Observations of a free-ranging adult female dingo (Canis dingo) and littermates’ responses to the death of a pup

Appleby, Robert G.; Smith, Bradley; Jones, Darryl

doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2013.02.016

Cited by 37 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Along these lines, an interesting behaviour to monitor is that of mothers insistently carrying the carcass of their offspring. This behaviour has been found in chimpanzees (Biro et al 2010), gorillas (Warren and Williamson 2004), Barbary macaques (Campbell et al 2016), gelada monkeys , Japanese macaques (Sugiyama et al 2009), dingoes (Appleby et al 2013), sea otters (Kenyon 1969), seals (Rosenfeld 1983), and a variety of cetaceans (Reggente et al 2016). The transportation of a dead infant may well be a sign that these mothers do not understand that their infant is dead.…”

Section: Different Treatment Of Corpses Vs Asleep Individuals: Asleementioning

confidence: 96%

How to Tell If Animals Can Understand Death

Monsó

2019

Erkenn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is generally assumed that humans are the only animals who can possess a concept of death. However, the ubiquity of death in nature and the evolutionary advantages that would come with an understanding of death provide two prima facie reasons for doubting this assumption. In this paper, my intention is not to defend that animals of this or that nonhuman species possess a concept of death, but rather to examine how we could go about empirically determining whether animals can have a concept of death. In order to answer this question, I begin by sketching an account of concept possession that favours intensional classification rather than mere extensional discrimination. Further, I argue that the concept of death should be construed as neither binary nor universal. I then present a proposal for a set of minimal conditions that must be met to have a concept of death. I argue that having a minimal understanding of death entails first expecting a dead individual to be alive, and then grasping its non-functionality and irreversibility. Lastly, I lay out the sort of observational and experimental evidence that we should look for to determine whether animals have the capacity for a minimal comprehension of death.

show abstract

Section: Different Treatment Of Corpses Vs Asleep Individuals: Asleementioning

confidence: 96%

How to Tell If Animals Can Understand Death

Monsó

2019

Erkenn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Smith and Litchfield (2010) showed that dingoes completed a spatial problem-solving task far more successfully than dogs (Pongrácz et al 2001(Pongrácz et al , 2005(Pongrácz et al , 2008, exhibiting shorter latencies and fewer errors, as well as no signs of frustration or confusion. Further, like wolves (Fox, 1971;Frank 1980;Mech 1991), dingoes have exhibited complex problem-solving behaviours such as tool use in captivity (Smith et al 2012), and have been documented responding to the death of a conspecific in a wild population in a manner previously only observed in other recognisably sapient species such as primates, some cetaceans, and elephants (Appleby et al 2013). Miklósi et al (2003) concluded that one of the main differences between dog and wolf behaviour is the dog's willingness to engage in mutual eye contact with humans, and to use looking as a method of communication.…”

Section: Behavioural Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taxonomic status of the Australian dingo: the case for Canis dingo Meyer, 1793

Smith

Cairns

Adams

et al. 2019

Zootaxa

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…This is likely to be an inaccurate representation given the majority of descriptions of the dingo (e.g., Kaleski 1933;Hudson 1974;Macintosh 1975;Walters 1995;Oakman 2001) and results from the scientific literature reporting that dingoes are more proficient at solving problems (at least in terms of non-social problem-solving tasks than domestic dogs; Smith and Litchfield 2010a, 2010b and capable of higher-order cognitive processes (Smith, Appleby and Litchfield 2012;Appleby, Smith and Jones 2013). It is possible that owners rated their dingoes high on "intelligent" and "clever," but scored dingoes so low on the training-related items that it masked the overall influence of intelligence-related items.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Living with Wild Dogs: Personality Dimensions in Captive Dingoes (Canis dingo) and Implications for Ownership

Smith

2014

Anthrozoös

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the commonly held belief that wild canines do not make "good" household companions, many people choose to live with them. The aim of the present study was to investigate owner-rated personality in a population of dingoes living as companion animals. Owners recruited from a registered dingo organization assessed the personality of 40 dingoes using the Monash Canine Personality Questionnaire-Revised (MCPQ-R). The dingoes (22 female; 18 male) ranged in age from 6 months to 11 years (M = 3.6 years, SD = 2.4); weighed an average of 19.07 kg (SD = 3.41); were mostly entire (i.e., not de-sexed or spayed or neutered; 62.5%) and lived in multiple dingo households (72.5%). Results show that dingoes were rated significantly higher than domestic dogs (n = 455; various breeds from a previous Australian study) for the dimension Motivation/Self-Assuredness (p < 0.001), and significantly lower than dogs for Training Focus (p < 0.001). Many of the personality traits of dingoes reside outside what is considered "ideal" characteristics important for a successful and rewarding dog-owner relationship. It is possible that dingo personality rests within the realms of what is "acceptable" pet canine behavior, at least for some owners, and that they may have adjusted their perception and attitudes to meet their expectations of the species. Motivations for dingo ownership and the applicability of using a domestic dog personality questionnaire on wild canids are discussed.

show abstract

Observations of a free-ranging adult female dingo (Canis dingo) and littermates’ responses to the death of a pup

Cited by 37 publications

References 25 publications

How to Tell If Animals Can Understand Death

How to Tell If Animals Can Understand Death

Taxonomic status of the Australian dingo: the case for Canis dingo Meyer, 1793

Living with Wild Dogs: Personality Dimensions in Captive Dingoes (Canis dingo) and Implications for Ownership

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About