 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Red Wolves |
| From: | |
mysticete
|
posted
Tue, Sep 1 2009, 8:33pm
|
I think what needs to be done is to examine material from the 1800's (or even earlier), to determine if there was indeed a distinct species of wolf in the Southeast. Anything later than that is probably going to show coyote or dog hybridization, due to human pressures. My gut feeling though is that Red Wolf probably is not a valid species, although other population may be worthy of recognition (i.e. Himalayan and Indian Wolves)
The study does suggests that all of our red wolves are at best a hybrid population, but select breeding could probably remove a lot of the coyote genes.
Wolf taxonomy is a an emotionally loaded question, and I don't think we will see it resolved soon. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Red Wolves |
| From: | |
EastTxSwamp
|
posted
Wed, Sep 2 2009, 9:58am
|
From a completely non-scientific perspective, I've seen the Mexican red wolves being bred at Fossil Rim near Glen Rose (yep, where the dinosaur/human footprint farce comes from). They look very different from other wolves to me, much smaller and, well, a lot more coyote-like. Not to say they're coyotes, but from a purely morphological standpoint, I'd call them a separate species. I know that's not how it works, I'm just saying.
Swamp |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Red Wolves |
| From: | |
badger man
|
posted
Wed, Sep 2 2009, 3:09pm
|
|
I think in the article it said they took preserved specimens from the 1930s (still not as far back as you like but still worth the time) and they found out the older and newer wolves are almost identical genetically. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
