Talk:New Guinea singing dog/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Why no mention of climbing ability?

Yemani (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC) writes-> Can some one fill in more detail on behavior? NGSDs are very strong climbers, and the ones living domestically will climb curtains and household items like that. Yemani (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

NGSD found outside of NG?

I am Wally Davies of South Australia. Several years ago I learned of a mysterious canine extant in thick Mallee Eucalypt scrub extending from Victoria into South Australia, a distance of about 150 kms. and 100 N-S. They were there when that country was opened for selection circa 1880. I learned of many unusual features about this canine and it's identity was unknown to Depts concerned. The dogs are notorious sheep killers and have beeen trapped from the beginning of settlement. Mid 2006 I obtained skulls and identified the dog as the New Guinea Singing dog. Its range extends through the Big Desert Wilderness and it has never extended beyond these boundaries, staying in the thick cover and emerging only on hunting forays. The skull bears no resemblance to dingo. In the Gnarkat Conservation Park in South Australia the dogs are favoured with partial protection. Hopefully in 2008 I could obtain skuls for supply at a nominal cost for postage. In time I will have a section on my website devoted to Australian NGSD. Pleaase visit my website http:/www.geocities.com/australiandesertcats This basically concerns the big feline predator, found in Australia which is in reality a giant house cat, the size of a puma and adapted to Australian conditions. Wally Davies (E-Mail removed for security purposes)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.192.240 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 9 October 2007

You wrote on the site, that the cat roared, either that's a mistake or t's not a house cat, they don't roar.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It could be just a small subspecies of Australian dingo or a hybrid domestic dog/dingo. Further research will hopefully determine this.

Taxonomy?

This is a species?? *confused* --e. 17:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• It is currently disputed rather NGSDs are a subspecies of the wolf, like the domestic dog and dingo, or if they are unique enough to be their own species. It has been found that NGSDs have certain differences from other canids, and action is now being taken to list the breed as its own species. This would allow NGSDs to be listed as endangered and help protect NGSDs from becoming extinct, with their numbers in the hundreds in captivity and possibly none left in the wild. Vortex 18:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This answer needs updating. If I understand Mammal Species of the World correctly, they have decided that it's not another species or subspecies, it's another dingo. Chrisrus (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mammal Species of the World is merely a checklist of names and synonyms and is the opinion of one taxonomist who wrote the canid section, not a consensus of the taxonomic community. This reference is widely used by non-taxonomists, especially geneticists, to name canid species because it has the imprimatur of the Mammal Society of the USA, but it is not infallible and contains errors. The dog and the wolf, while the closest genetic relatives within the genus Canis, meet all definitions of separate "good" species, including very rare levels of natural hybridization where the two species range freely together. Most of the taxonomists I have questioned recognize this and consider them separate species. The authors of Mammals of the World did not use a biological definition for putting the dog as a wolf subspecies, only followed the generally accepted hypothesis that the dog is a domesticated gray wolf (still not proven beyond reasonable doubt) and in fact they violated the definition of subspecies by doing so. The accepted definition of a subspecies, established by Ernst Mayr in the 1940's, is: A defineable population of a larger population of that species (i.e. can be idenitifed by some inherited characteristics different from the main population, and the difference could be just a color variation or a minor morphological difference) that is separated from the main population by some geographical barrier providing genetic isolation between them. If the geographical barrier to contact/interbreeding is removed the subspecies and species would merge through interbreeding and the distinctions would be lost. So, going by proper scientific definition and consensus of canid taxonomists, the dog is not a subspecies of wolf. If one wanted to be completely uncontroversial, the wolf is Canis lupus, the domestic dog should be Canis familiaris domesticus (or familiaris), the Australian dingo Canis familiaris dingo and the NGSD Canis familiaris hallstromi, at least until more hard evidence is available to combine or separate these identifiable populations. Canis dingo is a good, accepted name for the Australian dingo which has been used for over 100 years. Now that we know from genetics that the Singer is indeed a "dingo" then another acceptible naming would be Canis dingo dingo and Canis dingo hallstromi. Taxonomy (describing species), nomenclature (naming species) and systematics (defining relationships between species and groups of species) are very complicated disciplines that can not be understood without considerable reading and understanding of the principles and subjects underlying them. What filters through to the popular press such as magazine/newspaper articles, is often mistaken, disputed, or incomplete. Jkoler (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks JK - love to hear comments from other editorMrhorseracer (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. Everybody with common sense can see the flaws in that. Who actually still uses Canis dingo? How much research has there actually been on wild wolfdogs? And low level of hybridization, hm, Bibikov found alot hybrids in the former Sovjet Union and theres was evidence in the 1930s and 40s in North America. Minor morphological differences? What is the definition of minor here? Some wolves look extremely different from others, sometimes even in the same population you have a high amount of plasticity. And really all of a sudden Matznick appears out of nowhere? And how credible is she? Her theories in the published papers are even more premature than those of Coppinger. If the wolf is not the ancestor who is it than and where is the proof? And of course it is just a hypothesis that dogs descended from wolves, yeah right. That is not a hypothesis, it was proven via DNA, breeding experiments and direct observation of wolves. Oh and let me guees, since it is Matznick, that "real ancestor" looked probably like the Singer right? Hm, strange... the proof for that is? And the dingo as a separate species? With that high number of visible dingo-hyrbids that are especially numerous near human settlements? Now way.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Scientific articles

I know there are studies being done, including genetic testing, on these dogs, but as someone who is only mildly interested I'm not going to pay the large fees required to look at articles in quality peer reviewed scientific journals -- if I could even find them in the first place. Someone who has real scientific resources (not just hobbyist dog magazines and breed books) needs to update this article. It's an interesting topic.--Hafwyn (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that this needs to be updated. I'm on it.

--Mrhorseracer (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Me either. Saidly the most stuff is from Matznick and I don't trust her scientific judgement. But I have some more reliable sources.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it you disagree with Matznick's conclusion or the methodology? Trust her scientific judgement, doesn't mean much.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I added more links to science articles, but frankly there is limited. If you have better verifable sources, please add to the article. I think we can all agree that we really need more genetic testing to understand where the Singers fit in the canis community.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Please be more specific about what more needs to be done, in your opinion, and what the remaining possiblities are. Chrisrus (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well for one, we need to expand testing markers of the captive population, strike that - A full genome sequence would be nice. Then compare to a wild specimen. This would get us on the road to answering what we have here in the states and how Singers fit in the taxonomy. Send all your unmarked money!--Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Update of this page

Mrhorseracer (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)All, please note that I'll be updating this article in the upcoming weeks to better reflect the status of scientific research

--Mrhorseracer (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's hear it!

