Animation Source Forums

Wow. Nice, Outlaw. ^^

-pats back commendably-

How 'bout we leave all the bruised ego's for what they are and get back to the topic at hand?
I've heard a lot of people saying thing like "wolf compares to dog like man to whale", to illustrate that a dog isn't anything like a wolf (with some weird racism analogy thrown in the mix).
This is not true; if you breed a wolf and a dog, they produce fertile offspring. This means they are the same species, you know. That's the way we define species: mate it, and if the offspring is fertile, they're the same species (that's why, for example, as mentioned before "the Fox should be in a family of its own, because the Fox can't breed with anything, but another Fox").
It is true that dogs evolved from wolves, but not far enough to become a distinct specie. They both belong to the specie "canis lupus", and the dog is a sub-specie (not a full specie), "familiaris".

Rather than shoot at a wolf,I'd rather fire shots in the air,and scare them off.

Sub-species thus not a full species as is being argued.

Dogs are a member of the wolf family therefore?
Like the Zebra is a member of the horse family?
And a Lion is a member of the cat family?

Zebras and Donkeys have mated and produced fertile offspring. [Off topic]

Your argument is false. Family doesn't equal specie (par consequence, a subspecie isn't the same as a member of the family).

Family of the cats and lions: Felidae (contains lions ans housecats)
[Genus of lions: Panthera (no housecats!)]
Specie of the lion: Panthera leo (no housecats!)

Family of the dogs and wolves: Canidae (contains wolves and dogs)
[Genus of the dogs and wolves: Canis (contains wolves and dogs)]
Specie of the dogs and wolves: Canis lupus (contains wolves and dogs)
Sub-specie of the dog: c.l. familiaris (not a full specie)

Thus: lions and cats belong in the same family, but not in the same specie, while the dogs and wolves do belong in the same specie.

Oh well, it doesn't make a great deal of difference to me either way.

But just one question - Irish Wolfhounds are dogs, right? Lurchers? They were bred to kill wolves. If they're the same species.. hmm? Not really agreeing with this here.

Wolves are wild animals, dogs are domestic pets.

Well, I'm glad we've finally established that.






I agree fully. If you breed a wolf and a dog you get fertile offspring; because they're the same. However, even though Lions and Tigers are both in the Felidae family, they produce an infertile offspring; so maybe they're not as similar as SCIENTISTS say they are.



In any case; I'm happy to say that some of us are finally on the same page. Wolves are no different from dogs except that the ones that live in the wild aren't domesticated (that was redundant XD). But if you do domesticate a wolf and raise it like a dog, like Outlaw said, it will act like a dog.

So, now that we're in agreement that they're the same and can be domesticated, it's all a matter of debating why wolves (as well as their other misunderstood brother, the pit bull or rottweiler) aren't as openly accepted as other dogs.



Ah, but that's where the difference in BREED comes in...they can be an entirely different breed yet still be the same species (like a Mustang and a Clydesdale...2 totally different breeds, same species).



On a side note, I personally think wolves should be accepted into AKC dog shows simply as another breed (same goes for Dingoes or anything else that can produce fertile offspring with a dog).

No, I don't.

If 2 creatures can breed and have a fertile offspring together, they're the SAME thing.

Humans and gorillas can't breed and have fertile offspring. Why is that, I wonder? Oh, because they're NOT the same species.

Humans: Homo Sapian
Gorilla: Gorilla gorilla

Not even CLOSE to being the same. So, because gorillas are smart and have hands that makes them human-like? There are many animals who are smart (EX: Dolphin) and many more with little hands (EX: Raccoon). Does that make them all related to humans? No, it doesn't.

Now, let's see the similarities between wolves and dogs:
They both live in and hunt in packs (you don't believe me, check out the wild dog packs in New York's Central Park.) They both have 60-63 days of gestation; the pups open their eyes at the same time and they mature in much the same rate as most other dogs (not all dogs are the same; that would be boring, wouldn't it? But they don't all have to be EXACTLY identical to be the same).

As I said before; If they can breed and make a fertile baby, they're the same.

Kinda puts a gap in the scientists' fool-proof grouping method, doesn't it?

My Point: Don't rely 100% on scientists. If something doesn't seem right to you, it's okay to question their opinions (cause that's all they are).

Until they can create a test that determines whether a dog is part wolf, they're the same, because they produce a fertile baby. There is currently NO test available that can differentiate Dog DNA from wolf DNA...because they're the same.

Now then...do you understand?

Oh yeah, GREAT idea. Encourage people to keep wild animals such as wolves as pets.
So they end up dying, confused, depressed and isolated from their kind tied up in a back yard.

Dogs are domestic pets. Wolves are wild animals. They could never adapt to life as a pet.

Unless raised by humans that is. Which I think is wrong.

It seems to be you who doesn't want to give up, actually. If it can breed and make fertile offspring, it is the same specie. End of story; this is how science defines a specie. Cats and lions could never make fertile offspring, that's why they are different species. Dogs and wolves can, so they are one and the same specie.
However, a dog is a sub-specie of the wolf, I'll give you that. They are different to some degree, but much less than humans vis a vis gorillas or cats and lions.
It's science, check any certified biology book.

Now now, calm down. There's no need to get paranoid - not me or anyone else is out to get you. Or insult you - if read my post calmly, you'll see I never go ad hominem. You just happen to have a lot of viewpoints that oppose mine; so of course I'll go against those. That' one of the uses of a board; we debate. You can't debate someone you agree with.
Now, back to the argument at hand: I don't think wolves are dogs,. Science says they are the same specie, check Wikipedia or any other more credible source if you don't believe me. Now, I just pointed out what science says (and if you don't agree, you are scientifically wrong), but that's all I did.
Again, if you read my post calmly, you'll never hear me say (read me type) that people should own wolves. You draw that conclusion by:
a/ making the argument "if [dog=wolf (specie)] and [all dogs can be owned] then [wolves can be owned]"
b/ confusing my opinion with that of 'rolla_wolf9'
Now, for what I'm concerned, not all dogs can be owned. We had that discussion before. Thus, if a wolf is the same specie as the dog (which it scientifically is, regardless of your opinion), for as far as I care, it's just another name to the list of dogs people shouldn't be allowed to own. People shouldn't be allowed to nominally own wolves, among others.