Talk:Egyptian wolf

Canis aureus/lupus/lupaster

This article may be needed to be studied to revise this page: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-cryptic-african-wolf-canis-aureus.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.183.113 (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2011

User Pmaas has changed the taxon's name in the article to Canis lupus lupaster, in the light of the article referred to in the link above (the full paper is at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016385). I think this is a bit premature, and it also amounts to original research. This is because do not have a (modern) ref for that name, and we do have an authoritative modern ref for C aureus lupaster (MSW3).

While the paper looks very convincing, it does not itself propose a new name (it uses C aureus lupaster throughout), and for all we know another study may overthrow it (remember that until recently the DNA evidence seemed to show conclusively that lupaster was indeed C aureus). Even if the paper is fully accepted, it remains open whether lupaster would become a ssp of lupus, or (like pallipes etc) a species in its own right, and in fact the paper itself implies the latter result to be more likely. In WP we avoid original research, and this means we do not try to guess the implications of scientific papers, but just report their conclusions. To call this species anything different from C aureus lupaster we need an authoritative ref that says so, and we don't seem to have one yet.

What I think we should do is revert to Canis aureus lupaster, but give C lupus lupaster and C lupaster as alternatives, and then (as we have already done) explain the current state of research. When a formal paper has been published with a new name, then we can change to whatever that says. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree the change was premature. Other parts of WK still use the previous term and almost all other reputable sources (e.g., ITIS, EoL). How about suggesting in the article that the new name is underconsideration and not a fait accompli? Dger (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll second leaving the name as C. aureus lupaster for now. The paper suggesting its allegiance to wolves refers to it by that name throughout. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I put the "aureus" back in Egyptian jackal. Until there is more acceptance of C. l. lupaster I don't think there is much choice. The one supporting ref does not even use that taxon name. By the way, African wolf leads to Xenocyon lycaonoides. You might say the name is preoccupied. Dger (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This was an interesting conversation to read. I wonder if this article is putting WP:UNDUE weight on outdated taxonomy to feature outdated taxonomy so prominently in the lead. Request for comment. Chrisrus (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Spanish scientists of the Estación Biológica de Doñana have recently confirmed that some of the purported "big jackals" in the Moroccan Atlas are actually wolves too. The last vol of the publication Quercus also has photos of these wolves taken by remote control cameras (http://www.altotero.com/2012/08/lobo-en-marruecos/). Haven's read that number yet so I don't know if these Moroccan wolves and the ones in Egypt/Ethiopia are the same subspecies. The funniest/saddest part is that Moroccans have been saying for centuries that there are both wolves and jackals in their country and that they can differentiate perfectly between both, but it has taken Westerners all the way to the new millenium to bother thinking that they might be right.--Menah the Great (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Do people here really consider 2 outdated men from 1833 to be more reliable than 2011 - 2012 mitochondrial DNA studies? This should be changed to Canis lupus lupaster, as the latter source is much more reliable than the former. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Lemma

The lemma should be moved to African wolf as it is a wolf and not a jackal. --Melly42 (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There is already an animal called the African wolf. Dger (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Things get even more murky when you check out our article on African wolf, which is a redirect to Xenocyon, which is said to be a long-extinct species dating from 126,000 years ago. Looks like more discussion on Talk is needed to clarify the meaning of these terms. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

---

{{requested move/dated|African wolf}}

Egyptian jackal → African wolf – First of all, a Google search on "african wolf": https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=african%20wolf Of the first 4 images in the result, 2 are C. l. lupaster, 1 is C. simensis, and 1 is Canis aureus or a hybrid between C. l. and C. a.. Now to the non image search results: 3 are Ethiopian wolves, the rest are all lupasters on the 1st page. Now to the 2nd page, 2 are simensis, 1 is Lycaon pictus, 1 is a snake, and the rest are lupasters, no Xenocyon. Secondly, the article states that lupaster is "still" recognized as a subspecies of golden jackal by MSW3, the so-called authority of classification, in 2005, the problem with this is modern mtDNA studies that confirmed them grey wolves are published on 2011 and 2012. Thirdly, the source for them being golden jackals is Hemprich and Ehrenberg, 1833, which is an even older and less reliable source than modern genetic studies. Fourth and lastly, it isn't even endemic to Egypt. Editor abcdef (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• COMMENT Wikipedia follows established uses, not the cutting edge. You'd need to show a WP:UCN change, not just that "African wolf" refers to this creature. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