Can anyone get a sound file for this article? Readers of this article want to hear what the modulated howl sounds like! The addition of such a sound file would improve this article.Chrisrus (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Chrisrus - Per your request, I have added several audio/video files. They can be accessed in the external links section. As I am a novice on Wiki, let me know if there is a better way to present them. Tomcue2 (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The addition of an external link to the National Geographic Page on the NGSDog is a welcome addition to the article. An even better addition would be to upload a sound file into the article so the reader could hear the sound without having to leave Wikipedia or this page. Unfortunately, Nat Geo doesn't allow such things, but someone might have a recording that they'd be willing to let us have. Chrisrus (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have some quality a/v files of NGSD's (my own included) actually singing on que but as a novice to Wiki am unsure how to post them to the page. Please help or (if it's possible) provide a direct email on my personal talk page and I will send you the files to post. Tomcue2 (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Even though I've been doing Wikipedia for some time, I don't know how to do it either. I think you have to upload it to Wikipedia Commons and then you can link to it here, but I've never done that before. I'll see if I can find someone else to help, but if anyone is reading this and can do so, please advise. Chrisrus (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Coloration Description is Incorrect Afraid to Change It

Please, my wife and I would like to make a comment or two. We know from personal experience of having raised and conserved NGSD for over 20 years that the coloration description in this article is one of the parts of this article that is not accurate. My wife and I probably have more hands on experience with NGSD than any one else in the world, but we are not published and our work therefore goes unnoticed and looked down on by mrhorseracer since she perportedly represents the "scientific" community. Here in this article, for example, myhorseracer deleted my writings because they aren't published. We would like to make contributions to this article but our hands are continually tied by mrhorseracer who obviously knows more about posting to wiki than we do. Perhaps someone would like to publish our knowledge so we can share itt with the world so folks will better understand Singing Dogs?? Now on to the original subject: Coloration. We have personally owned and seen NGSD in the following colorations: Tan with white markings, Red with white markings, Amber with white markings, Mahogany with white markings, Black with tan markings, and Black with white markings. The first Singer carcass taken out of New Guinea was in 1897 and it was black and white. Therefore, I submit that mrhorseracer's editing and referencing in regard to coloration is inadequate and needs to be edited Because of the threats to me by mrhorseracer wherein she warned me not to make any disruptive edits and having observed and read about the fights you folks have to go through in order to make any edits on this page without them being deleted by mrhorseracer, I am hesitant to make any changes in the article for fear of being ousted from wiki. My wife and I would appreciate any advice as to how to make constructive changes to the article without getting into a fistfight with mrhorseracer. Thank you, oldsingerman20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide a link to your site showing the dogs, proof of pedagree, I'm sure that'll be a reliable source for a statement to the effect of "NGSDs come in such-and-such a color." Just be sure that it's not a breeder's site. If we didn't have that rule, you'd have breeders coming up with new colors of poodle or some such posting links to sell dogs on Wikipedia, and then we'd have chaos. There are all kinds of sites about different kinds of dogs that are treated as reliable sources.

There are very few sources on this animal. This man is clearly an expert on the subject, and therefore a valuable contributer in this case because there are practally no experts on the NGSD. How many people in the world could possibly know more about the color variations of the dog than he? The fact that no peer reviewed paper mentioned that they can come in such colors is not surprising, the authors couldn't have claimed to have seen every NGSDs, or even very many. If this man and his wife can provide reasonable proof of ancestry and photos of dogs with those colors, how could anyone think it's a hoax or a mistake? He may be wrong about this or that, but where is the reason for doubt about this? Please, if anyone reverts him, let it not be one of his enemies, but someone with real reason to believe he's in error about the colors and ancestry of his dogs or propogating a hoax. Chrisrus (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Chrisus there are many sources of data on Singers, and don't be fooled into thinking TomCue and Oldman are the only sources of data and they are the experts. We actually have a detailed list of behaviorial traits (Don probably has observed many of the same), but the problem is that they are just observation, just like Don's - this can readily verify, we have not added them to the article. I've asked Don to respond to me on my talk page so we can agree on physical traits language, but he has not responded as of yet - a minor changes or two is all that is recommended, before I make the change. In fact he missed a color (he has never seen it, our group has)Mrhorseracer (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

mrh, You are absolutely correct on one issue. I have not and will not respond to you on your talk page or anywhere else for that matter. After what we have seen here on wiki we feel your overtures of seemingly innocent cooperation are in reality an act. Anyone who hides behind a phony name, calls their challengers names that insinuate belittlement such as "cueball" or "oldman" and say things such as "missed a color our group has" clearly shows bias and prejudice. We have no intention of having further fistfights with you or with your "group". We notice you apparently plan to keep "your groups color" a secret if, in fact there really is an omitted color. Many times colors names are actually synonyms. The fact that I may have missed a color is not surprising as I have never claimed to be perfect. BTW, when or if your group decides to share this secret color with the world, be assured you will need to provide some proof that it in not just a hoax. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Settle down Old -you boyz are have been just as bad - but maybe we can get over the hump. Did not plan on keeping it a secret - just have not added it yet. Oh, BTW, wiki frowns on disclosing names and personal emails addy--Mrhorseracer (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC).

Coloration

I have made changes in the physical description/coloration paragraph. If it's not too much to ask, I'd like to let it stay this way for the time being. Other changes are coming. Believe me. Personally, I'm really tired of being pushed around by someone who hides behind a phoney name. Everyone in the Singer world knows the name oldsingerman20. They also know that oldsingerman20 is knowledgable regarding Singing Dogs. What qualifies mrhorseracer to take over the article. Let's see some credentials. Has this person even ever even seen a Singer, let alone owned one? All we see is a lot of reference to a single author and organization. Again, we'd like to see what qualifies mrhorseracer to dominate this article. If mrhorseracer has more experience with Singers than my wife and I, I will gladly offer an apology. Let's give respect to people who know their subject and quit playing hide and seek trying to hurt each other. oldsingerman20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I Horseracer was probably in the right to revert your edit. I only reverted him in the request that he respond to you here explaining why, just to be respectful and cooperative when reverting a good faith edit like yours. If he does it again, I really won't be able to stop him without edit-warring, and I'll tell you why. First, while I presonally believe what your contribution is true, how do I/does anyone know for sure? Without a citation from a reliable source, we're just taking your word for it. Otherwise, for all we know, you could be just making it up. It's a good example of what we call "original research", someone who independantly learns something and uses Wikipedia to publish their findings. You're not supposed to do that; you get it published elsewhere and then we can cite that here. Please see that these are good rules because you can see why we must have these rules.

But then again, those aren't really "rules" but guidelines, because they apply to anything likely to be challenged. I don't know why anyone would challenge you on that, but if Horseracer wants to undo your contribution again, until it's properly cited, there's little I or anyone else can do about it other than hold them off temporarily until you can offer some kind of proof. Horseracer probably knows that there are all kinds of uncited things allowed to stand so long as they seem true to reasonable people, in the hopes that someone can cite them some day. That's why we have that "Is it true?" section on the welcome page asking if anyone has citations for various uncited reasonable claims all over wikipedia. The idea is to add things which improve the article, even if they aren't as good as they could be. You could argue this point of view with him if he does deign to discuss things with you here instead of just undo you with a note without civilly discussing stuff with you here. I doubt, for example, or at least hope, that he won't be such a stickler for the citation rules that he would revert your contribution of your own sound recordings of the NGSD, something that would definately improve this article greatly, even if they would not be as good as a sound file from an objectively reliable source.

Anyway, are you absolutely sure that those dogs you personally witnessed were %100 NGSD, not any kind of hybred or mixed breed? Why didn't the cited source mention those colors, do you think?

‎Chrisrus... Let me try and make sense as to what has been going on with the NGSD page. In order for you to fully understand Mrhorseracers motivations for deleting gobs of oldsingerman20's contributions' without asking for citations or having any measure of courtesy, some history needs to be provided. It has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of his contributions which you will better understand by the end of this long post. So grab as seat and let me begin.

