The Identity of the Dingo I. Morphological Discriminants of Dingo and Dog Skulls.

Newsome, A. E.; Corbett, LK; Carpenter, SM

doi:10.1071/zo9800615

Cited by 37 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of skull measurements to differentiate pure Dingoes from Domestic Dogs and hybrids was initiated by Macintosh (1975) and further refined by Newsome et al (1980), Newsome and Corbett (1982. These equations have subsequently been used by various studies throughout Australia (but see criticisms of these approaches by Jones 1990Jones , 2009, often conducted in conjunction with a visual phenotype assessment (e.g.…”

Section: Hybridization and Introgression Between Dingoes And Domesticmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Wayward Dog: Is the Australian native dog or Dingo a distinct species?

Jackson

Groves

Flemming

et al. 2017

Zootaxa

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The taxonomic identity and status of the Australian Dingo has been unsettled and controversial since its initial description in 1792. Since that time it has been referred to by various names including Canis dingo, Canis lupus dingo, Canis familiaris and Canis familiaris dingo. Of these names C. l. dingo and C. f. dingo have been most often used, but it has recently been proposed that the Australian Dingo should be once again recognized as a full species-Canis dingo. There is an urgent need to address the instability of the names referring to the Dingo because of the consequences for management and policy. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the morphological, genetic, ecological and biological data to determine the taxonomic relationships of the Dingo with the aim of confirming the correct scientific name. The recent proposal for Canis dingo as the most appropriate name is not sustainable under zoological nomenclature protocols nor based on the genetic and morphological evidence. Instead we proffer the name C. familiaris for all free-ranging dogs, regardless of breed and location throughout the world, including the Australian Dingo. The suggested nomenclature also provides a framework for managing free-ranging dogs including Dingoes, under Australian legislation and policy. The broad principles of nomenclature we discuss here apply to all free-roaming dogs that coexist with their hybrids, including the New Guinea Singing Dog.

show abstract

Section: Hybridization and Introgression Between Dingoes And Domesticmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Wayward Dog: Is the Australian native dog or Dingo a distinct species?

Jackson

Groves

Flemming

et al. 2017

Zootaxa

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(1980) were anterior to posterior alveolar distance along the lower premolars (P 1 to P 4 ), maximum maxillary width, bulla volume (ml), midcrown width of the upper carnassial tooth (P 4 ), basal crown length of the upper canine (C 1 ) and width of the nasal bones at the premaxilla-maxilla nasal suture. Newsome & Corbett (1982) used the same six measurements as Newsome et al . (1980), but additionally incorporated opisthion to inion height and cranial height from the upper notch of the auditory meatus to the bregma.…”

Section: Skull Morphologymentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Initial studies that used skull morphology to discriminate dingoes from other wild dogs first investigated possible characters that may provide separation between dingoes and dogs (Macintosh, 1975;Newsome, Corbett & Carpenter, 1980). However, to avoid copious measurements that were difficult to define and accurately measure, many authors reduced the number of measurements that were used in the final skull analyses to those that had the greatest statistical significance between groups.…”

Section: Skull Morphologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies that have investigated the skull morphology of dingoes and dogs have found that 'pure' dingoes usually exhibit a longer muzzle, which is correlated with the alveolar distance from P 1 to P 4 (Newsome et al, 1980;Newsome & Corbett, 1982); larger canine (C 1 ) and carnassial (P 4 ) teeth, with canine teeth slightly longer and more slender; larger auditory bullae (Newsome et al, 1980;Newsome & Corbett, 1982;Corbett, 1995;Walters, 1995); and a flatter cranium with larger nuchal (Newsome et al, 1980;Newsome & Corbett, 1982) and sagittal crests (Gollan, 1984;Jones, 1990). These characters are directly related to predation (Newsome et al, 1980), and probably reflect the differences in diet, as captive dingoes are not required to catch and masticate prey in the same manner as their wild counterparts (Newsome & Corbett, 1982;Wisley, Ososky & Buskirk, 2002).…”

Section: Skull Morphologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing the taxonomic status of dingoes Canis familiaris dingo for conservation

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. The conservation status of the dingo Canis familiaris dingo is threatened by hybridization with the domestic dog C. familiaris familiaris . A practical method that can estimate the different levels of hybridization in the field is urgently required so that animals below a specific threshold of dingo ancestry (e.g. 1/4 or 1/2 dingoes) can reliably be identified and removed from dingo populations. 2. Skull morphology has been traditionally used to assess dingo purity, but this method does not discriminate between the different levels of dingo ancestry in hybrids. Furthermore, measurements can only be reliably taken from the skulls of dead animals. 3. Methods based on the analysis of variation in DNA are able to discriminate between the different levels of hybridization, but the validity of this method has been questioned because the materials currently used as a reference for dingoes are from captive animals of unproven genetic purity. The use of pre-European materials would improve the accuracy of this method, but suitable material has not been found in sufficient quantity to develop a reliable reference population. Furthermore, current methods based on DNA are impractical for the field-based discrimination of hybrids because samples require laboratory analysis. 4. Coat colour has also been used to estimate the extent of hybridization and is possibly the most practical method to apply in the field. However, this method may not be as powerful as genetic or morphological analyses because some hybrids (e.g. Australian cattle dog × dingo) are similar to dingoes in coat colour and body form. This problem may be alleviated by using additional visual characteristics such as the presence/absence of ticking and white markings.

show abstract

“…The traditional parameters used to distinguish between dingoes, hybrids and dingo-like domestic dogs are based on skull morphology, pelt colours and breeding patterns (Newsome et al 1980;Newsome and Corbett 1982;Catling et al 1992;Corbett 2001a). By these criteria, hybrids are considered to exist in all populations throughout Australia but especially in the south and east of the country (Newsome and Corbett 1985;Jones 1990;Woodall et al 1996).…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

Redefining introgressed protected mammals: when is a wildcat a wild cat and a dingo a wild dog?

Daniels¹,

Corbett²

2003

Wildl. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interbreeding between protected species and their domestic forms presents a conundrum for wildlife managers and legislators with respect to both defining the taxa concerned and enacting or enforcing conservation measures. Recent research on two species geographically distant but with highly analogous histories, the wildcat (Felis silvestris) in Scotland and the dingo (Canis lupus dingo) in Australia, illustrates the challenges faced. Introgression has left the contemporary wild form of both species difficult to distinguish from many of their domesticated forms. Furthermore, historical definitions, and the protective legislation based on them, have been rendered obsolete by subsequent anthropogenic environmental change. We argue that a new approach is necessary for defining mammalian species in the face of introgression with their domestic forms and environmental change, including persecution. Protecting animals for where and how they live, and for their cultural or ecosystem function value rather than focusing on their appearance, offers the best solution for maintaining their conservation status. W R 0 2 0 4 5 R e d e f i n i n g i n t r o g r e s s e d p r o t e c t e d m a m m a l s M . J . Da n i e l s a n d L . C o r b e t t

show abstract

The Identity of the Dingo I. Morphological Discriminants of Dingo and Dog Skulls.

Cited by 37 publications

References 0 publications

The Wayward Dog: Is the Australian native dog or Dingo a distinct species?

The Wayward Dog: Is the Australian native dog or Dingo a distinct species?

Assessing the taxonomic status of dingoes Canis familiaris dingo for conservation

Redefining introgressed protected mammals: when is a wildcat a wild cat and a dingo a wild dog?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About