|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Mar 9, 2016 14:34:00 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by puppytrever0407 on Mar 10, 2016 12:33:38 GMT 5
I enjoy the video! Yup! You are correct, we need to have threads about dogs like the one in the video. It is actually an awesome and talented dog!
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Mar 10, 2016 12:38:56 GMT 5
not often do you see a dog literally toss a grown man
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Mar 10, 2016 16:33:38 GMT 5
Also thought I'd bring this up
Dogs are not a wolf subspecies
I suggest the species Canis familiaris, I also suggest dingos belong in this species as a subspecies.
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Mar 10, 2016 21:35:40 GMT 5
Which would make Wolves (And the gray wolf) paraphyletic.
|
|
|
|
Post by spartan on Mar 10, 2016 21:48:23 GMT 5
I don't think paraphyly can be applied to single species. But dogs and gray wolves can interbreed and have fertile offspring, so why should they be split?
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Mar 10, 2016 22:08:02 GMT 5
I don't think paraphyly can be applied to single species. But dogs and gray wolves can interbreed and have fertile offspring, so why should they be split? By this logic lions and tigers should be the same species and they don't even belong to the same clades within Panthera and besides many species with Canis can successfully interbreed, coyotes and golden jackals both can and do readily breed with both wolves and dogs The generic similarity between wolves and dogs have been caused by repeated admixture after divergence but two dogs from anywhere on the planet are still closer related to one another than they are to any wolf subspecies, for example a boxer from Europe was found to be closer related to the new guinea singing dog than it was to any wolves. |
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Mar 10, 2016 22:15:23 GMT 5
Dogs sit between American and Eurasian Wolves, autosomaly speaking. Taking uniparental markers makes dogs derived compared to Italian Wolves.
I am also more related to any Eurasian than to any SSA-African, still I am of the same species.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Mar 10, 2016 22:18:56 GMT 5
Which would make Wolves (And the gray wolf) paraphyletic. Wolves already are, Canis aureus (reed wolf), Canis lupus (grey wolf), Canis anthus (African golden wolf) and Canis latrans (prairie wolf) it's even more if I start throwing in extinct members of canis And from a taxonomical point of view the dingo was recently given species status, how does it make any sense for the dog to be closer related to a different species than its own conspecifics? |
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Mar 10, 2016 22:23:35 GMT 5
Dogs sit between American and Eurasian Wolves, autosomaly speaking. Taking uniparental markers makes dogs derived compared to Italian Wolves. I am also more related to any Eurasian than to any SSA-African, still I am of the same species. That's an idiotic comparison that does more to prove my point than yours and besides humans have been widely neglected from taxonomy for good reason, I suggest you find a different example, one that will lead to a less controversial line of discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by spartan on Mar 10, 2016 22:26:04 GMT 5
This discussion is cumbersome. Every definition of "species" has assets and drawbacks and there is no right answer to these.
I'll stick with the most common definition. Which one do you go by to split dogs and wolves into two different species, venomousdragon?
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Mar 10, 2016 22:36:13 GMT 5
Canis dingo is not widely accepted and has a very controversial history.
And your argument seems confused, Wolves are neither Para or Polyphyletic.
The dismissal of my comparison with humans based on PC crap is confusing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Mar 10, 2016 22:50:05 GMT 5
Canis dingo is not widely accepted and has a very controversial history. And your argument seems confused, Wolves are neither Para or Polyphyletic. The dismissal of my comparison with humans based on PC crap is confusing. My argument is the term wolf is more analogous to the genus Canis than it is to a specific species with it. I dismissed your comparison with humans because dogs and grey wolves do not fit within it, grey wolves and dogs that live within the same region are closer related to animals on the other side of the planet than eachother (assuming minimal admixture) which is something you would expect of two different species not two subspecies, meanwhile what you said is exactly what should be expected with you being closer related to people of similar geographic origin. |
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Mar 10, 2016 23:13:40 GMT 5
This discussion is cumbersome. Every definition of "species" has assets and drawbacks and there is no right answer to these. I'll stick with the most common definition. Which one do you go by to split dogs and wolves into two different species, venomousdragon? Canines on the whole are poorly classed with thing like Awd and dhole being outside Canis but closer related to members of canis than say the black backed jackal is but the jackal is within Canis but I digress on to your question. Canines do not seem to wish to apply to our definitions of species as neatly as other animals For example with in a matter of months grey wolves gained a subspecies (lupaster) only to loose it to the newly christened Canis anthus. My point being the amount of admixture between the already existing species within Canis is in some cases great enough for them to be closely related enough to trade subspecies, can you name any other genus where this is true? The "red wolf" once was likely it's own species but now has been near completely absorbed by latrans who just a little further north has forged itself a subspecies (eastern coyote) through heavy wolf (lupus and lycaon) hybridization. My point being one must be willing to stretch their definition of species with this genus. My basis for dogs being a separate species is that they are not derivative of canis lupus but divergent from them both having diverged from a common ancestor some 30000 years ago. |
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Mar 11, 2016 13:29:48 GMT 5
|
|