20+ years ago, Senior Ecologist Dr I Lehr Brisbin along with oldsingerman and a couple others helped to retain a few of the ISIS listed Singing Dog population in the USA by taking in the Zoo specimens as they were being bounced by them. The cause of the zoo exodus had to do with the USDA's re-classification of the Singing Dog and Dingo to just another domestic dog breed. The Singing Dogs taxon was changed from hallstromi to familiarus. As far the zoos were concerned it made the Singing Dog an undesirable animal to house. The USDA guidelines at that time required a zoo that has domestics care for them at a level that was not cost effective. A once a day feeding & watering no longer applied to Singers & Dingo's. After Bris (Dr Brisbins nickname) and friends gathered up a group of Singers, he obtained a research grant for the Singing Dog. In 1996 Bris formed the New Guinea Singing Dog Club of America and sat at the point. Bris had many irons in the fire however and not enough time for them so he sought out someone to do the research and produce documentation for on the NGSD. He found Janice Koler Matznick who was (at the time) a modestly successful dog behaviorist. Not certain what her education status is today, but she had no scientific or genetic credentials. Bris handed Janice a pair of female Singers to study and to produce the ethogram on them. Janice then sought out a male to breed some litters and to sell some Singers to supplement the grant monies. She found an undocumented intact male Singer at an exotic pet store and documented it (via Bris's ISIS account) and started breeding. She further volunteered to take over Bris's Club and renamed it to the NGSD Conservation Society. She then built a board of directors at her choosing. From 1997 to the present, that board is primarily made up of folks who own singers that she bred and sold to them.

With pretty much nobody else really caring about the Singing Dog, once Janice had completed her writings they were the only game in town. The one place to go for info. Janice tried to further the recognition of the Singing Dog by making every possible effort to have the scientific world re-declare the Singer as a separate species. That effort has failed and now with the new DNA studies showing the Singer & dingo to be virtually identicle, the singer as a seperate species is an even less likely concept.

After meeting oldsingerman (a onetime supporter of the Society), I realized that he has both an understand and passion for the NGSD that would rival anyone in the world. He has not produced any documentation on them so technically speaking, he has no credentials. Oldsingerman & I eventually realized that we had the same feelings about the Society and it's goals. We decided to break off from the Society and form our own organization and have done so (NGSDI).

We are undoubtedly with less credentials but on the net there is now a 2nd option for casual researcher when it comes to learning about Singers. We eventually decided to become Wiki members and add in some info and a link or two so that the folks with descendents of those Singers that left the zoos for the exotic world would have a place to go for help. The Society will be cordial to someone with an undocument Singer, but will make little to no effort to trace down a bloodline for you unless you are part of the inner circle or on the Board itself.

With all of the above now said, I can confidently tell you that mrhorseracer is a board member or actually board members (plural) for the Conservation Society. In fact, mrh is not even a mr but 1 to 3 different people that possibly include Janice Matznick herself. Google "youtube tomcue2" and you will see that one of my three passions is horseracing. mrh is (in essence) mocking me. That should also be evident by reviewing both mrh's and my talk pages.

I undoubtedly and admittedly have bias as does mrh but the day is soon coming where our contributions to the Singing Dog world will become notable and documented.

Lastly, I will address the coloring issue.

mrh and her organization have been desperate to either obtain or produce the black & tan coloring within their breeding program. Until they do so, they refuse to admit that the color exists and unless of course one of these black Singers gets into Matznick's hands, it will never be admitted to any breeding program or acknowledged as pure. We of course know better.

The bottom line here is that although none of the information that oldsingerman has contributed to the NGSD page is fiction, there is little documentation other then a website that we own to back it up. The Society is making every effort to keep only their information accessable to the public. That's why all of the deleted info and why mrh is so taken back by the external link that I added featuring the vocalization files. It's a 2nd link to our website.

As she is now threatening to arbitrate the issue, I have no interest in entertaining anything she suggests. Asking for citations I beleive is a wki editors right. Simply deleting ones contributions out of jealousy or spite is just plain wrong imo. Tomcue2 (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Cr Cr, We understand what you're saying regarding verifying the colorations. Perhaps someone will write a new article or book or something that can be referenced which will update the information. So much of what is written nowadays is a rewrite of things already said. Too bad! But then folks will simply live in the dark til the current info is published, looks like. NGSD are daily writing new history and tomcue and I have been doing our share. Now we need to have it published so it's acceptable to a world of doubting Thomas. Offering published proof of everything a person says is rather hogwash. It is not difficult to find photos and videos of some of the various colors and proof of their purity is documented in verified bloodline information. But we're not going to publish the studbook information any more than any other canine registry would publish theirs. The proof is in the bloodline information and photos. I guess I would need to ask just exactly who has proven that Singers come in the referenced colors. Where is their proof? Why do I have to prove conclusively that Singers come in colors other than tan to red? The only proof the authors had when they wrote their reference was that they'd either seen or heard that Singers come in tan to red. This is about stupid reasoning. As I said, it has been written and could be referenced that the first NGSD carcass taken in 1897 in NG was black and white. Suppose we can do DNA sampling on that carcass or perhaps on Jay Hoslers long dead black and white Singer? Let's get real here. Darkie was the founder of an entire line of Singers and he was a bit darker than red. Benji is a dark amber/mahogany and white from Germany so are we going to call Zoo Berlin liars?? We can trace several black and tan Singers directly back to the original NGSD foundation stock so is that proof enough?? The fact that you or other wiki editors doubt the source is, I'm sorry to say and don't mean to be offensive, simply a lack of knowledge regarding the Singer world and Singer history. Like the dogs we cherish, there is only a small handful of us who know the entire truth about Singers as well as the people who have conserved them. That handful will simply have to tell the truth about Singing Dogs without wiki's help it seems and in the meantime the general public will be treated like the proverbial mushrooms. Not all knowledge is published and unfortunately in this case, the people who are published understand wiki rules and are using those rules to control the media(wikipedia) If wikipedia were really interested in the truth of things, it would have a way for unpublished information to be read. As it is, with published information dominating the scene, wiki is really no more than a huge group of articles based on published sources that aren't necessarily true or up-to-date. Wow, what a deal! If you really want to learn about New Guinea Singing Dogs go to the NGSD International website or to the files section of New Guinea Singing Dogs Yahoo Discussion Group. If you want to read the same old rehashed information then read the references in this article. You may think I'm being rude or angry. I don't mean to be, but trust me , what I'm saying is the simple truth as evidenced by this masterful effort to suppress valid information. This is the only way I know to plead my case and others who suffer from the same prejudices and disrimination. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, TomCue, please take your soapbox, grandstanding and opinions to usertalk. But you are correct that you can't verify everything with a citation and that a little leeway is need - I agree. Which is why I have attempted to engage oldman with proper language for color. Again, you confuse spite with trying to be accurate and verifiable - Cr is correct to doubt. You can't play loose with the facts.Mrhorseracer (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

NGSD Wiki Bully

Fear not oldsingerman20. Mrhorseracer has several times removed the link that I added with the vocalization files. I did it in response to Wiki member Chrisrus's request to hear some Singers. Chrisrus is okay with it but not Mrh. Seems mrh is not interested in others opinions or in anything that does not support her organization. I have been threatened with arbitration and then she (yes it's a she) followed it up with some suggestions two days later. I am no longer willing to entertain her opinions. I have not removed her workings yet she feels compelled to remove both yours and mine. Although Dr I Lehr Brisbin never hired you to publish NGSD material, your 23yrs of study needs to be seen and read. Tomcue2 (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A better way to do vocalazation is to have an audio file in the commons and link to it, that will be done sometime soon and the unnecessary link will be removed. Much faster and cleaner than a link. Not a bully, just being bold. Don's observations I believe can be read on your clubs site.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

