Talk:African wild dog/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Name Change

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page from African Wild Dog to African Hunting Dog, per the discussion below. Additionally, I have merged African Wild Dog name controversy into this article; that isn't in any way binding, and can be further discussed here if necessary. Dekimasuよ! 12:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have heard from several sources that the prefered name is now African hunting dog. I think this is an attempt to improve their public image and also to avoid possible confussion with feral domestic dogs. Would there be any objections to a name change for the article? Steve Dufour 15:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated it for a move. Please check out this search. Both Encyclopedia Britannica and Encarta call them African hunting dogs. Steve Dufour 01:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
You may be right and the name should stay for now. However in the future it seems that they will be called hunting dogs. Please consider the quality as well as the quantity of the references. Many of the newest and those of conservation groups working with the dogs themselves are getting away from "Wild Dog". Steve Dufour 04:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Here is an article which explains the problems with "Wild Dog", although they advocate "Painted Dog" [1]. Steve Dufour 16:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Perhaps this is the name preferred by conservation groups, but Wikipedia is not the place to attempt to improve their public image, however laudable this may be. Other encyclopedias are relevant but not the last word, as Britannica and Encarta (especially) have different naming conventions to ours. Andrewa 03:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I see that WP will probably not change this article's name. I have started an article about the controversy which I hope will be interesting to people concerned or interested in these animals: African Wild Dog name controversy Steve Dufour 15:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - I reserve my opinion until I consult Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed., 2005) which is the most official source for common names, among other things. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)oppose - MSW3 says African Wild Dog. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gestation

The article currently gives the length of time between litters, which is quite interesting, but not the length of gestation. Is the latter known? Could it be added? Cheers, Lindsay 20:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Various ref's say aprox 2 months - BBC site here [2] gives 69-72 days - "The New Encyclopedia of Animals" which I've got in paper form says 70 -73 days. In terms of what can be added to article I'd try to work in 'aprox. 70 days' citing those last two, unless anyone else can find better info/ref. -Hunting dog (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Weight

The weight range mentioned here is dubious. The source/reference mentioned for the weight of this species actually talks about Spotted Hyenas and not about the Hunting Dogs!

A spotted hyena can weigh much more than 36 kg.--Altaileopard (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
BBC ref I found gives same figures as currently in article - you're right though the citation goes to irrelevant page - I'll point to BBC page instead. Book I have here says 20-32kg which is inside same range so seems likely to be correct. -Hunting dog (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Monarchy

According to Martin Clunes a Man and his Dog, Wild Dogs are the only other animal to have hereditary rule, in that when the dominant male dies his first son will automatically take his place.For this reason they couldn't be domesticated by humans because a human would be unable to take over from another Wild dog, unlike with Wolves. Is this dumb founded or is this true (Woodnot 19:28, 24 November 2008

I doubt the statement is true, unless there are more trustworthy sources--sources that specialize on the species, for one thing--to back it up. There is a bit of logic to the idea, because a "firstborn" is naturally the oldest, and the oldest is most likely to be biggest, strongest, etc., traits which usually enable an animal to become dominant in a group. Even if the statement were true, I doubt it would have a very large impact on the possibility of their domestication--a human obviously would not "take over" a wild pack and expect the adult dogs to start obeying them like they were the alpha--they would steal and raise the pups, so the pups would basically grow up thinking that the humans were their parents. Whether the pups would "know" that the "firstborn" needed to become leader when the human alpha died is questionable, and like several behaviors seen in gray wolves, would probably have just been "bred out" to suit man's purposes. 70.216.128.101 (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

However, thanks to the kind donation of the Social structure section, Wild dogs do indeed practice a form of automatic, "semi" hereditary rule, but not exactly how Martin Clunes desacribed it. However, other animals practice herediatry rule, a male Bonobo and a female Baboon of at least two Baboon species automatically take the position of their mother, both species being matriarchal by the way. Going back to domestication, many wild animals get attracted to Human settlements by the copious amounts of litter Humans can produce, this would include Wolves. With such a wide selection of "vermin" some Humans would have wanted to get rid of them, but others may have started to experiment with domesticating them, a bit like the people who pick up stray cats from the street. These "experiments" could have been highly variable, and someone could have tried taking over a pack of wolves. Eventually, once people began to find uses for these various species, a process took place, which got more and more exaggerated as weapons technology progressed. The animals(such as wolves ect.) aggressive to humans got killed off, the ones who were scared of humans went back to the wild and continued as normal and the ones that "liked" humans stayed and got used for the various purposes i.e. power, warmth, food, clothing, "allies" etc. I hopeyou can make your own sumise from this. Woodnot 18:06 1 febuary 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC).

