Wolf Chat

[Koa]

Does this thread change your opinion at all?
http://www.wolfquest.org/bb/viewtopic.p ... f#p2095106

[SilkenGalaxy]

They may have tested it and found out that they're coyotes with a lot of wolf in them, but to me, if it's a high-content wolf mix, it's technically a wolf, and if they're low in numbers, they should protect them anyway, animals were put on this earth for a reason, to keep us company, and to maintain plant numbers.

[Koa]

They may have tested it and found out that they're coyotes with a lot of wolf in them, if it's a high-content wolf mix, it's technically a wolf, and if they're low in numbers, they should protect them anyway, animals were put on this earth for a reason, to keep us company, and to maintain plant numbers.

With that particularl line of argument in mind, is 75% coyote and 25% wolf a "high content wolf?"

[SilkenGalaxy]

Oh, didn't read that part. huehue. I still think that all animals should be protected. Unless they were super deadly species that could cause too much trouble, like Wild Boars.

(They seem very wolf like to me anyway....)

[alethe]

Most canines are going to be "wolf-like."

[SilkenGalaxy]

Most canines are going to be "wolf-like."

That's true, and look at dogs and dingos. The domestic dog's scientific name is "Canis Lupus Familiaris", and the dingo is "Canis Lupus Dingo", so they are technically wolf subspecies...

[SolitaryHowl]

Oh, didn't read that part. huehue. I still think that all animals should be protected. Unless they were super deadly species that could cause too much trouble, like Wild Boars.

(They seem very wolf like to me anyway....)

It would be nice if all animals would be protected, but the sad reality is that they never will be. We had several seminars on this subject at university, which I found very interesting. There are many redundant species (species that fill the same niche, role, and ecosystem service as another animal in the same ecosystem), so it isn't that much of a tragedy if/when they go extinct. My personal view is that keystone species should definitely be protected, as well as their habitats, because if you don't have enough suitable habitat for a species, no amount of captive breeding or protection programs are going to save the species.

Even the 'super deadly species' should be protected, if they play an important role in the ecosystem. As well as the annoying ones, and the ones that everybody hates (mosquitoes, etc), and the ones that aren't so cute and cuddly (microbes and etc).

Some species are too far gone, so they would be a waste of time and resources to try to bring them back. Giant Pandas come to mind, they have lost the majority of their habitats in the wild, and they rarely breed in captivity. As well as the Northern White Rhino (I believe) that only has 4 individuals left in the wild...that population doesn't have enough genetic diversity to survive.

[SilkenGalaxy]

It's so sad, but true... but I love wolves, and I don't care if they consider some grey wolf subspecies' to be part coyote, wolves are wolves and should be protected!

[La Striata]

By the way, my favorite species of wolf would be the red wolf, I don't believe that they're coyote/wolf mixes, in my book, they're wolves!

Even if they are a distinct species, their closest relatives are still coyotes, as they diverged from coyotes 150,000 years ago, whereas the common ancestor of coyotes/red wolves and grey wolves diverged 1-2 million years ago.

If the red wolf is a wolf, then so is the coyote. Or, if you take it the other way, if the coyote is not a wolf, then neither is the red wolf.

[SilkenGalaxy]

Scientists make this classification thing so complicated, they say that the Florida Black Wolf (an extinct species of wolf) was just a black variation of the red wolf. But female FBWs had a white, heart-shaped marking on their chests, but Red Wolves don't, so how do you explain that?

[alethe]

Markings don't say anything. The black leopard and the spotted leopard are just variations of the same animal. Scientists use genetics and ancestory to classify species, not how they look. For example, the hyena looks like a canine, but it is actually closer related to felines.

[SolitaryHowl]

Scientists make the classification system so complicated because it HAS to be complicated. There are around 9 million species on Earth (that we know of, and we certainly don't know all of the species on Earth!), so the classification system has to be rigorous. Not to mention, the scientific names of species stays the same across all languages, but the common name of a species changes. So, since the scientific community (mostly) internationally collaborates, if they were to use the common name then things would be confusing very quickly, so they use the scientific name of the species.

Markings don't say anything. The black leopard and the spotted leopard are just variations of the same animal. Scientists use genetics and ancestory to classify species, not how they look. For example, the hyena looks like a canine, but it is actually closer related to felines.

Correct.

[La Striata]

Scientists make this classification thing so complicated, they say that the Florida Black Wolf (an extinct species of wolf) was just a black variation of the red wolf. But female FBWs had a white, heart-shaped marking on their chests, but Red Wolves don't, so how do you explain that?

Fur colour is a poor indicator of taxonomy. Gray wolves in the arctic are the same species as the ones in India, but have completely different colours.

[SilkenGalaxy]

True, one species may have great variations depending on the area they live in, that's the problem with some animals and the confusion that leads to a debate of whether some wolf subspecies are truly their own subspecies or not.

[alethe]

That's why scientists classify based on genetic make-up.