TomCue, Please take your personal rants and opinions off the article page and place them on mytalk pages. No one should care about your opinions - the point of any article is that it must be factual and Wiki has rules that we all must abide by to ensure accuracy. Please also don't confuse, being bold with being a bully. If you want me to show evidence here of your group trying to bully this group into make this into a "breeder" site I can, but this is counterproductive on improving the article. Lets move on. If Don has something specific he believes is missing, have him post something here on article discussion and we'll see if it makes sense.Mrhorseracer (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Tomcue, Thank you for your kind words. Chrisrus, Thank you for restoring the coloration information. oldsingerman20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Combining NGSD with Dingo

Our one concern irregardless of who is editing the article is that NGSD should remain separate from AU Dingo. If we wanted to combine all the world's Dingoes into one article, that would be OK by having a separate section for each one, but the article would be very, very long and would just be titles "Dingo", don't you think? It does make sense. On the other hand most NGSD people and the general public for that matter, don't think of a NGSD as a Dingo. Considering their DNA similarities, maybe we should consider NGSD as Dingoes. Does anyone know how DNA sampling has turned out comparing Dholes or Thai Dingoes to AU and New Guinea Dingoes?? There are numerous common links from thousands of years ago. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know dholes are a different genus and contrary to Matznick claims a descent for Singers from dholes was excluded. Mmmh. Thai dingoes were as far as I know proven to be like Australian ones. Singers were long thought to be at least a line that diverged some time ago. However I most the most up to date source says that they diverged about 4000 years ago from other dogs. How much New Guinea and the Melanesians have changed them is currently nearly impossible to tell (the old no-wild-studies problem).--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Limitations

Those of you who are wiki and computer prolific need to understand that I'm a 65 year old man who knows about Singing Dogs is not especially computer or wiki smart. My wife and I are both educated and were teachers so we can contribut in some ways, but my typing is slow and some times my English are terrible. The other thing is though, that we eat, sleep, and breath Singing Dogs and are willing to learn almost anything that might help them. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

First Paragraph

The first paragraph doesn't really make sense to us. I would like to rewrite it with everyone's permission. Then you can go in and edit my version. All we ask is that you don't just delete it the way mrhorseracer does and then revert back to the old, nonsensical version that exists at this time. Thank you, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

what is wrong with the opening paragraph?--Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Combining Dingoes

Contributors, My wife and I only wish to throw this out for discussion. We are leaning toward recommending the combining of all the world's Dingoes into one wiki article. There are advantages to doing this. For example, a reader, no matter how unschooled they are, could easily review all the Dingoes in one article without having to skip around trying to locate information on each one. I know myself, that I would personally enjoy the "side-by-side" comparisons. Additionally, the AU Dingo page is sorely hurting. I can't speak for the others, but wouldn't it be neat to be able to see all of them in one place?? DNA studies have definitely established that the NGSD has very nearly the same DNA as the AU Dingo and is the closest relative to the AU Dingo. The two, AU Dingo and NGSD(New Guinea Dingo) have DNA very dissimilar to domestic dogs. In other words, the AU Dingo and NGSD are easily set apart from domestic dogs including New Guinea Village Dogs. It is easy now to differentiate between say, a Basset Hound and a NGSD. Purity in NGSD and in AU Dingoes is easy to verify. I ask again does anyone know anything about DNA comparisons of the other world's Dingoes to the AU Dingo. We don't know, so we"re asking. A name for NGSD used long ago and still used to some degree is New Guinea Dingo and for good reason. NGSD are, in fact, a Dingo. If an AU Dingo is a Dingo, then a NGSD is also a Dingo. Just thinking out loud. Your comments please. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, Dingo should be an article like dog. It should say those things that are true about all dingos and those things which are unique to all dingos. It should review the basic types or breeds of dingos, but for the details it should send you to different subarticles specifically about each breed, including this article and another one for each type or breed. Chrisrus (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Combining Dingo Pages

Contributors, Yes, my wife and I have decided that we would support wholeheartedly a combined Dingo page and eliminate NGSD, AU Dingo and any others in favor of one article that would have an overview and then sections devoted to each Dingo type. This might also eliminate the NGSD War as the new article would be a fresh start and could be set up so no one editor could dominate. Our thoughts, but we would like to see this happen, Suggest we would have a wiki administrator qualified to oversee the project. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Old, there is a process called merge. You basically, on the Dingo article talk, suggest merging.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Very bad idea. Keep it with two articles. No matter how you put it you cannot deny that the Singer differs noticeably from the Australian and Thai dingoes, as well as dogs from Sulawesi and Borneo. Better this way and adressing the taxonomic topic of the Singer on its own page. I saw myself what would happen if the two were merged. Before I updated it, the dingo article claimed that dingoes in generally could rotate their paws and where good climbers, However there was no source and the only sources I could find even after months of research who said so, dealt entirely with the Singer. Better two articles. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Minor Additions to the Article

In case anyone wants to add these to the article or would just like to know: The gestation period for Singers is 62 days. Normally Singer females come in heat once a year unless they are not bred in which case a second heat will probably follow 2-4 months later. In North America females normally have the primary heat in the Fall of the year followed by a secondary heat in the early Spring. There have been a few cases when Singer females bred both in the Fall and then repeated the cycle again in the Spring resulting in a second litter. Normal litter size will vary from 3-6 puppies. Tan to red NGSD colored puppies are a darker coloration at birth and gradually lighten as they age. We have not seen any color descriptions of the darker colored puppies such as black and tan, black and white, mahogany and white, amber and white or sable and white. NGSD have dewclaws which are fifth toes located on the inside of the front feet. In most canines the dewclaw is functionless, but in NGSD it is a valuable tool used for climbing. The ears in a Singer are perked and lay forward as compared to domestic dogs whose ears lay back. This forward tilting is assumed to be an aid in sensory perception. In our observations of NGSD over the last 20 or so years, we have never seen a canine with more acute senses. They are extremely alert. This high volume of sensory input is thought to account for a certain degree of nervousness. It is easy to see why some native tribes in NG valued them as hunters. During walks with Singers on lead we have observed them hearing the rustle of insects in the grass. Their senses have been honed by thousands of years of selective breeding/survival of the fittest. Singers are highly intelligent as evidenced by having survived for thousands of years. The oldest recorded Singing Dog was named Old Dingo, nicknamed the Old Man. He lived to be 20 years and a month. He bred his last female at 16 years of age. His diet for the first 14 years was predominately raw chicken on the hoof. There has only been one recorded Singing Dog with eyes colored other than brown. He was bi-eyed in that one eye was brown and one eye was blue. He was a direct decendant of the first pair of NGSD in the United States that were sent from Taronga Park Zoo in AU and housed at the San Diego Zoo. There exists at least one black and white photo of two of the NGSD originally bred at the San Diego Zoo circa 1961. There are many other unpublished facts about NGSD. Although the current wiki article states the captive population does not form packs, there is no researched proof of that statement and in fact we are beginning to believe the social structure in NGSD is more complex than previously suggested. A large body of 38 NGSD was run together by John & Suzette Jones at Oakwold Kennel in MI daily over a period of several years and numerous reports have come in wherein small numbers of Singers have been successfully housed together. Therefore the statement regarding non-pack behavior is pure theory without any proof to substantiate the statement. No field research has been conducted on Singers in the wild. Now to registries. There are several canine registries for NGSD other than UKC. They could easily be listed unless editors want to discriminate against them and only list UKC. Of note is the registry and studbook maintained by New Guinea Singing Dog International. To our knowledge the NGSD International studbook is the most comprehensive NGSD bloodline record in the world. The ISIS System has some entries, but fundamentally ISIS is not a studbook or registry and it doesn't house nearly as much NGSD pedigree information as does the NGSD International studbook. There's a lot more information about NGSD that makes this current article look pretty darn sick. There was one question posed by cr asking why the reference didn't mention any colors other than tan to brown. Well first of all, we have never considered Singers as being brown. Most of them are red, some are tan and some are other colors, but never brown. Secondly the author simply didn't know about other colors. In other words the author was not up to snuff on his Singing Dog information. As to scientific research, you can hold all the "scientific" research about Singing Dogs in a small thimble. NGSD have simply never perked the interest of researchers. Even way back in their history, that first black and white carcass from 1897 laid in alcohol for many years before some scientist thought to study it. Science has actually ignored NGSD up until a very few years ago. In our opinion the "scientific" studies conducted during the last ten years are of questionable value and much over rated. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In Conclusion