Crepuscular?

There is no mention in the article as to the African Wild Dog is most active. Is it crepuscular, diurnal, or something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.244.174 (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Sorry, I don't have time to dig into this issue right now, but there is suspicious content on this page. I haven't found a copyright-violated source, but... why are there apparent footnote-calls in the raw text. For example: "Adults typically weigh 17-36 kilograms (37-79 pounds).[3]" That "[3]" is not a wikipedia footnote but raw text. This implies it was copied from a different source where that 3 did in fact point to a footnote. There are several other footnotes like that. I would remove them; but figure I should leave them for people to figure this out. Thanks — Epastore (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like an incomplete attempt at reversing vandalism. Material was removed from the article on January 29 and replaced with obscenities; the obscenities were removed, but the deleted material was not immediately added back in. Ten days later, a different editor added the material back in by copy-pasting from the page view instead of the source code. That meant the references and other formatting were not added back correctly. I will try to correct the problem. Baileypalblue (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct Name

I grew up in Zimbabwe and it is always called the Hunting Dog there and elsewhere in Southern Africa. The name wild dog is usually used by visitors and tourists who are not normally familiar with it. I only once ever saw an individual as they have become much rarer over the last 25 years and difficult to find. I think the name of the article should be Hunting Dog - it is not a wild dog as that is the name of a dog that has no owner and is a possible carrier of rabies in Africa.--AssegaiAli 16:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a wild species, and a member of the family Canidae, that is, dogs. "Wild dog" does not imply that it is domesticated. "Feral" would imply that it or its ancestors were domesticated, and that the animal doesn't belong there--the word "wild" does not carry the same connotations except for those individuals who don't have their terminology straight. If you don't like the name, there are several alternatives, "painted wolf", etc. But this is just nitpicking--there is no reason to change the animal's name, there is nothing wrong with it. Even if there were, Wikipedia is simply an encyclopedia, changing the name here would not change the fact that it is still called a wild dog virtually everywhere else--it would just make it more difficult for people to find information on it. 75.211.84.6 (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Why don't they just call it "lycaon"? 79.2.247.239 (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Reason for male/female ratio questioned

"...In the African Wild Dog, the females compete for access to males that will help to rear their offspring. In a typical pack, males outnumber females by a factor of two to one, and only the dominant female is usually able to rear pups. This unusual situation may have evolved to ensure that packs do not over-extend themselves by attempting to rear too many litters at the same time.[7]..."

Should be more thoroughly explained, because one of the natural principal aims of any species is to multiply as much as possible, with limited resources and/or predators naturally keeping the population in check.

Bernie 189.129.200.44 (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Name

I do think serious consideration should be given to the term African hunting dog. It does appear that there is shift in preference towards African hunting dog, though African wild dog is still more common. Kobolola (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


I think this common name discussion is pointles and a waste of time, because that is precisely why (in the scientific community) latin is used for a species name, to avoid any confussion about what species one is refering to/talking about. I think the only situation where discussion or rather a correction would be in order, is if the common name was way out of or even wrong, like calling a seal an otter or something like that.

This common name diversity happens with any species and in any country and even in the same state of a given country. Why? Because, precisely, they are 'common' names, invention of the local culture and subject to no homologating authority. All the more reason for this name diversity to happen at a worldwide level.

As of the prejudice caused supposedly from its name, I think it is more a matter of education than really being a name prejudice. Would prejudice against wolves end if they were renamed 'forest hunting dogs'?