"african wolf" has about 55,100,000 results (0.52 seconds): https://www.google.com/search?q=african+wolf&oq=african+wolf&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5328j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8

"egyptian jackal" has about 416,000 results (0.38 seconds): https://www.google.com/search?q=egyptian+jackal&oq=egyptian+ja&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.44057j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8

Considering around 30% of the "african wolf" is Ethiopian wolf and around 5% are others, there will be still 35,815,000 results, which is 35,773,400 more than "egyptian jackal" Editor abcdef (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The number of results reported by Google is a very rough estimate, not an actual count. See WP:GOOGLETEST for some caveats about interpreting the results. You'll got a somewhat more accurate estimate of pages if you enclose exact search terms in quotes when searching Google.

"egyptian jackal" has an estimate of 36,100 results [1]

"african wolf" has an estimate of 14,200 results [2]

"African wolf" may be a more accurate name for the animal, and may be more common in the most recent sources, but when Google is reporting results in the millions, that number is not trustworthy. Plantdrew (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support, tentatively, for two reasons. First, my Google Scholar searches indicated 48 results for ("african wolf" lupaster) and 20 for ("egyptian jackal" lupaster). Second, this seems to be interesting and notable as a separate topic mainly in proportion to the likelihood that this is a subspecies of C. lupus, which on the balance of reliable sources seems quite likely. On the other hand, it isn't our job to get ahead of the curve. Srnec (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment African wolf currently redirects to Xenocyon , not this article Egyptian jackal, nor Ethiopian wolf ; with a 3-dab, a disambiguation page can be built. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• A Google Scholar search for ("african wolf" xenocyon) turns up 3 results. All sources that come up for ("african wolf" simensis) seem to differentiate between lupaster and simensis. I can't find much evidence that Xenocyon or Canis simensis are ever called the African wolf. Srnec (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Decline It seems that "African wolf" is a broad but significanly less-used term than "Ethiopian wolf". (Gsearch of "AW" with each of "lupaster", "aureus", "simensis" returns ~2k results, while "EW" with similar returns 2x-10x results.) "Egyptian jackal" only returned a significant number of results when paired with "aureus", and 2x-3x the "AW" results. I can not support the move as requested. I would support a dab of "AW" listing both (all three?) the Egyptian and Ethiopian (and other African?) species (and subspecies?), noting briefly the taxonomic uncertainty. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dhib

Dhib is an arabic name, not an English one, and is used for wolves in general, not this particular species. Please see WP:COMMONNAME for use on en.Wiki. Mariomassone (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

'Dhib' is an Arabic word meaning wolf, but it also specifically applies to this particular species of animal. It's a valid name for this particular creature; more valid than 'Egyptian Wolf', since it's the original name used only for this species, before the people using it became familiar with more than one kind of wolf. As a corollary, the word 'kitsune' is simply the Japanese word for 'fox', but I don't see you deleting the Kitsune page over that.

I do not wish to engage in one with you, and so I have escalated this instead of undoing your most recent unwarranted reversion.

2601:543:C001:FE13:189C:9DDE:3E6A:2568 (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

1. Dhib is an Arabic word meaning wolf, but it also specifically applies to this particular species of animal.
In arabic maybe. Not in English. Again, see WP:COMMONNAME.
2. It's a valid name for this particular creature; more valid than 'Egyptian Wolf', since it's the original name used only for this species, before the people using it became familiar with more than one kind of wolf.
I've looked on google books and Biodiversity Heritage Library and the vast majority of results were publications describing Saudi Arabia/Palestine and mentioning how Dhib was simply the local name for Canis lupus arabs, with the English name being subsequently used exclusively throughout the text. The only one referring to the Egyptian wolf I could find was The contemporary land mammals of Egypt, and there Dhib is only used to specify that it's the arabic name. I can't find any evidence of it being used as a loanword in English. Mariomassone (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)