I used to always try to find information on various subjects by going to wikipedia. That was before I found out how wiki works. Basically if a person wants to promote a friend's publication, they become an editor on wikipedia. Am I wrong? No, That is exactly what happened here. mrh came along and wiped out the old NGSD article, injected all of their friend's references and now owns the article. It's a really slick way to promote someone's name and publications. Very very smart because wiki guidelines support those actions. What tickles our funny bone is that wiki then has folks who come along and back up the promoters because the thieves, character asassins, and promoters can hide behind phoney names and by following the wiki rules are protected and are able to blatantly destroy the work of numerous people. Editors tell people they have to prove everything while at the same time assuming everything published and referenced is true. That's like the little girl who told her father not to buy a puppy because they all came from puppy mills because she'd read an article on the internet. The article the little girl read was a published article so it just had to be true! How totally foolish can you get. A crime has been committed here and no one seems to be able or willing to do anything about it. The sad thing is that it's going to be the dogs that suffer because many, many people will never be able to read the truth about them. If we were to put together a panel of Singer people who know about these dogs they could write an article that'd win a Pulitzer. Ah, but then those day to day bits of information are not what wiki wants. Wiki wants everything backed up with references and "proof". At the current time, my wife and I are taking care of 15 Singing Dogs a day, every day Sundays included. We've been doing that and more for over 20 years. Do you think we know anything about Singing Dogs? Do you wonder why I'm offended when someone asks me to verify my sources. Heck young man, we are the source. Where in the world do you think authors get their information? We tell them what to write. They write it. They get the credit. And then along comes a man who wants me to prove to him that I'm not lying. I do believe that's the ultimate insult. But folks like us still win in the end because we have the exclusive pleasure of knowing dozens and dozens of New Guinea Singing Dogs on a first name basis and no one can take those feelings and experiences away from us. Wiki is way out of line here. Wiki doesn't have a clue as to what they are missing by excluding information garnered directly from people who have first hand knowledge of a subject. Shame on wiki!! I think the wikipedia vision has been clouded!! osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE??

At least three of the people here already noticed that I have a new version of the article on my page that still needs to be reviewed and was planned to update this one. However, considered what the first reviewer has already done (mainly what damage) and how this article here looks, I'm seriously thinking that I should not do it, because it would be useless. Look what you have done, it is contradictory and doesn't even have the correct layout for an article. The article in the wikipedia of my country was small but at least correctly build and improved steadily. This one here only detoriates. So what is going on here?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You are being too general in your criticism. Please be more specific. I can't tell what specifically you are objecting to. Chrisrus (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Inugami-bargho - I urge you to continue on and I applaud your efforts. Your article is derived from several different sources and is both neutral and factual. Wiki editor mrhorseracer has bias towards Koler-Matznick's NGSDCS. If you compare the edits made by mrh they match their website and Matznick's views, opinions, & writings verbatim. I am no veteran of Wiki but my vote would be to replace the current page with yours. Tomcue2 (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well you don't have to worry about me in that case. I'm highly sceptic of Matznicks works, especially since she classifies the Singer, the Australian Dingo and all other domestic dogs as three different species and her arguments often sound like nitpicking. And I have some of the papers she lists as sources and I can say that e.g. her statement that all species of the genus Canis can produce fertile hybrids is not supported by these papers (they only mention mixing of gray wolvs, coyotes, golden jackles and ethiopian wolves). Furthermore, as can be seen in my article, others found different data than she did. And to be honest I trust my German sources more, especially since the main author Dorit Urd Fettersen-Petersen clearly stated that it is difficult to assess what is normal for a Singer because their "original state" in New Guinea is unknown and she makes clear that concerning Canis lupus there simply is no "seen one seen them all". I have not yet given up, but believe me I will be just as watchful as with the dingo-article. Ok since Chrisrus asked I looked closer to it and these are the points:

• The Physical descriptions section is above the Contents box. The space above the contents box is only for a short entry
• The entry is nearly half as long as the history and study section.
• Those two points itself show that the author had no idea about what is necessary, which would be surprising if I hadn’t seen people do stupider things, because there are countless good animal articles where you could simply copy the structure.
• The Infobox says the Singer is critically endangered however the source speaks about the whole dingo not just the Singer and the dingo is classified as “vulnerable”.
• To say they have a “fox-like” appearance is very inadequate, especially when there are pictures such subjective statements (let’s face if they are fox-like in appearance than a Jack Russel is also fox-like) should not be in the article.
• It says that there are populations in New Guinea but in the next sentence that there have not been any confirmed sightings until recently. Well there is another problem, just because some locals saw one dog and say that was a Singer doesn’t mean that it was one. And I can’t find the mentioned source.
• It says that Singers are dingoes but says “They are shorter in height at the withers than dingoes. The skull is slightly wider than a dingo's.”
• In my article I refused the New Guinea Singing Dog Conservation Society as a source because there is no proof of their reliability and since I have better source than that website I didn’t had to use them.
• Then there is the structure of the History and Study section itself: no comment on that (kids might be reading this).

You gotta admit this is no small issue. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Inugami - I think that Wilton and Savolainen's dna findings pretty much blow the Dingo & NGSD as being separate species right out of the water. The dna markers are virtually identical. I agree and doubt that we will ever know the true behavior of a Singer in the wild unless someone provides escape proof mountainous acreage where they can roam and be studied. Even then, the terrain is so much different and more difficult in the highlands of PNG. An expedition by James McIntyre in the mid 90's failed to yield a Singer. Link = http://vanuatu.tripod.com/dogs.htm The funds for that expedition came from Dr Lehr Brisbin's government grant. We have raised the funds to attempt to capture new bloodlines but we have yet to work out complete details for the expedition. Re the fox-like appearance. From personal experiences and observations I will agree with Matznick. I can count on one hand the number of times someone has seen my Singer and thought he was a Dingo. No person has ever called his breed correctly. There have been countless times that I have been asked if he was a fox. Just thought you should know this. Ironically, the largest collection of NGSD's ever collected in one place was a dog kennel in Hickory Corners, MI. The irony here is that kennel primarily bred and sold Jack Russell Terriers. Fox-like they are not. I had the opportunity to see all 36 of their Singers in 2007 and also evaluate the last 18 to leave that facility in Nov 2008 (see youtube). Lastly, we have had several folks visit our website, Yahoo Group, and Facebook page claiming that they saw a Singer while in PNG. In all cases these alleged sightings were in populated areas making the chances that what they saw was a pure Singer nearly impossible. If there are any pure NGSD's left in PNG, one would have to climb to the highest most remote areas of the highlands to find one. Reading McIntyre's notes, it's a taxing effort to say the least. Tomcue2 (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