Bernie 189.129.200.44 (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Subspecies

I know there are ref's to the fact that the sub-species theoretically exist in the Lycaon genus but is there actually any information about them? I've only found references generally to 'Lycaon Pictus', I haven't found any info on the sub-species so far.. -Hunting dog (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There is now also a second, extinct species. Should the taxobox maybe be edited to reflect this? FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Lycaon pictus. Jafeluv (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

African Wild Dog → African wild dog — Per wp:MOS, "The initial letter of a title is capitalized (except in rare cases such as eBay). Otherwise, capital letters are used only where they would be used in a normal sentence." ErikHaugen (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: This is not the interpretation of WP:CAPS taken with respect to South American Gray Fox or Sechuran Fox for example, or most (not all) members of Category:Carnivorans of Africa for other examples. Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Common_name_capitalization is a relevant page but I'm having trouble finding the specific convention which it says probably exists. No vote as yet but I'm not convinced obviously. Andrewa (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
    South American Gray Fox should be South American gray fox and Sechuran Fox Sechuran fox. "I'm having trouble finding the specific convention which it says probably exists" - what says what probably exists? I've looked, and I'm pretty sure there is no guideline on Wikipedia that allows for this capitalization. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
    The project page to which I linked above reads Many of the WikiProjects listed above have defined standards for the capitalization of common names, which should be used when discussing the groups they focus on. There is currently no common standard, so no particular system should be enforced overall. But it does say many not most, so I'm stretching it a bit I confess. Andrewa (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The title is a species, and although I can't locate a specific mention in policy, it appears to be general consensus from the comment above. In a normal sentence the title's current capitalization would be correct as the species name is a proper noun. When referring to the species specifically as a whole, or an individual animal, each word of the species' name is usually capitalized. It is only when using the name as a plural, or adjective otherwise generically/attributively it would not be capitalized. --§Pumpmeup 13:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
    No, African wild dog is not a proper noun, and should not be capitalized. Proper noun says "A proper noun or proper name is a noun representing unique entities (such as London, Jupiter, John Hunter, or Toyota), as distinguished from a common noun which describe a class of entities (such as city, planet, person or car)." If this is not convincing, please also note that African wild dog does not seem to be capitalized in scholarly literature. Despite how Wikipedia has normally titled articles about carnivorans in Africa, I think most other articles titled with common names for species are not capitalized inappropriately. In any case, we ought not decide grammar by consensus on Wikipedia; such arguments should be decided on their merits. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna)#Capitalisation_of_common_names_of_species says "In general, common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in sentence case." There are some exceptions listed, for example apparently ornithologists have decided to not follow normal English writing conventions and they capitalize each word - at WP:BIRDS, a source has been provided to justify going against normal English writing conventions, so one would write "I saw a Bald Eagle" and the article is titled Bald Eagle. However, African wild dogs are not part of any group that is listed as an exception. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
    There are other exceptions in general English. Yes, "Toyota" is a unique entity, and is certainly a proper noun. But we don't write "Toyota land cruiser", despite a Land Cruiser not being a unique entity, but a "species" of Toyota – like virtually all other model names of manufactured items we treat it as a proper noun ("the Land Cruiser"). So species names could legitimately be treated in the same way, although my personal preference is for sentence case (see below). Richard New Forest (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is not about feral African domestic dogs, this is about a different species from the domestic dog. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
    No question about that; common names for species should not be capitalized, though. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna)#Capitalisation_of_common_names_of_species. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    Except in this case, decapitalizing gives some implication that it could refer to feral canis lupus familiaris in Africa. The capitalized form is less suggestive. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    I don't think this is a strong argument: it's perfectly apparent from the context that we are not talking about feral domestic dogs. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    76.66.194.212, there are a lot of things about English that promote ambiguity or at least do not discourage it as much as would be possible. If you and I were designing a language, we could address some of these. But we're not, we're writing an English language encyclopedia, and as such we should write correctly and not capitalize African wild dog inappropriately. As wp:CAPS says, "adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility." ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 03:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    I still think it's not a matter of "correctness", but usage and preference. Some style guides do recommend capitalisation; many others (including the WP MOS) recommend sentence case. (I'm much more dogmatic about only logical quotes being correct though, and WP recommends that too...) Richard New Forest (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    Which recommend capitalization? Are there any that apply to this article? Or are you referring to things like wp:BIRDS? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    Many other style guides exist than WP's. The only one that applies here is WP:CAPS as discussed above. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Also support either of the alternative proposals of move to Lycaon or Lycaon pictus: see below. 16:38, 26 November 2010 I think the choice between sentence case or capitalisation of species names is really a matter of preference. Although there are many people who are passionate proponents of capitalisation, I can't think of any really good arguments for it. My own preference is for sentence case, but actually the only good arguments I can think of for that are that it's more widely used in English writing, and that I like it (which is of course no argument at all). On balance, the MOS says for WP in general "avoid unnecessary capitalisation", and for vernacular names in particular it encourages sentence case, so we ought to go with that. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    It's not just a matter of preference; Wikipedia's guidelines support African wild dog. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 03:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, I was including WP in the set of entities which can hold a preference... Richard New Forest (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    Do you think the context of this debate should be "according to WP's guidelines, how should African wild dog be written?" I want to say "how should it be written in sentence case?" but people keep misusing "sentence case" in these debates so i can't. If so, does anyone know of any justification for opposing my move proposal? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't buy the argument that it is not a proper noun. It is "a noun representing a unique entity", that unique entity being a taxon; i.e. a formally defined class of organism. But I buy the argument that we should follow usage in reliable scholarly sources, and a quick look at Google Scholar confirms that usage is overwhelmingly lower case. Hesperian 07:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. per preceding - I don't think folks are going to be typing in "african wild dog" and not looking for this species too often...