[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | | Home]

Species

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 79
Thread images: 4

File: wolfanddog.jpg (93KB, 634x423px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
wolfanddog.jpg
93KB, 634x423px
Wolves and dogs can breed and their offspring will be fertile. Do scientists still consider them to be different species? Why?
>>
>>2321397
They don't.
Wolves are Canis lupus, dogs are Canis lupus, subspecies familiaris.
>>
>>2321399
/thread
>>
>>2321397
They're considered a subspecies of wolves, I believe. (Canis lupus familiaris) The wolf species that dogs evolved from are long gone, though.
>>
>>2321397
why are you retarded?
>>
>>2321402
Didn't dogs came from gray wolves? There are still a lot left.
>>
>>2321397
>>2321405
Well, to be fair, wolves can produce fertile offspring with coyotes and golden jackals and they're still considered different species.
>>
>>2321409
Dogs are considered subspecies of the grey wolf, but extant wolves are not closely related to the ones that were domesticated. Whatever population they were derived from is now extinct.
>>
>>2321397
They share the same most recent ancestor (or very close to it) which in most cases mean they can breed.
Read Mayr and be amazed by his genius
>Most modern textbooks use Ernst Mayr's definition, known as the Biological Species Concept (BSC). It is also called a reproductive or isolation concept. This defines a species as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups". It can be argued that this definition is a natural consequence of the effect of sexual reproduction on the dynamics of natural selection. Mayr's definition excludes unusual or artificial matings that result from deliberate human action, or occur only in captivity, or that involve animals capable of mating but that do not normally do so in the wild.

Also remember, species is a human concept made to allow classification to be possible, it's just us putting a river into boxes.
>>2321399
>subspecies
No, just no.
>>
>>2321426
>species is a human concept
No shit. Time is also a human concept, but that doesn't mean it's incorrect to say that it's 4 PM in most of north america right now. Dogs are classified as a subspecies of canis lupus whether you think we should classify them with a different "human concept" or not.
>>
>>2321426
So, interbreeding species is an oxymoron?
>>
>>2321430
You shouldn't be so offended that it makes you miss the point.
The concept of species will never completely tangible because forms of life don't have perfect boundaries, it's all mixed and fluid. Limiting the way you think of animals (in this case) to it is stupid because it doesn't let you see the whole picture.

Dogs as descendets of wolves is losing credibility more and more as reasearches advance, there is no concensus of their origin.
Subspecies is also losing adepts as intra-specific variation is gains more strength.

What you see on daily media and schools does not keep on track with science and has knowledge that has not being accept by the scientific community for years. Not saying scientists are always right either.
>>
>>2321449
Yes, your kind have to breed among yourselves to be of your kind, otherwise you become something different.
This doesn't mean you are inbred because there is, most of the time, enough variation but you can be too, like some plants who colonized with autogamy. Maybe the cheetah too but don't quote me on that.
>>
>>2321453
[Citation needed]
>>
File: fx1.jpg (43KB, 375x375px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
fx1.jpg
43KB, 375x375px
>>2321492
http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2079983387/2071447814/fx1.jpg

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/science/the-big-search-to-find-out-where-dogs-come-from.html
This article shows how much of "i think", "i believe" there is when it comes to dog's origin
It also has Chris "I do dogs" Gosden in it.

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016#pgen-1004016-g004
This one shows that dogs have been fucking with modern wolves making it harder for the people studying them. Dingos also have dog DNA, which is nice.
(https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/22/science/family-tree-of-dogs-and-wolves-is-found-to-split-earlier-than-thought.html)

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/science/chickens-werent-always-dinner-for-humans.html
This one makes me curious about chicken but doesn't explain anything.
Apparently Plato did not eat chicken.
>>
>>2321421
so you're saying they aren't Canis lupus but scientists call them that because retardation?
you're an idiot.
>>2321466
>doesn't know about all the different species that can hybridize
>is literally a creationist trying to teach evolution
>>
>>2321528
>This defines a species as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups".
>Mayr's definition excludes unusual or artificial matings that result from deliberate human action, or occur only in captivity, or that involve animals capable of mating but that do not normally do so in the wild.
Please, read Mayr.
I have no idea why you are talking about creationism.
>>
>>2321532
"Have to" doesn't leave room for the billions of exceptions.

"kind" is creationist language taken directly from the bible.

A species is not a kind, and species regularly interbreed in nature.
>>
>>2321528
Of course they're canis lupus. How'd you pull "they're not canis lupus" out of me literally saying they're classified as subspecies of wolf?
>>
File: 1477150210641.jpg (48KB, 428x413px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1477150210641.jpg
48KB, 428x413px
>>2321545
>Tfw had to go through high school being taught that bunk
>Even the fucking teacher didn't believe it and just let us watch movies and helped us pursue independent study instead of teaching that shit
>>
>>2321549
Because he's an "if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys" kind of retard. Or, excuse me, species of retard.
>>
>>2321549
You can't say they're both Canis lupus AND not closely related to Canis lupus. That would be retarded.

