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

Smith, BP; Cairns, KM; Adams, JW; Newsome, TM; Fillios, M; Déaux, EC; Parr, WCH; Letnic, M; van Eeden, LM; Appleby, RG; Bradshaw, CJA; Savolainen, P; Ritchie, EG; Nimmo, DG; Archer-Lean, C; Greenville, AC; Dickman, CR; Watson, L; Moseby, KE; Doherty, TS; Wallach, AD; Morrant, DS; Crowther, MS

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

Smith, BP Cairns, KM Adams, JW Newsome, TM Fillios, M Déaux, EC Parr, WCH Letnic, M van Eeden, LM Appleby, RG Bradshaw, CJA Savolainen, P Ritchie, EG Nimmo, DG Archer-Lean, C Greenville, AC

Dickman, CR Watson, L Moseby, KE Doherty, TS Wallach, AD

Morrant, DS Crowther, MS

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Zootaxa, 2019, 4564 (1), pp. 173 - 197
Issue Date:: 2019-01-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	47098-157048-1-PB.pdf	Published Version	1.76 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Smith, BP	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Cairns, KM	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Adams, JW	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Newsome, TM	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Fillios, M	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Déaux, EC	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Parr, WCH	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Letnic, M	en_US
dc.contributor.author	van Eeden, LM	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Appleby, RG	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Bradshaw, CJA	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Savolainen, P	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Ritchie, EG	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Nimmo, DG	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Archer-Lean, C	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Greenville, AC https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0113-4778	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Dickman, CR	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Watson, L	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Moseby, KE	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Doherty, TS	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Wallach, AD https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6640-3887	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Morrant, DS	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Crowther, MS	en_US
dc.date.issued	2019-01-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Zootaxa, 2019, 4564 (1), pp. 173 - 197	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1175-5326	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/136534
dc.description.abstract	Copyright © 2019 Magnolia Press. 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.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Zootaxa	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.11646/zootaxa.4564.1.6	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Zoology	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Animals	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Canidae	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Dogs	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Wolves	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Phylogeny	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Australia	en_US
dc.title	Taxonomic status of the Australian dingo: The case for Canis dingo Meyer, 1793	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	1	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	4564	en_US
utslib.for	0608 Zoology	en_US
utslib.for	0603 Evolutionary Biology	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Science
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Science/School of Life Sciences
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	1	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	4564	en_US

Abstract:

Copyright © 2019 Magnolia Press. 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.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/136534