Taxonomic status and conservation strategy of the endangered red wolf: a response to Kyle et al. (2006)

Murray, Dennis L.; Waits, Lisette P.

doi:10.1007/s10592-007-9307-1

Cited by 18 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because the currently accepted view that the original species of wolf found in northeastern North america was the Eastern Wolf and not the Gray Wolf (Wilson et al 2009;Fain et al 2010;Mech 2010Mech , 2011Chambers et al 2012;Rutledge et al 2012aRutledge et al , 2012b (although see vonholdt et al 2011), the northeastern Coyote (harboring Eastern Wolf genes) likely retains some of the original genetic diversity of canids from northeastern North america, even from areas where the Eastern Wolf has been extirpated (Murray and Waits 2007;Kyle et al 2008).…”

Section: Conclusion Regarding Hybridization In Eastern Canismentioning

confidence: 99%

Taxonomic Implications of Morphological and Genetic Differences in Northeastern Coyotes (Coywolves) (Canis latrans × C. lycaon), Western Coyotes (C. latrans), and Eastern Wolves (C. lycaon or C. lupus lycaon)

Way

2013

Can Field Nat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The eastern Coyote or Coywolf (Canis latrans × C. lycaon) inhabiting northeastern North America resulted from hybridization between the expanding population of the western Coyote (Canis latrans) and the remnant population of Eastern Wolf (C. lycaon) and possibly domestic dogs (C. lupus familiaris) in the early 20th century. This study compares the body mass of eastern (i.e., northeastern) Coyotes, western Coyotes, and Eastern Wolves and synthesizes the recent literature to gain better insight into the taxonomic relations and differences of closely-related Canis species. Northeastern Coyotes (males = 16.5 kg; females = 14.7 kg) were statistically (P < 0.0001) intermediate in mass between western Coyotes (males = 12.2 kg; females = 10.7 kg) and Eastern Wolves (males = 28.2 kg, females = 23.7 kg), consistent with their hybrid origin, but were numerically closer to western Coyotes. Large Cohen’s d (3.00–8.56), (0.915–0.929), and Cohen’s f (3.28–3.62) values indicated large effect sizes from the body mass comparisons. Eastern Wolves were 61–71% heavier than the same sex in the northeastern Coyotes, which in turn were ca. 35–37% heavier than the same sex in the western Coyotes. Alternatively, western Coyotes were 73–74% of the size of the same sex in the northeastern Coyotes, which in turn were 59–62% of the size of the same sex in the Eastern Wolves. I also attempted to relate mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplotypes to body mass. Six of 17 (35.3%) adult female northeastern Coyotes captured in Massachusetts weighed ≥18 kg, heavier than any other described Coyote from outside northeastern North America. Mitochondrial DNA haplotypes associated with these heavy female northeastern canids were C9 = 4, C19 = 1, and C48 = 1. Body mass (kg) and mtDNA haplotype data of 53 northeastern Coyotes (males = 28, females = 25) showed no difference between haplotype and body mass for males (P < 0.852) or females (P < 0.128), suggesting that there is not a particular haplotype (e.g., C1) that is associated with the heavier animals. I propose that the most appropriate name for this hybrid animal is Coywolf (Canis latrans × C. lycaon), rather than a type of Coyote. Coywolves are distinct, being larger than any other population of Coyotes but smaller than Eastern Wolves. I propose that the 5 distinct types of Canis be recognized as: western Coyote, Coywolf (northeastern Coyote), Eastern Wolf (including Red Wolf C. rufus), Gray × Eastern Wolf hybrids (‘Great Lakes’ Wolves; C. lupus × C. lycaon or C. lycaon × C. lupus), and Gray Wolf (C. lupus). The implications for wolf recovery in the northeastern United States is discussed.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion Regarding Hybridization In Eastern Canismentioning

confidence: 99%

Taxonomic Implications of Morphological and Genetic Differences in Northeastern Coyotes (Coywolves) (Canis latrans × C. lycaon), Western Coyotes (C. latrans), and Eastern Wolves (C. lycaon or C. lupus lycaon)

Way

2013

Can Field Nat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hybridization between these taxa, however, has blurred their distinctiveness across much of their current distribution (Grewal et al 2004). While Murray and Waits (2007) acknowledge that C. rufus are plausibly conspecific with C. lycaon, they argue that the taxonomy is uncertain. Alternative taxonomic hypotheses outlined by Murray and Waits (2007), however, are largely refuted by recent molecular findings (Kyle et al 2006).…”

Section: Taxonomic Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While Murray and Waits (2007) acknowledge that C. rufus are plausibly conspecific with C. lycaon, they argue that the taxonomy is uncertain. Alternative taxonomic hypotheses outlined by Murray and Waits (2007), however, are largely refuted by recent molecular findings (Kyle et al 2006). Interestingly, molecular data are generally embraced when elucidating cryptic evolutionary partitions, yet the demotion of taxonomic rank of an endangered organism is often resisted given perceived detriments to conservation efforts and funding (Bowen 1999;Karl and Bowen 1999).…”

Section: Taxonomic Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Contemporary hybridization of red wolves with western coyotes is viewed as anthropogenically influenced, and a threat to conservation (Fredrickson and Hedrick 2006;Murray and Waits 2007; but see Wilson et al 2003, C. latrans/lycaon hybridization may predate contemporary coyote expansion). While we are not at odds with the red wolf recovery program, and agree that anthropogenically influenced hybridization should be minimized (Allendorf et al 2001), a level of pragmatism is required.…”

Section: Hybridizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These authors acknowledge the genetic similarity of red wolves (Canis rufus) and eastern wolves (C. lycaon), yet they are concerned with conservation recommendations within Kyle et al (2006) that they believe would imperil current red wolf recovery efforts. While Kyle et al (2006) focus on the broader distribution of eastern wolves in south central Canada, and not red wolves, Murray and Waits (2007) raise several important points that lead us to examine red wolf conservation strategies. Further, we discuss how hybridization between canid taxa should not always be negatively viewed, and may allow eastern wolf genes to persist in regions from which they would otherwise be extirpated.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The conspecific nature of eastern and red wolves: conservation and management implications

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impact of taxonomic change on conservation: Does it kill, can it save, or is it just irrelevant?

Morrison

Lohr

Duchen

et al. 2009

Biological Conservation

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taxonomic status and conservation strategy of the endangered red wolf: a response to Kyle et al. (2006)

Cited by 18 publications

References 17 publications

Taxonomic Implications of Morphological and Genetic Differences in Northeastern Coyotes (Coywolves) (<em>Canis latrans</em> × <em>C. lycaon</em>), Western Coyotes (<em>C. latrans</em>), and Eastern Wolves (<em>C. lycaon</em> or <em>C. lupus lycaon</em>)

Taxonomic Implications of Morphological and Genetic Differences in Northeastern Coyotes (Coywolves) (<em>Canis latrans</em> × <em>C. lycaon</em>), Western Coyotes (<em>C. latrans</em>), and Eastern Wolves (<em>C. lycaon</em> or <em>C. lupus lycaon</em>)

The conspecific nature of eastern and red wolves: conservation and management implications

The impact of taxonomic change on conservation: Does it kill, can it save, or is it just irrelevant?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About