Scientists say they're C. lupus. You say they're not.
>>
>>2321545
There are exceptions because, like i said, the concept of species will never be fully tangible as it's just something we use to be able to comprehend a part of biology.
We need to classify things, unfortunatelly nature doesn't work like that.
I have no idea about creationist languages and "kind" is a word used in many more different ways, you are on a witch hunt.
I literally said that they interbreed.
>>
>>2321556
>anonymous
>retarded enough to think people can ID all his posts

I was responding to your single post. I have no idea what else you said and neither does anyone else.
>>
>>2321551
The subspecies of wolves that dogs evolved from are no longer living, just like the species we evolved from are no longer living.
>>2321555
I just said they are canis lupus. I'm not sure where you're getting any of this. The subspecies of wolves that dogs were domesticated from are no longer living.
>>
>>2321562
then your claim is that a subspecies isn't closely related to the species it belongs to?
>>
>>2321559
Literally all my posts come from a response to a single post and the chain that succeded it, in a thread with 15 posts before you quoting me. You have to be quite an idiot to not understand who is posting in a thread as simple as this.
>>2321562
>The subspecies of wolves that dogs evolved from
You really have no idea about speciation.
I'm gonna tell you to read Mayr once more not only because he was one of the best but because he is one of the few scientist that know how to writte well, really good read.
>>
>>2321564
>I'm gonna tell you to read Mayr once more
you told me, not him

notice your inability to follow a simple thread.
>>
>>2321566
I like how if you follow the chain you en up in >>2321528
>>
>>2321571
I like the part where anon says I'm an idiot if I can't follow a thread...

in the very same comment where he fails to follow the thread.

that's some funny shit.
>>
>>2321523
what is taimyr 1?
>>
>>2321574
Keep going.
>>2321579
Sorry i linked to the image rather than the article.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2815%2900432-7
>Here, we present a draft genome sequence from a 35,000-year-old wolf from the Taimyr Peninsula in northern Siberia. We find that this individual belonged to a population that diverged from the common ancestor of present-day wolves and dogs very close in time to the appearance of the domestic dog lineage.
>>
>>2321579
Also cool stuff that i'm too tired to read right now:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2814%2901693-5
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2816%2931142-3
>>
>>2321582
so you've got a situation where the MRCA is extinct while the next ancestor back is extant.

on top of which both ancestors are wolves.

seems a bit ridiculous to pretend C. lupus familiaris isn't a wolf when it evolved from wolves and is named a wolf.

like saying you're not human because your grandfather is genetically distinct and is also extinct.
>>
>>2321613
Dogs don't come from modern wolves, which is what OP was talking about.
They call everything upstream wolf.
>when it derived* from wolves
So a Dingo is a wolf too aparently because their ancestors are called wolves.
The popular name has no relevance.
>>
>>2321627
>Dogs don't come from modern wolves
tautological.
your great-grandfather is not a "modern" human.

the wolves dogs ascended from are indistinguishable from modern wolves. Evolution deals with speciation, not sub-speciation.
>>
>>2321636
You are gripping so hard on the word "wolf".
They could call their ancestor any name but they call them all wolf and it is completely irrelevant.

That's not how speciation works, you are inherently different from your ancestors and you can have a new species being born without the old one not existing anymore.
Fuck, this is too complicated for me explain, even more complicated for you to understand.
I give up on you, it's beyond my skills to teach you.
Mayr rolls on his grave...
>>
>>2321648
you can't have*
You can't because it becomes another species as they don't have acces to the other species gene pool.
>>
>>2321652
access to the other species gene pool anymore*.
Fuck i'm tired.
This place used to have people who actually know something about biology at least 2 years ago.
Fuck.
>>
>>2321648
>Fuck, this is too complicated for me explain, even more complicated for you to understand.
I've taught college biology in the past, I can understand anything you say and still point out why you're wrong.

the MRCA of C. lupis lupis and C. lupis familiaris is a subspecies of C. lupis that would be indistinguishable from C. lupis lupis to the casual eye.

the population was genetically distinct, but that doesn't mean it would be considered a subspecies now and it certainly isn't grounds by itself for declaring a paleo-sub-species. That would be silly. We almost never declare paleo-sub-species except in the case of human lineages.
>>
>>2321653
>access to the other species gene pool anymore
my point exactly.

subspecies that you cannot prove are isolated aren't counted. The "extinct" subspecies MRCA may very well still exist, there's no evidence it didn't return to the pool it supposedly arose from.

this is why paleontologists don't go around naming subspecies.
>>
>>2321657
and why do biologists name subspecies?
>>
>>2321655
You shouldn't even be using subspecies anymore, intraspecific variation is what's supposed to be and it may look like to the casual eye that they are different when in fact they are the same, as well as looking the same to the casual eye and being different.