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The guidance of Wikipedia:TITLE#Considering_title_changes is, "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." A scan of January versions from 2005 to 2010 indicates that "African Wild Dog" has been stable for a long time. As 76.66.203.138 points out, capitalization disambiguates this species from feral African domestic dogs, thereby serving a useful purpose. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    I think I've addressed both points above. I don't think the wp:TITLE policy was designed to protect incorrect capitalization and in any case we have a "good reason": "adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility" (wp:CAPS). ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    I understand your views, but I don't agree with the weight you give to WP:CAPS. I'm sorry, but I don't see a consensus developing for this proposed move. A consensus may be more easily found for the scientific name in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Article_titles, "In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique (e.g. "Cuvier's dwarf caiman"), they should be used for article titles. Scientific names should be used otherwise." This species has no unique common name. African Hunting Dog, Painted Wolf, Cape Hunting Dog, Painted Dog, Painted Hunting Dog, Spotted Dog or Ornate Wolf are alternative common names that are listed in the lede. Nor does it have a consensus on the capitalization of the extant title. The scientific name is used more frequently in the scholarly literature (3670 to 2050), and is unique and unambiguous.[3][4] Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    So you're suggesting we move to Lycaon pictus? That may be best, if no common name is a clear winner. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Why not move to Lycaeon then? Then Lycaon sekowi could be included as well. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Right you are, Lycaon would probably be better than my suggestion of Lycaon pictus. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes: see WP:Fauna name#Article title. This recommends that "for monotypic genera, use the genus name for the article title". I think Lycaon sekowi is minor enough that Lycaon could count as monotypic in this instance. If L sekowi gained an article (or if Xenocyon lycaonoides was moved to Lycaon, or both), then it would be simple enough to move the L pictus material from Lycaon to Lycaon pictus, although it might be simpler to go for the latter first. Richard New Forest (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
One wrinkle with Lycaon is that it's a disambig page, so we'd probably have to move it to Lycaon (genus) instead. Because of this, Lycaon pictus might be preferable. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. My main reason is precision. The capitalised name is clearly the species, while the uncapitalised would also include feral dogs in Africa. We appear to have no clear guideline that's directly relevant, and it would be good to have one, but the more common practice with similar articles appears to be to capitalise. Strongly disagree with the claim above that changing the name is critically important to credibility, I think that's way over the top and sounding a bit desprit. Andrewa (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    I've addressed the concern about precision above; I agree, but we don't make the rules here at Wikipedia. Regarding credibility, I suppose yours might be a reasonable position, but the consensus behind the creation of that document seems to be that haphazard capitalization harms our credibility. If you disagree, I would suggest taking that argument to wp:CAPS; I don't think it's appropriate to flaunt that guideline here. "We appear to have no clear guideline that's directly relevant" - we do: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna)#Capitalisation_of_common_names_of_species. "more common practice with similar articles appears to be to capitalise" - What leads you to this conclusion? Bird/primate articles are (generally) capitalized, but I don't think that's more common? In any case, it doesn't really matter. Consensus/correctness dictate African wild dog – if there are more incorrectly capitalized articles then the solution would be to move those also, not keep the wrong ones wrong. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] See the link given above to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalisation of common names of species, which says "In general, common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in sentence case". Looks clear enough to me... The point about precision is also dealt with above: confusion is very unlikely in the context. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Disagree that the point on precision is adequately dealt with above. Agree that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalisation of common names of species should be relevant, but the page is unhelpful IMO... it lists some that go one way and some the other and it's not clear which sort this is. It lists a main page which is similarly unhelpful and links to three others ditto ditto! Disagree that confusion is unlikely. We're talking here of ease of navigation; People will eventually get to the right article whether this one is capitalised or not. It seems to me very likely that they'll get there faster if we avoid the needless ambiguity of lower case. Agree that if this article was clearly wrongly titled, then appealing to other article titles would be pointless; If they were similarly wrong then we should change them too. However this is a completely different scenario, and in a tricky decision such as this one it's helpful to see how others have handled similar cases in the past. Andrewa (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The point is not that lowercase is fundamentally better; I'm not disputing that a convention like uppercase for species names eliminates some confusion. You might be right. The point is that we don't make the rules. Wikipedia is simply not in the business of "fixing" English. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 02:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Totally agree that we're not in the business of fixing English, and that's not what I'm advocating. Andrewa (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
But you are making a style argument based on what is practical rather than what is conventional. Whether one capitalization is more or less vague than another unfortunately has nothing to do with which is correct written English, and so has no place in this discussion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Andrewa, it seems obvious "which sort this is". The naming conventions page clearly advises using sentence case unless there is a specific convention to do otherwise. There is no such convention for mammals.
Agree. And there should be IMO, as evidenced by the state of Category:Carnivorans of Africa. This discussion might lead to one, and a general cleanup of the general mess now in place. Andrewa (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
As for precision, are you really suggesting that anyone could come to this article looking for African feral domestic dogs and then be confused even for a moment? For a start, it's hardly a mainstream topic (to say the least). They'd have to be misusing the term "wild" (and probably "feral" too, as domestic dogs rarely if ever go truly feral). Then they'd have to ignore the scientific name and alternative vernacular names in the lead para. And if they were so very determined to be confused, would the presence of initial caps really settle their minds? I doubt it, and I am puzzled as to why caps should be needed to only possibly prevent such an extremely unlikely chain of events. If feral dogs are ever called "African wild dogs", the proper way to deal with it is surely to have a hatnote, regardless of capitalisation. There is already a dab for wild dog which deals with it perfectly well. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
No, I have never suggested that. Just that the capitalisation makes navigation easier. Please quote me accurately, otherwise the discussion is a waste of time. Andrewa (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


