DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Dingo

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
Former good articleDingo was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 6, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 15, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Domestic definition

[edit]

Hello 208.98.222.113 and @Materialscientist:: Either could be correct because "domestic" can also mean pertaining to the house. This is the literal Latin meaning. Invasive Spices (talk) 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Dingo Arrival in Australia

[edit]

In the 'History' section, a claim is made regarding the earliest dingos in Australia: 'In 2018, the oldest skeletal bones from the Madura Caves were directly carbon dated between 3,348 and 3,081 YBP, providing firm evidence of the earliest dingo and that dingoes arrived later than had previously been proposed.' This carbon dating does not provide 'firm evidence' that 'dingos arrived later'. As the saying goes, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' Dingos certainly could have arrived earlier but if they did, we currently lack fossil to make such a claim. What the carbon dating does establish is a time at which there were certainly dingos in Australia. RobotBoy66 (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. However, that is not what the journal article stated - one word was mislocated - and has now been amended. 14.2.196.220 (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canis familiaris

[edit]

I draw your attention to the Good Article titled Dog, which classifies the dingo as Canis familiaris. In the interests of consistency, I recommend that the taxobox in Dingo be amended to reflect C. familiaris for consistency across canis articles. 14.2.203.227 (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not advise me that the taxonomic classification is disputed; this article has been in denial long enough. 14.2.203.227 (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A week has now passed since my proposal. Do any editors have a point of view on this matter? Else, I will change the taxobox to read Canis familiaris similar to the Dog and New Guinea singing dog articles. 14.2.203.227 (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now actioned as proposed above. 14.2.196.220 (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may be mistaken, but it doesn't appear as though the article officially labels Canis familiaris, only mentioning that the IUCN does, as well as other proposed scientific names.
I am aware this reply is rather late to this discussion, unsure if that nullifies replies. Hal1aetuss (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dingo Lineage Influence – Clarifying Crossbreeding History in ACD Development

[edit]

G’day,

I’ve opened a detailed discussion on the Talk page of the Australian Cattle Dog article, focusing on the role of Dingoes in the development of Australia’s earliest purpose-bred cattle working dogs.

➡️ Talk:Australian Cattle Dog#Request for Editorial Review: ACD Lineage

The discussion includes:

The deliberate crossbreeding of tame Dingoes with imported droving dogs by Thomas Hall

The working traits selectively bred from Dingo ancestry (e.g. silence, endurance, stalking style)

How these dogs — eventually known as Hall’s Heelers — were foundational to the modern ACD

A comparison with competing accounts (e.g. George Elliott’s line) and how Dingo contribution is either central or downplayed depending on the source

There’s a developing lineage chart included (with reconstructions based on historical records) and I’m particularly interested in insight from editors familiar with Dingo domestication, hybridisation, and its utility in historical stockwork contexts.

Any perspectives on how the Dingo’s traits shaped early working dogs — or sources that support/refute these breeding stories — would be highly appreciated.

Cheers,

Guil Guilbrynski (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Taxobox

[edit]
There is a consensus for Option A that Canis familiaris should be the name used in the taxobox. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What should the Dingo be listed as in the taxobox?

  • A. As a member of the dog species Canis familiaris, Linnaeus 1758 (example [1])
  • B. As the species Canis dingo Meyer, 1793 (example [2])
  • C. As the subspecies Canis lupus dingo Meyer, 1793 (example [3])
  • D. As the subspecies Canis familiaris dingo Meyer, 1793
  • E. As the subspecies Canis lupus familiaris Linnaeus, 1758 (treating the dog as a subspecies of the grey wolf).
  • F. Omit a taxobox entirely

Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

[edit]
  • A. Jackson et al. 2021 (open access) did a really thorough review of this issue, and concluded that the correct name should be C. familiaris. Dingos are genetically very clearly a kind of dog, and there is no reason to classify dingoes separately from them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dingos have an origin as feral dogs and thus would be whatever species/subspecies dogs are. They haven't been separate long enough to be given a taxonomic rank. It's not clear to me why dogs are C. familiaris rather than C. l. familiaris, but since that is where dogs are now, it should be where dingos are too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A for now, with context on the debate provided in the Taxonomy section of this article and the Canis lupus dingo article. Dingoes are currently treated as C. familiaris by Australian government sources such as the Australian Biological Resources Study's Australian Faunal Directory[4], and I feel it is appropriate to follow this in the infobox, though perhaps with a brief explanatory footnote. This is a complex issue, not just in terms of biology but in terms of politics - for those not in the know, dingo culling (primarily done in the name of protecting livestock) is a divisive issue here in Australia, and the taxonomic status of dingoes plays a part in that, with groups in favour of culling often attempting to portray dingoes as non-native feral dogs, pests no different to the feral dogs more recently introduced by European settlers. This is not my position, and my reasoning for supporting the use of C. familiaris relies solely on the present rough consensus among authorities. I believe this is a consensus that is likely to change over the next few decades - I'll share this very recent paper in Australian Mammalogy (and a short companion article by the authors in The Conversation, if you'd prefer a quicker read) that argues in favour of the use of C. dingo or C. lupus dingo and, crucially, calls for an independent national review into the matter. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • C: The standpoint that Australian government bodies take on this appear to be mixed, though Parks Victoria refers to them as Canis lupus dingo. In fact, the Victorian government site outright states that 'In 2023, a UNSW-led scientific study showed dingo hybridisation with domestic dogs is rare and that dingoes are genetically distinct from domestic dogs.' and 'Dingoes are genetically distinct [from domestic dogs]'. However, I suggest that at the very least the terms Canis dingo and Canis lupus dingo are added to the synonymous name section, due to research contradicting that of state governments (as seen here, here in inability or reduced ability to digest starch, and here. Hal1aetuss (talk | contribs) 8:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC) — Hal1aetuss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I oppose F. If we can't agree on a species/subspecies, then let's have a taxobox that only displays down to the agreed-upon genus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

This has been the subject of sporadic edit warring for a long time, and I felt that a RfC was needed to properly resolve the issue, so that if people continued to edit war regarding the taxobox we could point to a consensus about the issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not technically work with Dingo's but have always kept an eye on their convoluted taxonomy. I saw this paper come across my path recently that has some telling info for the issue I believe. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mec.16998. May help some people work through this. Personally I think the evidence leads to it being a dog, Canis familiaris. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The taxobox at Dog currently lists the species at Canis familiaris. The article of course discusses Canis lupus familiaris and this is included as a bolded synonym in the lead. For consistency, I would think Canis lupus familiaris should not be used for dingo unless there is a very compelling dingo-specific reason to do so. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I only listed it for completeness because this was one of the 5 names listed in Jackson et al. 2021 for the dingo. Just wanted to cover all of my bases. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understood that the intent was completeness, which I think is appropriate. Just noting a wiki-consideration, which may not be determinative, or even relevant, based on assessment of the literature. Thanks for organizing this important RfC. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.