I don't understand where you are getting with this but i'm very tired and i won't try to figure it out.
>>
>>2321655
Are you this guy by any chance?
https://desuarchive.org/an/thread/2303440/#2303661
>>
>>2321664
>why do biologists name subspecies?
because with extant populations you can argue that allopatric speciation is occurring and is unlikely to reverse course. This is a much harder bar to achieve with fossils.
>>2321665
>I don't understand where you are getting with this
My point is that there's no basis for declaring the MRCA of dogs and wolves to be a subspecies, and there likely never will be.
>>2321711
thanks for reading
>>
>>2321665
my further point is that even if the MRCA of dogs and wolves were a distinct subspecies, there's no evidence it didn't give rise to dogs.

thus making it an extant subspecies and dogs just some rather odd members of that same population.
>>
>>2321726
>there's no evidence it didn't give rise to dogs.
indeed, if the MRCA of wolves and dogs is a subspecies of wolf then dogs having descended from them would be a sub-sub species. A landrace in some cases and a breed in others. But either way still members of whatever subspecies their MRCA was.
>>
>>2321727
This presents a taxonomic problem because there's no rank between species and subspecies, AND dogs have already been named a subspecies.

So the ancestors of dogs can only be Canis lupus or Canis lupus familiaris. There is no space between the two to insert another taxon and the existing name takes precedence.
>>
Species is not defined as 'The set of individuals which are able to breed fertile offspring'. This definition would bring a fuckton of troubles with asexual living beings.
That being said, the living beings known as 'Gray wolves' form a paraphyletic clade leading to the living beings known as 'Dogs'.
It is possible to divide this population in monophyletic clades (subspecies) of which one of them is dogs. Hence, dogs are a subspecies of gray wolf.
>>
Jesus H Christ, you people will argue about anything.

Domestic dogs are Canis lupus familiaris. They're domestic wolves with lots of shapes and sizes and designs. They are still part of the wolf species but have enough changes to warrant a sub- attachment. Same as how domestic cats are a sub-species of the wild cat species they descended from.

This is really not a difficult concept.
>>
>>2321563
My claim is that they didn't evolve from an extant subspecies of wolf just like we didn't evolve from an extant species of primate.
>>2321564
>MAYR MAYR MAYR
if you think dogs were domesticated from modern timber wolves or some dumb shit, that's on you
>>
>>2321797
>Jesus H Christ, you people will argue about anything
His middle name wasn't H, dumbass.
>>
>>2322170
>My claim is that they didn't evolve from an extant subspecies of wolf just like we didn't evolve from an extant species of primate.

No shit? That's how evolution works. The common ancestor doesn't stick around. We don't see half amphibious cetacean ancestors.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make other than pedantry. The common ancestor of wolves and dogs would have been seen as a wolf by any human who could have lived in such an era to address it.
>>
>>2322185

>The common ancestor of wolves and dogs would have been seen as a wolf by any human who could have lived in such an era to address it.

A lot of cultures don't distinguish between "monkey" and "ape", or "rat" and "mouse", or "dolphin" and "porpoise", so your claim is questionable.
>>
File: Canis_simensis.jpg (1MB, 2208x2049px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Canis_simensis.jpg
1MB, 2208x2049px
>>2321797

>They are still part of the wolf species

"Wolves" do not constitute a single species.

There is the Ethiopian wolf, canis simensis. This is genetically distinct from the grey wolf, and visibly distinct from it.

Many of us were taught in school that the grey wolf,Canis lupus, was the direct ancestor of the dog. Now it's known that this was a mistake.

Dogs descended from a canine that probably resembled the Grey wolf to some extent. To what extent? We don't know. Was it a "wolf"? Well, "wolf" is just a word. What counts as a wolf or not has a subjective component to it.

Eastern coyotes are also called tweed wolves. They're a mix of coyote, grey wolf, and dog. Do they count as wolves? There's no line in the sand to say they do or don't.
>>
>>2322185

Also, prairie dogs semantically distinguish between dogs and coyotes, although both are reckoned members of the Canis genus.