  • Support Per above arguments. sentence case and title case are valid, and both have arguments for them, but by now the animal projects have sort-of agreed that sentence case should be used in cases like this, as it is more common. —innotata 20:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A third option: Lycaon pictus

Please indicate support or opposition for moving the article to Lycaon pictus. Since African wild dog may not be a "reasonably unique" name (per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Article_titles) if other common names are widely used, it seems the scientific name might be more appropriate. I'm not suggesting Lycaon here because that is a disambiguation page and I think Lycaon pictus is better than Lycaon (genus): WP:PRECISION says " If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English... use that instead." I realize this isn't English, but I think the point remains. Also, there is another (extinct) species in this genus, L. sekowei. There seems to be some support for this in the discussion above, but it is somewhat buried so I don't think everyone can see it. I would close this discussion and start over but I can't really do that at this point. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Appears that even the disambig page is incorrect, we should have a way of including Lycaon sekowi too. FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I took a stab at addressing that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I realize "African wild dog" is probably most common common name, but I think in cases where there are other widely used names it might be better to use the scientific name instead. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support This species has no unique common name. African Hunting Dog, Painted Wolf, Cape Hunting Dog, Painted Dog, Painted Hunting Dog, Spotted Dog or Ornate Wolf are alternative common names that are listed in the lede. The scientific name is used more frequently in the scholarly literature (3670 to 2050), and is unique and unambiguous.[5][6] Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support None of the vernacular names is dominant, and several are potentially confusing. The scientific name is unambiguous and universally accepted. Richard New Forest (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Question Can someone who has not "participated in the move survey" close this discussion (and the one above), please? Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
    There is a huge backlog, so we probably just have to be patient. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Relatedness to dogs

