The taxonomic status and systematic nomenclature of the Australian dingo remain contentious, resulting in decades of inconsistent applications in the scientific literature and in policy. Prompted by a recent publication calling for dingoes to be considered taxonomically as domestic dogs (Jackson et al. 2017, Zootaxa 4317, 201-224), we review the issues of the taxonomy applied to canids, and summarise the main differences between dingoes and other canids. We conclude that (1) the Australian dingo is a geographically isolated (allopatric) species from all other Canis, and is genetically, phenotypically, ecologically, and behaviourally distinct; and (2) the dingo appears largely devoid of many of the signs of domestication, including surviving largely as a wild animal in Australia for millennia. The case of defining dingo taxonomy provides a quintessential example of the disagreements between species concepts (e.g., biological, phylogenetic, ecological, morphological). Applying the biological species concept sensu stricto to the dingo as suggested by Jackson et al. (2017) and consistently across the Canidae would lead to an aggregation of all Canis populations, implying for example that dogs and wolves are the same species. Such an aggregation would have substantial implications for taxonomic clarity, biological research, and wildlife conservation. Any changes to the current nomen of the dingo (currently Canis dingo Meyer, 1793), must therefore offer a strong, evidence-based argument in favour of it being recognised as a subspecies of Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758, or as Canis familiaris Linnaeus, 1758, and a successful application to the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature - neither of which can be adequately supported. Although there are many species concepts, the sum of the evidence presented in this paper affirms the classification of the dingo as a distinct taxon, namely Canis dingo.

No abstract

Supplemental feeding, whether intentional or accidental, alters wildlife foraging behaviors and may have consequences at the population and ecosystem levels. Wildlife feeding may also cause animals to develop aggressive behaviors toward conspecifics and people. The risks to humans is potentially accrued when the species is a native predator. Food-based attraction has been implicated in the development of humandirected aggression in the dingo (Canis lupus dingo) population on Fraser Island, Queensland, Australia. Management strategies such as education programs, prohibition of inappropriate human behaviors, and fencing of garbage dumps have been implemented to stop the (intentional or inadvertent) feeding of dingoes by people. Despite these efforts, dingoes continue to obtain human-sourced food, suggesting that other means of supplemental feeding are still available. One possible source of subsidized food is recreational fishing, which is a popular activity on the island. We conducted a quasi-experimental study during May-June 2014 of dingo foraging behaviors on the eastern beach of Fraser Island. We video-recorded the behaviors of lone and groups of dingoes when they were in the vicinity of anglers or by themselves. We hypothesized that if recreational fishing was a source of subsidies to dingoes, then there would be differences in dingo foraging behavior among the 2 groups. We found that in the absence of anglers, dingoes spent 81% of their time engaged in mobile food-related behaviors. When anglers were present, however, they spent 52% of their time sitting and resting. These results suggest that dingoes shifted from active searching to a sit and wait foraging mode upon detecting recreational anglers. We observed an event in which a dingo spent 2 hours resting near an angler, then dug up the fish remains buried by the man as soon as he had left the area. This and other anecdotal evidence support the view that the changes in dingo foraging activity detected in this study were related to increased opportunities to secure food from anglers. Recreational fishing may play an important role in the inadvertent subsidizing of dingoes on Fraser Island, although further investigations are needed before proposing and implementing additional conservation and management actions. Ó 2017 The Wildlife Society.

Screams are acoustically distinct, high-pitched and high-amplitude calls, produced by many social species. Despite a wide range of production contexts, screams are characterised by an acoustic structure that appears to serve in altering the behaviour of targeted receivers during agonistic encounters. In chimpanzees, this can be achieved by callers producing acoustic variants that correlate with their identity, social role, relationship with the targeted recipient, the composition of the audience and the nature of the event. Although vervet monkeys ( Chlorocebus pygerythrus ) have been studied for decades, not much is known about their agonistic screams. Here, we examined agonistic screams produced by wild vervet monkeys to investigate the degree to which caller identity, social role and conflict severity affected call structure. We found that screams were both individually distinctive and dependent of the agonistic events. In particular, victim screams were longer and higher-pitched than aggressor screams, while screams produced in severe conflicts (chases, physical contact) had higher entropy than those in mild conflicts. We discuss these findings in terms of their evolutionary significance and suggest that acoustic variation might serve to reduce the aggression level of opponents, while simultaneously attracting potential helpers.

Signals are shaped through selective pressures impacting their information content (i.e. ‘what’ is conveyed) and their efficacy (i.e. ‘how’ is it conveyed). In the case of long‐range communication, a signal's structure should both convey information and allow for detection and discrimination despite the effects of environmental variability during propagation. Canid howls are an ideal example of a long‐range communication signal, although research has mostly focused on the relationships between howls’ acoustic characteristics and their potential information content in wolves, Canis lupus spp., and coyotes, Canis latrans. In this study, we quantified these relationships in another canid, the dingo, Canis familiaris dingo, to determine how their howls compare to that of other wild canids. We found that dingoes’ howls are individually distinctive and may convey gender cues. Playback experiments indicate that dingoes can perform class‐level recognition of familiar and unfamiliar individuals on the basis of vocalizations alone. These results mirror findings for other wild canids such as wolves and coyotes. Lastly, propagation experiments demonstrate that this signal's structure can permit long‐distance detectability and discriminability. We discuss our results in relation to the putative functions of canid howls and propose avenues for future research.