Even the prairie dog has a different word for one member of the canis genus than the other.
>>
>>2322190
Fair enough, but you can establish that the species 'Canis lupus' is a paraphyletic clade if you don't include dogs in the set of individuals that constitutes that species.
>>
>>2322192
We also have the maned wolf, who is not a wolf at all.
>>
>>2322190
>Many of us were taught in school that the grey wolf,Canis lupus, was the direct ancestor of the dog. Now it's known that this was a mistake.
If it were a mistake dogs would not longer be named Canis lupus familiaris.

it wasn't a mistake, dogs and wolves are the same species, dogs descended from an ancestor named Canis lupus.
>>
>>2322324
As if taxonomists wouldn't maintain the status quo, specially since there is no defined origin of dogs.
They are so fucking bureaucratic and averse to change.
>>
>>2322324

>If it were a mistake dogs would not longer be named Canis lupus familiaris.

Some taxonomists refer to them as Canis familiaris instead.

>>2322198

>paraphyletic clade

So far as I understand, that's a contradiction in terms.

>A clade is a grouping that includes a common ancestor and ALL the descendants (living and extinct) of that ancestor.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/imagedetail.php?id=260
>>
>>2322356
>Some taxonomists refer to them as Canis familiaris instead
not a significant fraction.
>>
>>2322356
You're right anon. Paraphyletic 'group' is what I meant.
>>
>>2322356
>>2322421
A paraphyletic group is called a grade.
A polyphyletic group is also called a grade.

they differ in the mechanics of origin though.
paraphyletic grades are conserved grades while polyphyletic grades are convergent grades.

the study of grades as opposed to clades is informally referred to as "gradistics."
>>
>>2322434
>paraphyletic grades are conserved grades while polyphyletic grades are convergent grades
one example of the first would be if we didn't consider birds to be reptiles because they're warm blooded. Reptiles would then be cold blooded, a grade that they passed through on their way to becoming birds. This is a conserved grade because its members belong to the grade by merit of not having evolved out of it. Similar to fish or amphibians under evolutionary taxonomy. They're in the grade because they're conserved, they didn't evolve out of it.

the second would be a polyphyletic group such as "flying animals." Members of this grade, such as bats, birds, dragonflies, etc., would belong to the grade because of convergence. They independently evolved the traits that put them in the grade.

if we pretend that dogs aren't a type of wolf, then wolves would be a conserved grade. They would only be wolves because they didn't evolve out of it.
>>
>>2322439
we can also stumble into grades that are both paraphyletic and polyphyletic.

e.g. "reptiles with scales" is a grade both conserved and convergent.
>>
>>2321397
Neanderthals interbred with out ancestors, how come we're still classified as a different species?
>>
In all honesty not all dogs are likely to have been derived from the exact same species population.

Different parts of the world likely had less distinct canines twenty thousand years ago, and to treat them as the same/different species is kind of a moot argument. Just like how wolves, dogs, and coyotes can all still breed and have fertile offspring, those same canine populations likely were in the same boat. Yes, those canines are "extinct" now, but the reality is they just developed into the current dogs and wolves we see today.
>>
>>2323640
>Neanderthals interbred with out ancestors, how come we're still classified as a different species?
we aren't, for that very reason.
>>
>>2323718
We actually are although I do not believe we should be.
>>
>>2323713
>Just like how wolves, dogs, and coyotes can all still breed and have fertile offspring
that's not how we decide species.

it's not if they CAN breed,
it's if they MOSTLY DO breed.

dogs are all the same species, and derived from one species. At best they might have come from different subspecies. Even that isn't likely. They evolved from different landraces within the same species and probably the same subspecies.
>>
>>2323719
>Scientists to this day debate over whether Neanderthals should be classified as a distinct species - Homo neanderthalensis - or as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the latter placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of H. sapiens.
>>
>>2321402
What about dingos? They have been feral for so damn long, they are essentially yellow wolves with short fur. There's no way you could argue they are still domesticated.

So what category do they fit in?
>>
>>2323727
>The "dingo" (Canis dingo) is a wild canine found in Australia. Its exact ancestry is unknown, but dingoes are classified as their own unique canine species.

From Wikipedia
>>
>>2323730
God damn it Australia, even your canines are derped so hard into murder machines that they are in a class all their own.

This is almost as bizarre as the fact that birds in Australia have been caught red handed spreading forest fires.
>>
>>2323730
>Trinomial name: Canis lupus dingo
from the same Wikipedia page
>>
>>2321397
>>2321426
Dogs and wolves are the same species.

t. evolutionary science since the early 90s

Now fuck off.


>>2323727
>>2323730
C. l. Dingo. ez. This is readily available information. Almost all of your dilemmas can be solved with a quick google search, jesus.
>>
>>2321453

>Dogs as descendets of wolves is losing credibility

Absolutely hilarious.
>>
>>2323640
because Neanderthals only interbred with the ancestors of Europeans. you wouldn't want to be racist would you, goyim?
Thread posts: 79
Thread images: 4


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.