the energy carried by the sound waves spreads to greater AREA, when the situations are so that not so much of it spreads to up the space and not on the surface of earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BB:81:A198:90F3:29FA:DECB:7C43 (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

You have not provided any arguments; you have stated a piece of personal conjecture. Wikipedia requires that editors be able to WP:CITE expert WP:RELIABLE sources which other editors can WP:VERIFY. In this instance, 130 square kilometres is supported by Paquet, P. & Carbyn, L. W. (2003). "Gray wolf Canis lupus and allies", in Feldhamer, George A. et al. Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation, JHU Press, pp. 482-510. If you can do the same for your view, we will be happy to include it. William Harris • (talk) • 09:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Wolf has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change map of wolf range to include northern Michigan, northern, Wisconsin, and northeast Minnesota in "Present" range. 165.189.65.63 (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I have added a "needs update" template to the image caption. I am also pinging Mariomassone, who created the image, to see if they would be willing to update the image. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I reverted to an earlier version of the file. It appears in his changing the file to include borders of subdivisions, such as states and provinces, Mario made many errors in the current range, including the aforementioned parts around the upper Great Lakes. Notably, this includes Minnesota, the only state other than Alaska to never have wolves fully extirpated, a fact commemorated in the name of their NBA team! The only explanation I can think of (besides good faith if careless error) is the idea that C. lupus lycaon was possibly a different species, though that's pretty strongly disproven now. oknazevad (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The Minnesota Timberwolves - we "foreigners" never knew that. William Harris • (talk) • 07:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The map of wolf distribution in Greece is very off. Wolves in Greece live in Thrace, some parts of Macedonia, Epirus, very western Thessaly, Aetoloakarnania, Phocis and Boeotia (in the reservation site of Parnassus). My village is there and wolf attacks have been a common thing, especially this past few years. Please, fix the map. The previous one was more accurate. User: Kuniskos 14 December 2018

Thanks for sharing this information. It might be better placed over on Talk:List of gray wolf populations by country, along with a WP:RELIABLE source to support it. William Harris • (talk) • 10:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't been able to find a page dedicated to requesting size charts for extant mammalia (comparable to the paleobiology one), so I thought I'd try it here.

Would it be possible to make a size chart of the grey wolf, golden jackal and red fox using these three images as templates? Wolf, Jackal and Fox. Something similar to THIS maybe?

Obviously, the image will be very eurocentric, but I may get around to projecting one for North America and Africa.

Anyway, the shoulder heights are:
Grey wolf = 85 cm
Golden jackal = 50 cm
Red fox = 50 cm

Sorry in advance if this is the wrong place to ask, but I did try to find a more appropriate venue Mariomassone (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello M, you might approach our joint paleo-colleague Funkmonk; he did some splendid work for me on Beringian wolf#Description running up to its FA review. If he cannot produce it, he may know somebody among the "dino-crew" who can. William Harris • (talk) • 10:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @FunkMonk:, what do you think? If you don't have the time, could you tell me what program you use? Mariomassone (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

A few images of exant animals have actually been done at WP:paleoart, so I'm sure someone there would be happy to do it. As for myself, I'm not much of a diagram guy, I use Photoshot, whereas something like Adobe Illustrator would probably be best. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Alright, so I have returned after bringing evidence that the distribution of wolves in Greece is wrong. The map merely shows them in a part of Macedonia, when in fact, most wolves in Greece live in the midlands, on the mountains of the Pindos mountain range and have never gone extinct from those mountains. I will provide a research on the wolf distribution in Greece conducted by the EU.

