[MP-Ryan]

A. It's Canis lupus
B. The two frequently hybridize
C. The hybrids are fertile and no other morphological isolation has been noted, neither pre- nor postzygotic
D. There are mixed packs of wolves and wolfdogs roaming around

And the conventions on which species are defined - which definition are we following here because it sure as hell isn't BSC

edit: Actually the current scientific consensus seems to be that dog is a wolf. Quick search of JSTOR, Blackwell and SD yields similar results: dog is a wolf. For the reactions to neuterization a dog can yield important data - of course not the same thing as a wild pack of wolves, but sadly sometimes economical concerns do play a role in science :/

A.  Dogs and Grey Wolves are members of Canis lupis, but are two distinct sub-species.  Or close enough.  Dogs contain more fox DNA than wild grey wolf populations, but are otherwise genetically indistinguishable from wolves (until you look at gene expression).
B/C/D.  Fair points, but I did point out I was nitpicking. =)

Species is usually defined as reproductively isolated, bearing fertile offspring.  Which is why subspecies have come about, because genotyping is showing some massive differences between subspecies, even though they can interbreed and have fertile offspring.  It's a limitation in the definition which hasn't caught up to science.

Dogs and wolves have different behavioural genetic traits as a result of the domestication process (which you'll have to narrow your search criteria to find, as Behavioural Genetics is basically a brand-new field).  Dogs really aren't a valid model for wild wolf behaviour.  Domesticated animals, in addition to picking up behavioural traits, also pick up phenotypic traits (colouring patterns, ear and tail phenotypes) which could skew your results.

I don't think you could get valid results from dogs.

[Janos]

A. It's Canis lupus
B. The two frequently hybridize
C. The hybrids are fertile and no other morphological isolation has been noted, neither pre- nor postzygotic
D. There are mixed packs of wolves and wolfdogs roaming around

And the conventions on which species are defined - which definition are we following here because it sure as hell isn't BSC

edit: Actually the current scientific consensus seems to be that dog is a wolf. Quick search of JSTOR, Blackwell and SD yields similar results: dog is a wolf. For the reactions to neuterization a dog can yield important data - of course not the same thing as a wild pack of wolves, but sadly sometimes economical concerns do play a role in science :/

A.  Dogs and Grey Wolves are members of Canis lupis, but are two distinct sub-species.  Or close enough.  Dogs contain more fox DNA than wild grey wolf populations, but are otherwise genetically indistinguishable from wolves (until you look at gene expression).

It's lupus, LUPUS. Written as lupus! LUPUS Not lupis. If you look at remarkable genetic difference you will not find any. If you look at hybrids - no problem in any biological sense. Why, well, they certainly look different, but that's not anything at all if they interbreed and there's nothing to indicate any kind of speciation.  They're subspecies but hey, subspecies are like that. They're a code term for taxons that are the same species but look different. Sub

Also, source for the "dogs have more fox DNA than wild wolf has", thanks.

B/C/D.  Fair points, but I did point out I was nitpicking. =)

Species is usually defined as reproductively isolated, bearing fertile offspring.  Which is why subspecies have come about, because genotyping is showing some massive differences between subspecies, even though they can interbreed and have fertile offspring.  It's a limitation in the definition which hasn't caught up to science.

I do know something about species definition, and you are currently talking about BSC. You have heard of clinal variation when it comes to subspecies, right? You are aware that the subspecies come in all kinds of variations from nearly certainly own species to complete clinal variation between two morphs? And that usually the subspecies are classified as such because - dun dun dunn - they have no reproductive isolation!

When you start to go through phyletic SC things break apart again. It's more or less trying to figure out whether BSC or MSC works.

blargh I hate species definition discussion anyways, but if you have anything else than "they are different subspecies" which is not contested then go ahead

Dogs and wolves have different behavioural genetic traits as a result of the domestication process (which you'll have to narrow your search criteria to find, as Behavioural Genetics is basically a brand-new field).  Dogs really aren't a valid model for wild wolf behaviour.  Domesticated animals, in addition to picking up behavioural traits, also pick up phenotypic traits (colouring patterns, ear and tail phenotypes) which could skew your results.

Yeah but the original thought was more of "well take a look at them and try to figure somethinga out"

I don't think you could get valid results from dogs.

Depends on what you are looking for.

edit: actually here's eeeeeverythiiiing http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7069/pdf/nature04338.pdf Unless someone has ripped that to shreds already

[MP-Ryan]

It's lupus, LUPUS. Written as lupus! LUPUS Not lupis. If you look at remarkable genetic difference you will not find any. If you look at hybrids - no problem in any biological sense. Why, well, they certainly look different, but that's not anything at all if they interbreed and there's nothing to indicate any kind of speciation.  They're subspecies but hey, subspecies are like that. They're a code term for taxons that are the same species but look different. Sub

Also, source for the "dogs have more fox DNA than wild wolf has", thanks.

Actually, there is remarkable genetic difference.  Look at the SNP map (page 8/17) in the article you just linked to (which kind of proves my point )

I apparently deleted the article from my coursework files and no longer have access to the eJournals.  It was a phylogenetic analysis to determine the genetic history of the modern dog through both genomic and mitochondrial analysis.  Published in or around 2002, IIRC.  It's been a while.