How could anybody think that a Singer is a fox? What sort of fox looks like that? And even if, such a statement is unecessary when you have pictures.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Cr, Inu & Tom, I don't know where the Hallstomi came from again. The last we heard was canis lupus dingo and next thing we know we're finding canis lupus hallstomi again. It should be canis lupus dingo . Regarding their "fox-like" appearance, the first time we heard the term used was by Dr. Brisbin who is, in the Singer world, considered "The Father of New Guinea Singing Dogs in the United States" As Tom as already mentioned, he wrote the breed standard for NGSD used by United Kennel Club. This is their link and you might want to read it. .http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Breeds/NewGuineaSingingDog The term "fox-like appearance" originated with him and has remained a part of almost every description we've read. I, the same as Inu have never really seen the fox-like connection. When I see NGSD my first thought is "AU Dingo". BTW, Dr. Brisbin is also the champion of the Carolina Dog aka American Dingo Also, I omitted a color during my ranting: ginger. Please don't make Singers sound like a domestic dog gone wild. There's no proof of anything. It's all theory anyway and let's put the Singer's best foot forward. I personally don't believe NGSd were ever a domestic dog. I think they were commensal taken to AU and NG and continued to be commensal for several thousand years. Inu seems to be correct in that the sightings might not have actually been NGSD, however, something that is sldom mentioned but I will look for is that NGSD have been heard "singing" during the night. This is true to Singer form and would be better proof of their presence than would accidental sightings. One way to study NGSD in the wild would be to reintroduce them into the wild wearing tracking collars. Maybe someday someone will take the interest and begin reintroduction and field research. I wish I was 20 years younger. I believe capturing Singing Dogs and taking them into captivity has hurt them more than helped them. Had captive specimens not been so readily available, any research would have to have been performed on wild specimens and researchers would have poured their money into NG field studies rather than a kennel in their back yard. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please lets go back to the topic of the chapter. What actually is going on here? How could that article go so downhill?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow..

...this page is intense. I had no idea what I was getting into. We're going to have to take this slowly here. I've got one agenda: That these articles be in line with the MSOW and the rest of Wikipedia. If that puts me on or against some side in this conflict, be that as it may. I am determined that this article say that this is Canis lupus dingo, and what that means; that it descended from Canis lupus familiaris, domestic dogs that were brought to New Guinea and then went feral. Over the millenia, they became a separate subspecies from familiaris. I worry about the effect on the reader about the use of the words "dog", "domestic dog," vs. "dingo". Both "sides" have tried to enlist me in the "NGSD War". I resist this, but if my agenda makes me your "ally" or "enemy", be that as it may. Chrisrus (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus - As long as your agenda is to factually represent the NGSD, you are my ally. The "canis lupus dingo" taxon is used by the International Species Identification System. I tried linking to it for you but the site is being revamped at the present time. Once it's back up you can use the find animals section. The common name search would be "Singing Dog" and the taxon search would be "canis lupus dingo" sub. Tomcue2 (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I promise I have NO agenda other than to factually represent the NGSD!Chrisrus (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for planning to provide that link. I am looking forward to giving it my undivided attention. Until then, (and, I'm sure, both at and after that time) I accept your assertion that they refer to the referent animal as Canis lupus dingo! as well, proving that, at least about that fact alone, there will be no conflict between the two reliable sorces. If you know of a reliable source that still disagrees about that fact, please let me know.Chrisrus (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The information available on MSOW is very little, actually. Please, everyone, review these pages, and review the facts with me. I'm not trying to be didactic; I assume you all know this stuff better than I do. Just let me make sure I understand:

1. http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000738

At the bottom of this page, we can see the subspecies of Canis Lupus. Click on each of them and you will see, as you know, that all of them are "wolves" except for C.l. familiaris and C.l. dingo.

In other words, a Canis lupus individual may be either a wolf, a dog of the familiar variety, or a dingo, which as you know has domestic dog ancestors that went feral so long ago they are thought of as something slightly different than a familar dog, but rather a dingo dog, a separate subspecies.

2. http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000751

Here is mention of halstromi. Halstromi is listed as a under dingo.

I understand that this is because they see it as a type or breed of "dingo", distinct from Asian mainland c.l. dingos or Australian dingos, at least according to MSOW.

Is there any disagreement so far? I pause to see if there is anyone who disagrees with my understanding of these two links and what they mean. Chrisrus (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I just checked it too, it's not working. So there is only MSOW, however that one says that the Canis lupus dingo is a domestic dog just like Canis lupus familiaris. The entrance for the dingo is here and the comments section clearly says domestic dog. So why is Chrisrus adamant on saying that they are something different and citing MSOW as a source? And as for the classification I think you are doing a big mistake Chrisrus. The classification of subspecies is a much more complicated matter than that of species because it depends on where to draw the line. Corbett for instance wrote in the 2001 version of "The dingo in Australia and Asia" that theoretically you could seperate Australian dingoes in seperate subspecies because of their physical differences but just as likely could you classifiy every single human in his/her own subspecies. However, the mtDNA A29 that dingoes and Singers share fell during analysis right into the main clade of dometic dog types that contained 70% of the dog-mtDNA-types and that type was shared by some other dogs from Asia and North America. And as for the classification of Canis lupus dingo. According to "Managing the impact of dingoes and other wild dogs" this classification was chosen to "reflect the descent from the wolf and the uniformity of the dingo population" but the same could be said about many purebred dogs and many feral populations. Nonetheless if we cite MSOW as a source for the current classification nobody can just write that they are no domestic dogs because MSOW clearly says otherwise (and domestic doesn't automatically mean domesticated). As for your fears of those three words Chrisrus: You will have to live with that, what the term dog can mean is already stated in Wikipedia, domestic dog does now too (at least I hope that it wasn't deleted since I updated the article) and I mentioned the problems with the classification of the dingo and the Singer in their articles (in case of the Singer I mean my version of course).--Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

With regards to this: http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000751, you are correct that it does say, under the comments, in brackets, "domestic dog". You seem to feel that this means that they are saying that a dingo = domestic dog. But as you know, according to MSOW, the domestic dog is C. l. familaris. As you know, the dingo is descended from C.l. familiaris, but is being listed alongside familaris as "C.l. Dingo (Comments: domestic dog)". Given this fact, the only meaning I can describe to this note is that they are noting that C.l. dingo is descended from the domestic dog, but is a subspecies separate from c.l.familaris.

As to your assertion that I am "making a big mistake" because, it seems to you, I am unaware that these things are complicated and filled with shades of gray and "depends-how-you-look-at-it" and "depends-where-you-draw-the-line" instances, please rest assured that nothing could be further from the truth. I am all about those gray areas. If you look at my contributions to Wikipedia, you will fine the odd page or two where things are relatively clear cut, but for the most part, if it's not some intermediate form, something like a shrew-mole or mole-shrew, something that is part this and part that, something that is on the line between X and Y, I'm usually not interested. Slightly tangentially, I am especially interested in English words whose referent does not have a single taxon that stands as a synonym, such as "whale", "wolf", or "worm",(I have a list on my User Page, if you are interested) and try to sort out the usual tendency for Wikipedia to try to force every such English word to line up perfectly with a technical, term from taxonomy. So please believe me when I say to you that there is absolutely no reason to remind me that such things are complicated matters of having to draw the line somewhere. So whatever my "problem" is, from your point of view, whatever is causing me to see things "incorrectly" from your point of view, it cannot possibly be caused by a mistaken impression on my part that everything is simple and not a matter of how one looks at it or where to draw the line. Some other problem must be the cause, therefore, of what you see as my failure to understand the facts correctly. (Be right back…) Chrisrus (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is out of chronological order, I'm sorry, but the posts are flying pretty fast and furious right now, and I have to stop from time to time, so I'm still responding to the above. I'll respond to the below later if necessary. I'm still talking about MSOW.

