What is the taxonomic identity of Minnesota wolves?

Abstract

The taxonomic identity of the historical and current wolf (Canis lupus L., 1758 or Canis lycaon Schreber, 1775 or their hybrids) population in Minnesota (MN) and the Great Lakes region has been, and continues to be, controversial. So too does its legal status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. This review summarizes the morphological and genetic information about that population and concludes that historically the MN population consisted of a gray wolf (C. lupus) in the west and an eastern type (Canis lupus lycaon or C. lycaon) in the east with intergrades or hybrids between the two in most of the state. After extirpation in much of its original MN range, the now-recovered population was infused with gray wolves from Ontario but still consists of hybrid lycaon  gray wolves, probably with higher content gray wolves in the west and higher content lycaon in the east but with most wolves morphologically appearing to be gray wolves. Because the current Wisconsin and Michigan wolf population was derived from MN wolves, they would be primarily hybrids as well. Future research should seek to relate genetic data with morphological measurements in MN wolves. In addition, attempts to breed coyotes (Canis latrans Say, 1823) with gray wolves in captivity would shed considerable light on the controversy over the origin and taxonomic identity of the newly proposed C. lycaon.Résumé : L'identité taxonomique des populations passée et actuelle de loups (Canis lupus L., 1758 ou Canis lycaon Schreber, 1775 ou leurs hybrides) au Minnesota (MN) et dans la région des Grands Lacs a été et continue d'être controversée. Il en va de même de leur statut légal vis-à-vis la loi américaine sur les espèces menacées. La présente rétrospective résume les renseignements morphologiques et génétiques sur la population du MN et conclut que la population historique de loups comprenait des loups gris (C. lupus) dans l'ouest et un forme différente (Canis lupus lycaon ou C. lycaon) dans l'est avec des formes de transition ou des hybrides entre les deux sur la majeure partie de l'état. Après son extirpation sur une grande proportion de son aire de répartition originale au MN, la population maintenant restaurée a été infiltrée par des loups gris en provenance de l'Ontario, mais est toujours constituée d'hybrides des loups lycaon  gris, probablement avec une prédominance de loups gris dans l'ouest et de lycaon dans l'est, bien que la plupart des loups ressemblent morphologiquement à des loups gris. Parce que les populations actuelles de loups du Wisconsin et du Michigan sont dérivées des loups du MN, elles sont aussi probablement en majorité des hybrides. Les recherches futures devraient viser à relier les données génétiques aux mesures morphologiques chez les loups du MN. De plus, des tentatives pour accoupler des coyotes (Canis latrans Say, 1823) avec des loups gris en captivité devraient apporter un important éclairage sur la controverse au sujet de l'origine et de l'identité taxonomique du taxon nouvellement proposé C. lycaon.[Traduit par la Rédact...

An Account of the Taxonomy of North American Wolves From Morphological and Genetic Analyses

“…Morphometric analyses by Skeel and Carbyn (1977) provide general support for a comparable distribution of larger and smaller wolves in central Canada. Autosomal microsatellite data (Carmichael et al 2007(Carmichael et al , 2008) distinguish C. 1. nubilus from C. 1. occidentalis in the northeastern portion of its range, and both microsatellite and mtDNA data (Weckworth et al 2005(Weckworth et al , 2010Munoz-Fuentes et al 2009, 2010 Nowak (1995Nowak ( , 2003, at least in the areas covered by those studies.…”

“…Skeel and Carbyn's (1977, (Nowak 1995(Nowak , 2002(Nowak , 2009), Nowak recognizes the eastern wolf as a subspecies of C. lupus and restricts its range to southern portions of Ontario and Quebec, while attributing Minnesota wolves to C. 1. nubilus. His Minnesota samples, however, were taken after 1960 (Nowak 1995(Nowak 2002, during a period of likely increased movement into Minnesota of C. 1. nubilus from the west and north (Mech and Frenzel 1971;Mech and Paul 2008;Mech 2010;Mech et al 2011). Nowak's data for Minnesota likely reflect this substantial and recent contribution of C. 1. nubilus to Minnesota wolves.…”

“…The eastern wolf has been interpreted as having a common ancestry with the coyote (Wilson et al 2000), so the gray wolf-coyote admixture in the Great Lakes sample would also be consistent with gray wolf-eastern wolf admixture. The inadvertent inclusion of gray wolves in the Great Lakes sample (e.g., 11 individuals were from Minnesota, which is known to have a high C. lupus influence [Mech and Paul 2008;Mech 2010] Nowak (1995). Finally, the first two axes of the PCA (vonHoldt et al 2011, figure 3) account for relatively little of the variance (100% and 1.7%, respectively); the first principal component separates dogs from the wild canids, but does not separate wolves from coyotes.…”

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 hybrid was originally called the Tweed Wolf (Kolenosky and Standfield 1975;Wilson et al 2009). Recent research indicates that the medium-sized Eastern Wolf (Rutledge et al 2010b;Chambers et al 2012;Rutledge et al 2012aRutledge et al , 2012b was probably the original species native to northeastern North america, with potential influence from Gray Wolves (Canis lupus) (or their hybrids) from the north (Kyle et al 2008;Wilson et al 2009;Fain et al 2010;Mech 2010;Chambers et al 2012;Wheeldon and Patterson 2012), but see the discussion in vonholdt et al (2011) for an alternate interpretation. In addition, a new theory (vonholdt et al 2011) (also see Wheeldon and Patterson 2012) holds that domestic dogs (C. lupus familiaris) contributed ~9% to the genetic composition of the northeastern Coyote (previous genetic studies detected no dog influence (Way et al 2010) or insignificant amounts (Kays et al 2010)).…”

“…Most of the recent reviews on eastern North american Canis have focused on Eastern Wolves and have concluded that the Eastern Wolf is a distinct species (e.g., Fain et al 2010;Mech 2010Mech , 2011Chambers et al 2012;Rutledge et al 2012a). however, there has also been an abundance of recent papers on Coyote genetics in eastern North america (e.g., Chambers 2010; Kays et al 2010;Way et al 2010;Wheeldon et al 2010a;Bozarth et al 2011), and I therefore attempt to synthesize these papers.…”