Painted "dogs" are less closely related to domesticated dogs than grey wolves, coyotes or jackels. I can't find a date of how long ago they diverged or any good references though. But it should be mentioned in the article that they are not "dogs" any more than a jackal is. —Pengo 23:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The Raccoon dog is even less closely related to the domestic dog, which is a subspecies of the grey wolf. The one genus Canis contains "dogs", "wolves", "coyotes", and "jackals"; all of which can interbreed with each other. If logic was being followed they would all be called wolves or dogs or whatever you like. BTW the raccoon dog is very cute. Steve Dufour 01:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The genus Lycaon did probably branch from Canis some three million years ago, according to R. Conniff (1999) "Africa’s wild dogs." National Geographic 5:36-63. --83.108.104.71 09:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I realize I'm chiming in 4 years after but come on, this is ridiculous. I guarantee you Lycaon is closer to Canis than smilodons are to domestic cats—and yet we call them " saber-tooth cats". There's no need, given that the binomial nomenclature exists so scientists can avoid ambiguity, to also police common speech. Nagakura shin8 (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Move to African wild dog

Why was the article not moved. Accoring to the old discussion above, there was a majority, which supported a move to African wild dog. I would also support that. Regards, --Altaileopard (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Fact check please

I do not know that these animals typically catch Cape Buffalo, though the article seems to sugges that. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Consistent naming

Can one, consistent name be used throughout the article? It's distracting to the reader to see a sentence like this: "Unrelated painted hunting dogs sometimes join in packs, but this is usually temporary. Instead, unrelated cape dogs will occasionally attempt hostile takeovers of packs" where both the names "Painted hunting dogs" and "cape dogs" are used. I've seen various names used throughout the article. I'm not getting into the age-old name debate so someone of higher authority than I can choose the name to be used; it just looks unprofessional and distracting the way it is. -Abyssal Dreamer (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the naming is inconsistent because the title is the scientific name. If "cape hunting dog" were the title, it would be cape hunting dog the whole way through, if it were "African wild dog", it would be African wild dog the whole way through, etc. Personally, I prefer to use a combination of African wild dog and cape hunting dog. It used to be only African wild dog, but when I saw a scientific journal that used cape hunting dog, I began saying that as well. Brambleberry of RiverClanmeow 16:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Speed

The maximal speed of lycaons is situated between 45 and 50 km/h (30 mph)[7][8][9] in reality, has knowledge that it is one of less good sprinters of the savanna (lions, leopards and hyenas speckled are faster than him with 58 km/h in meters (36 mph)), attention on his appearance, he is very high on legs, and very thin, but he has a specific muscle structure adapted to the long-distance races and not to the sprint, he has no power contraiment in many of the other wild animals on the other hand there stamina it is one of better mammals, because we timed them in 45 / 50 km/h (30 mph) on about 5 kilometers. Finally, that we feel reassured, they are all the same faster than the humans, the sheeps or still the elephants.

Sites either he marked 45 mph (72 km/h) there are not the reality.--85.170.228.86 (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

His speed is 48 km/h (30 mph), on average and up to 74 km/h (46 mph) top speed, but in that case Greyhound exceeds him because it is 63 km/h (39 mph) on average and top speed 89 km/h (55 mph), the greyhound is faster than the lycaon.--Angel310 (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

kill success rate

really, Wild Dogs have kills in 8/9 of 10 times lol? I find that hard to belive, and it looks more like biased info from an unreliable book source.. I'd like to see other references that confirms this to make it beliveable, from academic/scientistic sources, and not from some "amateur best-seller safari" book.. --109.58.22.92 (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It is can be true because they are the best hunters of the fact whether he is in group and enduring course, but all the predators without exception attacks herbivores thus prey ideally; weak, patient, old, hurt, young, female in gestation, it are the least strong, the least fast and the least watchful.

Most of the time herbivores in good phisiques conditions escape the predators, the predators are opportunist, it is so the natural selection.--Angel310 (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

These dogs have been criticized for a cruel method of killing, by eating their prey alive?

How can a wild animal be cruel? What method of killing (that can be successfully used by an animal without opposing thumbs) during a hunt for food is humane? Why is eating prey alive more cruel than, say, tearing it into bleeding shreds until it loses consciousness from blood loss and shock before eating it? And what led a human being to the point where they felt the need to actively criticise a wild animal in this way?