You bring up a good refutation of my understanding of what MSOW is saying when you point out that they have a comment, as we have seen, under C.l. dingo, which consists of the words "domestic dog" in brackets. You seem to me to be pointing to this as proof that they are saying that dingos and domestic dogs are the same thing. That's a persuasive arguement. I don't see it that way. I figue they can't be saying that because under the heading Canis Lupus they have a list of subspecies listing Canis lupus dingo and Canis lupus familiaris. This, not a lack of understanding of the complexities of such matters is the fact that leads me to believe that they are saying that a Canis lupus animal which is not a hybred or some such is catagorized by them as one of the wolf subspecies, a dog of the familiar variety, or a Canis lupus dingo. If you can offer me some other explanation of what it means to say that Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo are two different subspecies of Canis lupus other than this, I'm absolutely open to hearing you out and changing my understanding of the fact that MSOW lists Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo as two different subspecies. What does it mean in other cases? Please take, for example, http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?s=y&id=14200476, the giraffe, which has six subspecies. We normally read that, according to current knowledge, all giraffes will fall into one of these catagories, and, unless they are a hybred of subspecies or some such, will never be more than one subspecies. It is wholely possible that one subspecies of giraffe will give rise to another. If this is established to have happened, I would not be surprised to see a note to that effect on the MSOW subspecies entry to that effect, but I will take it that that fact alone does not mean that they are not both equal subspecies.

Reading over that, it seems a bit wordy, and so I would like to summarize by asking you this question: What does it mean, as you understand it, to say that C.l.familiaris and C.l.dingo are two subspecies of Canis Lupus? Put another way, if MSOW is saying that Canis lupus dingo = domestic dog, what then is Canis lupus familiaris?Chrisrus (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus & Inugami - The ISIS site is up and running http://www.isis.org/Pages/findanimals.aspx . I was mistaken. ISIS still lists the NGSD as "canis lupus hallstromi" and not a sub species of the Dingo or a domestic dog. I am really not suprised at this. The NGSD has had several names over the years but if you can aviod the domestic dog tag, from my limited canid experiences I would. I do know that the USDA declared the Singer & Dingo as a domestic breed back in 1993 but do not know why they did this. I also know that Senior Ecologist Dr I Lehr Brisbin actually convinced the UKC to list them as a domestic dog breed but only did this to backup ISIS. There is nowhere to cite this info. It came from his lips to my ears. Tomcue2 (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they classified it as a dog breed because they thought that it was one? Many people confuse breed with type, landrace, etc. As for Chrisrus: I'm saying that with all the respect I can bring up right now. Is there something wrong with your perception and your logic? With your last words prove more and more that you insist on the "dingoes are not domestic dogs" because you want them to be. I don't know where you actually get your ideas from and I honestly don't care. Your logic doesn't make sense. You say that the entrence domestic dog under dingo means that the dingo is descended from domestic dogs despite that nothing on the page hints to that. Well we have a problem here because under Canis lupus familiaris there is the same comment and according to your reasoning that would mean that the Canis lupus familiaris is descened from domestic dogs and is a seperate subspecies. Furthermore you see the entrances under synonyms as "I understand that this is because they see it as a type or breed of "dingo", distinct from Asian mainland c.l. dingos or Australian dingos, at least according to MSOW." You actually think that the word "synonyms" means type or breed? What on the page gives any hint for that far fetched interpretation? Furthermore according to you there would be 58 types/breeds of domestic dogs because Canis lupus familiaris has 58 synonyms. And I know for a fact that the term ferus was an old term for one of the hypothetical ancestors of modern dogs back when it was fought that the dogs had several ancestors. And according to your reasoning there would be several types of Canis lupus lupus. As for the dingo entry: there are 10 synonyms and according to your logic that would make 10 breeds/types. Now that is plainright rubish, because I know a hundred percent that terms like "antarcticus", "macdonnellensis" and "novaehollandiae" are old names for the Australian dingo, which are no longer in use. Such terms were used in earlier times when one species got several names by several people. Back when Australia was called New Holland the dingo was called New Holland Dog. So with what do you come up now? Will you say that the comment under Canis lupus familiaris means something entirely different?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Here I address only those comments in the post directly above which are directed to me personally. There may be something wrong with my perception or my logic, I don't know, but I don't think so. You don't seem to be able to think of any explanation for my statement "dingoes are not domestic dogs" other than the fact that I don't want them to be. Please be assured that I have no dog in this fight (no pun intended) and don't care if they are or are not. I am not a participant in the "NGSD War" and that this is not my opinion but rather my understanding of what MSOW is saying when they list c.l.familiaris and C.l. dingo as two separate subspecies. If for example, MSOW sees fit not to so list them anymore, and that could happen, I would change my understanding of what they must be, for the editors of MSOW seem to me to be in a position to know such things and I have no cause to doubt them. If, for example, they listed "C.l.dingo", or just "dingo" as a synonym on this page: http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=14000691, (where they list all the synomyms for the domestic dog) I would assume they were trying to tell us that the dingo is a kind of domestic dog. Now, I don't know why they have chosen to separate C.l.dingo from C.l.familiaris. I assume it has to do with the morpholoy and the genetic distinctiveness. Even without that, however, it doesn't really surprise me that they've reclassified the Dingo as a separate subspecies because as I understand it, dingos are basically wild animals that don't really take as readily to domestic life in the same way that dogs do, and dogs are basically domestic animals which do go feral but don't really take to being a wild animal the way dingos do. Nevertheless, you do bring up a good question for me: why is there a note on both the familiaris page and the dingo page saying domestic dog in brackets. You seem completely convinced that you know for sure what that means - they are the same - yet you haven't explained the fact that they are listed as separate subspecies, thereby saying they are not the same.

Next, I'm sorry you understood that, when I said that the appearance of the word "hallstromi" (which, as you know, has never referred to all dingos in general, but only to the NGSD) as a "synonym" of "dingo", that they are saying that the NGSD is a type of dingo, that by saying this, I was asserting that all taxological "synonyms" are types or kinds of the taxon in question. As you probably know, MSOW and other such publications lists words under "synonyms" to note that the word in question had been used previously for the referent but has since been declared invalid for any number of reasons. In this case, "hallstromi" never covered Australian dingos, but what it did refer to are all dingos, according to MSOW. In other words this "synonym" is not really a true "synonym", but a "hyponym".

Anyway, what interpretation for the presence of the word "hallstromi" on the list of synonyms for C.l.dingo do you posit, if not the fact that they are signaling that any use of that word in older litterature as referring to an animal which they consider to be a Canis lupus dingo? Stated simply, what do you think it means that the word "hallstromi" is there? It's pretty clear to me, they are saying that they are putting all the NGSD into the taxon C.l.dingo.

