DailyDirt: Wolves In Sheepdog's Clothing?
from the urls-we-dig-up dept
Man's best friend, the dog, has a mysterious and complex relationship with people. Ancient humans presumably domesticated wolves or some other closely related species a long time ago -- perhaps multiple times on different continents. The story of dogs and wolves and people is far from over, getting ever more interesting as we learn more about ancient dog specimens and create more genetically-engineered dogs.- IVF (aka in vitro fertilization) has been successful for a bunch of different animals, but only relatively recently with canine puppies. Test tube puppies can now be breed to become healthy adult dogs, and the techniques to do doggie IVF could also help bring back distantly-related wolf populations. [url]
- Dogs and wolves can interbreed, suggesting that they are very closely related, if not the same, species. Defining what a species is -- is tricky, and the existence of the coywolf (a coyote, dog, wolf hybrid) makes the pedigree of dogs/wolves/coyotes a bit more complicated than one might have guessed. [url]
- Wolves were re-introduced into Yellowstone National Park in the mid-1990s (after a decades-long absence), and a small population of wolves may have drastically changed the ecosystem and perhaps even the geography of the area. Subsequent studies of the wolves paint a more complex picture of this classic example of "trophic cascade" -- and the role of wolves may not be so directly correlated to thriving beaver populations or the feeding behavior of elk. [url]
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: animals, biology, coywolf, dogs, ivf, pets, species, trophic cascade, wolves, yellowstone
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Those were Canadian wolves, eh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not All Dog Breeds Can Interbreed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defining what a species is
As far as I know that is still the definition and a reddit debate is poor evidence that defining what a species is should be regarded as "tricky" or in need of revision, least of all in regard to dogs and wolves.Somebody didn't read the entire reddit article, where it is pointed out that dogs and wolves are different SUBspeciss of Canis lupus.. Which means they ARE the same species..
In contrast, horses and donkeys are DIFFERENT species precisely because their progeny--mules and hinnies--are infertile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Defining what a species is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
Wikipedia says there are at least 26 different recognized species concepts. Interbreeding is just one of the criteria that is commonly used and taught in intro biology classes.
And if you're going to recognize a SUBspecies... maybe there should be better definitions of a species first?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Defining what a species is
That said, I did think it necessary to point out that the standard definition clearly ONLY applies to those forms of life which reproduce sexually.
Why?
Because those forms (e.g. bacteria) which reproduce asexually do NOT interbreed with others of their kind! (Some do exchange DNA in other ways, but that is NOT the same thing as sexual reproduction!)
I will grant you there are difficulties with defining species for bacteria and other asexual forms of life. But then we weren't talking about them, were we? The difficulties with defining "species" for them does NOT affect the definition which applies to sexual forms like dogs and wolves. There the classic definition still fits best (just MHO), Wikipedia articles notwithstanding. Where those sorts of issues DO become relevant is if you are trying to put together a single, all-encompassing definition which can be applied to ALL forms of life, both sexual ones AND asexual ones. That WOULD be more problematic, and in all likelihood may turn out to be impossible to accomplish.
I point that out because that reference to "26 different recognized species concepts" you alluded to comes from a blog article which lists 26 attempts to define a single, all-encompassing definition for "species" that applies to ALL forms of life.
As distinct from the less sweeping and more limited definition I gave earlier, which does NOT attempt to be so comprehensive.There is nothing wrong with the definition I gave--as long as you are aware it only applies to complex forms of life which reproduce sexually. As opposed to a definition which applies to ALL forms of life. Including bacteria and viruses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]