• Added archive http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/pdf/60_Mertzanis_monitoring%20methods%20Greece.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuniskos (talk • contribs) 06:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Wolf has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Befor, on the wikipedia page of "Gray Wolf" The Shoulder height was at 80-90 cm. please change it back 2A02:2F0B:A2FF:FFFF:0:0:6468:D135 (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Since wolves as a species didn't actually become extinct but were killed/relocated in specific regions, the usage of "extinct" throughout the article is misleading. I've tried to think about how it might be rewritten to reflect this, but I'm stuck whn it comes to actually doing so. Clovermoss (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that the word "extirpated" is the correct term. William Harris • (talk) • 00:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, though "locally extinct" is probably better in a source for a general audience. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@William Harris: @Adrian J. Hunter: So, "extirpated" or "locally extinct"? I also think locally extinct would be better for a general audience, but I'm willing to keep an open mind. Clovermoss (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I assume that this matter relates to the "Range and conservation" section of the article. I thought that you had an issue with the word "extinct" - these wolves did not disappear due to climate change or loss of prey. If the word "extirpated" is not in general usage, then why not use a similar word that is in general usage and call this for what it is - these wolves were "exterminated" by humans. It is not Wikipedia's role to sugar-coat the facts. William Harris • (talk) • 22:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I just looked at each instance of "extinct" in the article, and actually, I'm not sure there's a problem. My biology textbook (Campbell Biology, 10th ed, 2015) says that "extinction" can be local or global, implicitly condoning the use of "extinct" when a species still exists elsewhere. All the uses in the article make it clear that it's local extinction being referred to. (And in the case of Japanese wolves, it seems correct to say that particular population/subtype of wolves genuinely is extinct.) I'm not really seeing sugar-coating as Range and conservation mentions "deliberate human persecution" in the second sentence. The bit about wolves in Switzerland sounds vague and could be changed to "exterminated" if appropriate, but I can't read the cited source. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@William Harris: I wasn't trying to "sugar coat" it, I just thought more people would understand what locally extinct was compared to expirated, since a lot of people are interested in wolves. @Adrian J. Hunter: I agree that it's fairly implicit in the article that it is local, but the current extinct article states that "extinction is generally considered to be the death of the last indvidual of the species", which is the reason I wanted to discuss this on the talk page because I thought that that made the current usage of extinct in the article misleading. Basically, I think that the article should be correct when it comes to what words actually mean, but I don't want that technical usage to be confusing. Clovermoss (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I was not implying that you were; this article has preferred the use of the word "extinct" rather than the more correct "exterminated" long before you raised the issue in this section. William Harris • (talk) • 21:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

My 2¢: we should use the correct term, which is extirpated. Yes, it's a less common term than "extinct", but it's not ambiguous or possibly incorrect in meaning and with a link it's easily explained for the unfamiliar. It's just clearer to use. oknazevad (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I question your assertion that the correct word is "extirpated", you have definitely not made the case for that. "Extinct" is not the best choice either as it immplies the loss of the species and not just local absence. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, it is the very definition of "extirpated". What I'm saying is that the term is unambiguous and therefore a better choice than "extinct", which has both local and global meanings that are too easily confused, especially since the global meaning is the common understanding. Why not use an unambiguous term when one is available to us? After all, that is the exact question that prompted this discussion inthe first place. oknazevad (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it? Correct perhaps that is arguable; but unambiguous, no not really. It's tough to make an argument for common understanding for a word that is well outside common usage, much less as you claim: "global meaning". Mediatech492 (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I really do not understand what you are arguing here. Like, at all. I don't think you understood me. I'm saying that "extinction" is ambiguous because a species can be extinct at a local level, or it can be globally extinct; the latter is the common understanding of the term amongst laypeople. That's what I mean by "global understanding" – that the common understanding of "extinct" means the species has been completely lost worldwide. "Extripation", although not as commonly used word among the general public, is unambiguous because it can only refer to a partial absence. Your posts read as though you seem to think the opposite is true, that "extirpated" refers to a global loss. Indeed, I'm completely puzzled by your responses, as I think you may be failing to comprehend what I'm actually saying. oknazevad (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Extirpation: "The bringing of a species to extinction within a part of its range" (Oxford Dictionary of Ecology). Srnec (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

One thing that I do expect from our readers is the ability to speak English; this is the English-speaking version of Wikipedia. If they can handle "extant" then they can also handle "extirpated". Else, I would refer them to the "Simple Wikipedia": https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_wolf William Harris • (talk) • 09:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyone else think this section would benefit from a pair of maps indicating the distribution of Eurasian haplogroups and North American ecotypes? Mariomassone (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello M. The 6 North American ecotypes would be valuable and Schweizer provides an excellent map for you to replicate. It would help to highlight the separate existence of the northwestern "coastal wolves", which is becoming topical in wolf conservation circles as the "mountain wolves" commence their inroads into the coast-lands. At the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary, these coastal-adapted wolves may have stretched along the coast from British Columbia across coastal Beringia to Hokkaido - their cousin is the now extinct Ezo wolf (Hokkaido wolf) which did not originate from that island.

I believe that a map of the Eurasian haplotypes is a bit early just yet; I am sure that further research will reveal these to fall under ecotypes as well, rather than within national boundaries or geographic regions. William Harris • (talk) • 10:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)