Ok, I will make it shourt: 1. That link from you points towards the giraffe. **fixed -cr**2. If that was what you ment it is strange that you didn't say so. 3. I had given an explanation much earlier it was from "Managing the Impact of Dingoes and other Wild dogs" and was "reflect the descent from the wolf and the uniformity of the dingo population". 4. Further on the "Canis lupus" page: "Includes the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate--artificial variants created by domestication and selective breeding (Vilá et al., 1999; Wayne and Ostrander, 1999; Savolainen et al., 2002). Although this may stretch the subspecies concept, it retains the correct allocation of synonyms. " And then they write "domestic dog" in both entries and you want me to think that they don't mean that they are both domestic dogs? Did it never occur to you that two subspecies are classified as domestic dogs? If they meant that the dingo is not a domestic dog and only a descent, then why didn't they wrote this? For this interpretation I am only using the page, nothing more.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I fixed the link. More later. Chrisrus (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents: the dingo is a domestic dog that has mostly gone wild. It interbreeds with domestic dogs to an extent that nobody currently knows how many "pure" dingoes there actually are. This is even more true for the New Guinea singing dog. Both are currently mostly classified as canis lupus dingo, the classification has changed a lot over the years and there is still much dispute. In any case, the classification doesn't predicate anything about the status wild/domestic. Sincerely, --Quartl (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

My input: The IUCN does not consider the New Guinea Singing Dog a taxon, which is supported by quite a few genetic studies that were published in the peer-reviewed literature. The dingo has been known by more than ten scientific names since it was first described, but is today considered a separate subspecies of the wolf (C.l. dingo ) that is distinct from the domestic dog (C.l.familiaris), which may or may not be genetically justifiable. On a side note, I cannot take anyone seriously who uses more than one exclamation mark per paragraph. --Cú Faoil (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's right; that's what exactly what MSOW says. It seems to me, anyhow. Who disagrees with this? What's all this fuss about? Chrisrus (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wozencraft in MSW3 recognizes two subspecies of wolf as domestic dog, Canis lupus dingo and C. l. familiaris. He calls the separation between them provisional (p. 576). There's no rationale given and no phylogenetic conclusion can be drawn from this little information. Like most synonyms of the species group hallstromi is a subjective synonym. Not a hyponym, which is nonsense in taxonomic context. As is equating synonyms with breeds. As is having a taxobox, when a population is not recognized as a taxon. -- Torben Schink (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what what MSOW says. Your book and the web site seem to say the same thing, but at the website they do give some rationale: "...it retains the correct allocation of synonyms...”. The conclusions that we can draw are only those that we can always draw upon learning that two animals are both subspecies of one species.

As for “hyponym” being “nonsense”, please think about that. Obviously, all “hallstromi” are C.l. dingo, but that doesn’t mean all c.l.dingo are hallstromi! MSOW has grouped the NGSD with the dingos, but “Poodle” and “dog” are only synonyms in one direction.

You are right that subspecies is as low as the MSOW and taxonomy generally go, but they have to think about lower levels from time to time. If, for example, someone had published a subspecies name for a variety of plant or breed of dog, what do they do with the old name when they correct it? Don't they just drop it in with the "synonyms"?

If you are saying there's no reason for the taxobox and it should be removed, I agree. Go ahead and delete it, I say. Chrisrus (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

My "Wozencraft in MSW3" corresponds to your "MSOW". It is a printed book to begin with. What you quote there is no rationale. For subjective synonymy (hyponym is a linguistic term) look up article 61.3.1 of the Code, for taxonomic levels lower than subspecies start with 1.3.4. You seem to be unfamilar even with the basics of zoological nomenclature. Articles should be written by people who know and be read by people who don't, not vice versa. -- Torben Schink (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we're talking about the same thing. We're talking about this: http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?s=y&id=14000738, which is the exaclty same as your printed book except, I suppose, it has the potential for being more up-to-date.

If "...it retains the correct allocation of synonyms... is not at least part of their rationale for the separation, what then is it?

I am obvioiusly familiar with the basics of zoological nomenclature, but not much more than that. It's unclear if you are trying to be helpful or to prove your superiority by refering me to section such-and-such of "the code". It would be helpful, if that is what you want to be, if you would answer these questions I have asked you or point out what is wrong with the article. I'm asking you directly, what it means that the word "hallstromi" is a synonym for "C.l.dingo": that all NGSDs are dingos (I assumed this was obvious), that all dingos are NGSDs (obviously not), or some thrid option? While you may simply be out to prove something about yourself and me, the important thing is to know what the what the New Guinea Singing Dog is so we can say so clearly in the article. Chrisrus (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The online version isn't more up to date. It has more errors than the print version and is thus less reliable. It is also incomplete. Does not affect the issue at hand, though. I'm asking you directly, what it means that the word "hallstromi" is a synonym for "C.l.dingo". This means that populations represented by the holotype of dingo and those represented by the holotype of hallstromi (both of which are not identical, thus they are subjective synonyms) are taxonomically identical at the subspecific level. No more, no less. But this is basic nomenclatural knowledge! Vernacular names are not within the scope of MSW3 except at the species level. I've seen you display the same ignorance of zoological nomenclature over at the squirrels and I'm not willing to spend more time on you. Why don't you spend your time on topics you know more than zilch about? Nomenclature of organisms, both scientific and vernacular, clearly is not your forte. Over and out. -- Torben Schink (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you say exactly, as I've looked up your buzz words and they are not hard to understand. You’re still not saying anything different than me. Saying that the Aus. Dingo and the NGSD are identical at the subspecies level ut not at a subspecific level (that they differ below that level isn’t in MSW3, but you and I agree that it’s true) is no different than what I am saying: that “hallstromi” and the Australian dingo are two types of the same subspecies. It's very simple, you need to special training to see it. The relationship of the NGSD and the Aust. dingo to the term "C.l.dingo" is analogous to that of two varieties of the same flower, or that of Cocker Spaniels and Bloodhounds to C.l.familiaris: they are two types of the same subspecies. (I'm going with the provisional separation at the moment.) If they were plants, they might call them “varieties”, but as they are dogs, English prefers a different word. What ignorance am I displaying?

With regard to the article squirrel, you will notice that the article eventually arrived at the same form as I was asking for; it doesn't equate the word "squirrel" with the term for "squirrel family of animals" anymore, which is all I cared about. I feel completely vindicated whenever I see it. The same will happen with this article, once you all get over yourselves and forget about my "audacity" to say so as an outsider moving in on your territory, or whatever it is that motivates you to resist my saying so in this article and dingo: Aus. dingos and NGSDs are two types of C.l.dingo. Chrisrus (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Chris, with all due respect, you are wrong and are currently demonstrating a remarkable ignorance of the topic you claim to be discussing. This article should and must be based on the scientific literature, not on your arcane personal interpretation of what the authors supposedly meant, implied and connotated when writing said literature. Please familiarise yourself with the scientific method before making further claims about this topic. Thanks. --Cú Faoil (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing to me how you people can argue without disagreeing. What am I wrong about? Please see above what I'm claiming that the litterature says, and tell me if you still think it's wrong. Agree or disagree: the NGSD and the Austrailan Dingo are two types of C.l.dingo. Please don't tell me what you think of me or what I should or shouldn't do. Just fill in the blank in words such as would be appropriate for the article: The New Guinea Singing dog is __________. Chrisrus (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

__________currently classified as part of Canis lupus dingo but has nonetheless an unsure taxonomic status, due to the observed differences and the fact that nearly nothing is known about them in the wild. Everybody here has already stated what your problem is and if so many people tell you that you're wrong, your "audacity" seems more likely to be stubborness. Stop playing the victim and the misunderstood. You had plenty of opportunity to work on this article long before I started working on it and nearly all the referenced marterial was available for at least two years. You did work on it and still everybody could see what condition it was in. I was very lucky when Tomcue or Osm20 asked about the new version of the NGSD-article because they were helpful. You were not, your work was either unnecessary or close to downright vandalism.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)