I do know something about species definition, and you are currently talking about BSC. You have heard of clinal variation when it comes to subspecies, right? You are aware that the subspecies come in all kinds of variations from nearly certainly own species to complete clinal variation between two morphs? And that usually the subspecies are classified as such because - dun dun dunn - they have no reproductive isolation!

When you start to go through phyletic SC things break apart again. It's more or less trying to figure out whether BSC or MSC works.

blargh I hate species definition discussion anyways, but if you have anything else than "they are different subspecies" which is not contested then go ahead

My only point was that species definitions are inadequate for the subtleties involved in comparing a domesticated sub-species to its non-domesticated counterparts. *raises eyebrow*

Yeah but the original thought was more of "well take a look at them and try to figure somethinga out"

I realize that, I'm merely saying that taking a look at dogs could give misleading results.

Depends on what you are looking for.

edit: actually here's eeeeeverythiiiing http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7069/pdf/nature04338.pdf Unless someone has ripped that to shreds already

That article proves my point nicely.  The SNP maps are quite different between dog breeds and grey wolves.  Behavioural traits tend to tie into SNPs, which lends further support to the argument that the domestication process has actually altered the DNA of dog breeds.  Really, I don't think you could have found a better article to drive at my point:

Dogs are not a good behavioural model for wild wolves.  If you're actually interested in behaviour, that is.

[Scotty]

Dogs are not a good behavioural model for wild wolves.

Not even feral ones?  Also, by (whoever)'s definition, would that make feral dogs a different species?

They're successful, yeah, but we've not really altered their genetic expression hugely significantly.

Lemme count up how many different breeds of dogs there are and pose the question again.  That, and you think that the difference between a great dane and a shih tzu are not hugely significant?

[karajorma]

Lemme count up how many different breeds of dogs there are and pose the question again.  That, and you think that the difference between a great dane and a shih tzu are not hugely significant?

Given that they can breed. No.

And I'd advise you not to attempt to take on both Janos and MP-Ryan over this. A lay person entering a scientific debate and trying to score off both sides only proves that he was stupid and arrogant.

 I know a lot more about this subject than you evidently do, yet I was smart enough to back the hell off once I realised I was in the presence of people who knew a lot more than me.

[Scotty]

Lemme count up how many different breeds of dogs there are and pose the question again.  That, and you think that the difference between a great dane and a shih tzu are not hugely significant?

Given that they can breed. No.

So you would say that if giant squid aliens came to earth and we could breed with them, the differences are not significant? </not serious>

I shall reiterate with another example, this time with the angler fish.  The male is actually a parasite that attaches to the female and becomes part of it to fertilize it.  Would you not call that significant?  The difference is so extreme that scientists once thought that the male was an entirely different species of fish, not related in the slightest.

[MP-Ryan]

I shall reiterate with another example, this time with the angler fish.  The male is actually a parasite that attaches to the female and becomes part of it to fertilize it.  Would you not call that significant?  The difference is so extreme that scientists once thought that the male was an entirely different species of fish, not related in the slightest.

Nope.  Morphological differences are insignificant in the absence of behavioural and genetic differences.

Go back to dogs.  The primary differences between a great dane and a chihuahua (to choose a more extreme example ) are entirely superficial.  The only biologically important differences are a few SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms, the variations in DNA between members of a species that make them unique) common to each specific breed only, and the behaviour that results from these SNP differences.

The relationship between SNPs and behaviour isn't even close to fully understood, but the important findings to come out of behavioural genetics tell us that SNPs are largely the determining factor behind particular behaviours common across generations of a species.  Dogs are even more fascinating because the differences between breeds are determined by only a tiny number of nucleotides in their entire genome.  The same is true, of course, for humans, but because we don't often see such obvious variation in humans we don't tend to think about it.

[karajorma]

I shall reiterate with another example, this time with the angler fish.  The male is actually a parasite that attaches to the female and becomes part of it to fertilize it.  Would you not call that significant?  The difference is so extreme that scientists once thought that the male was an entirely different species of fish, not related in the slightest.

You really are determined to make a fool of yourself despite my warning.

No I would not call that a significant genetic difference. Sexual differences are not a significant genetic difference because the male anglerfish can have female children that look exactly like their mother. If there was a significant genetic difference the children of the small anglerfish would be expected to be small themselves regardless of their sex.

But they aren't. Which means that the male carries pretty much the same genes as the female, he just doesn't express them cause he's a male.


You're betraying a fundamental lack of understanding of genetics here. Sexual traits are not necessarily inherited from a parent of the same sex as you. There's no reason you couldn't inherit a gene for a big penis from your mother. There's no reason your sister couldn't inherit the same gene either. She just wouldn't have a big penis because she's a girl.

[General Battuta]

This is a good thread, Janos and MP-Ryan. I think I've learned something from it!

Compliments.

[Dilmah G]

This is a good thread, Janos and MP-Ryan. I think I've learned something from it!

Hell, I've said it before and I'll say it again, I learn more here than @ school

[Janos]

This is a good thread, Janos and MP-Ryan. I think I've learned something from it!

Compliments.

i got ripped to shreads and i think i kinda deserved it xD