I suppose we could try and teach them to use a captive bolt gun or Pentobaribital before the kill but I can see the experiment failing horribly in several key areas. Tj1916 (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Pittsburgh incident

Given that, as the page says, "it is not clear if the boy was killed by the dogs or the fall," is this incident really important in understanding the African painted dog as a species.?Given that, presumably, these dogs attack humans in their natural habitat regularly, is an opportunistic event at an American zoo really something to immortalize in an encyclopedia description of the species. I think not - Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Every attack by a zoo animal is news, but not necessarily noteworthy, any more than a description of every murder belongs on the Human page. Agricolae (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Coloring/Coat

I thought there would be some information here about this species very unusual coloring/coat but it's not even touched on. It seems odd that it is half-spotted and then half-solid or -striped. It is an unusual form of camouflage that actually seems to draw attention to it. Has any study been done on it? Liz Read! Talk! 14:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Presence in Serengeti

I spotted a group of at least 6 individuals in the Serengeti in December 2014 (the first time our guide had seen any for at least three years), so can confirm their continued presence there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyFinbar (talk • contribs) 16:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. No objections, and valid reasoning. Note: I will have to request deletion of the target page, so this move may be delayed for a short while. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


Lycaon pictus → African wild dog – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. African wild dog almost exclusively refer to Lycaon pictus, not feral domesticated grey wolves in the first page of Google search, and gets about 10,100,000 results (0.22 seconds),[1] while Lycaon pictus gets much lower at about 189,000 results (0.23 seconds),[2] and almost all Google images would be Lycaon pictus if searched African wild dog.[3]

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=african+wild+dog&es_sm=93&biw=1024&bih=499&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=EperVIG3NsHboAT42ICgAg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAA&dpr=1
  2. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=lycaon+pictus&oq=lycaon&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.2640j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
  3. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=african+wild+dog&es_sm=93&biw=1024&bih=499&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=RZerVNz2NIHboASw9IBA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ

Editor abcdef (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Common name. --TKK! bark with me! 22:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • We gonna do this again? Wheee! It's fun to rehash the naming of articles... I would prefer not to use the scientific name; it is a very rare occurrance for us to use the scientific name as the title of an article about a mammal when there are available common names. The proffered article title "African wild dog" is ambiguous. Are we discussing feral canids of the continent closest to Latitude/Longitude 0.0/0.0? No, we're not. My preference is to use "African Wild Dog", and then also reverse the decision of WP:FAUNA and go back to title case for the common names of species.... but that train has left the station. So I'm left with no great choices. That said, common is better than scientific, when common exists and is, well, common. So I'll grit my teeth and pledge my support. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The ambiguity of "African wild dog" is irrelevant. It is both the common name of L. pictus and has the primary meaning of L. pictus. Srnec (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:UCN Red Slash 00:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, per WP:UCN. When someone says "Lycaon pictus", I have no idea what they're talking about, when someone says "African wild dog", I know exactly what they're talking about. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, Afircan Wild Dog is the more commonly known and understood name than "Lycaon pictus", plus I can't see any major risk of confusion arising from such a move. --Alza08 (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, it is the common name. Spumuq (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and per Srnec's analysis of both of the policy issue here. Do note the lower case: This is not a formal, standardized dog breed, it's a species, and we do not capitalize species common names, per MOS:LIFE, despite the usage Alza08 suggests. Dog fanciers have a habit of capitalizing any and every population of dogs with a name, but this is the WP:Specialist style fallacy at work.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
It would be moved to African wild dog, not African Wild Dog, only A is capitalized. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page cannot move

I tried to move this article to African wild dog, but failed, sentences in red: "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text." There is no article already named African wild dog, and the name is valid and is the most common one, so choosing another name is not preferred. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

By the blue link above, there is an article. The article happens to be a redirect to this article. You need to have higher permissions to make the move on top of the redirect. Since I participated in the above move decision, I prefer not to be the admin that performs the move. One will be along shortly. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, check the "the instructions link" in the requested move box at the top of the move request. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@Editor abcdef: as UtherSRG points out, the target African wild dog was a redirect, and had more than one edit in its history, hence requires an administrator to perform the move. As a side note, as the proposer of the requested move above, it is not appropriate for you to close the discussion or perform the move yourself. The WP:RM procedure requires that a non-involved editor view the discussion and make a call as to which way to close the discussion. Clearly it was fairly uncontentious above, but in some cases it would be a conflict of interest for the proposer to closer the move. In this case I have closed it, and am carrying out the technical request necessary to perform the move. THanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There is an over-use , and incorrect usage of the word extinct in this article.

When referring to a species that no longer exists in a region, the correct word would be extant. There is a big differance. Extant means that the species still exists, elsewhere, but no longer exists as a viable population in a region where it once existed. I ask that someone with a biology background, who could better explain than I can, fix the incorrect, non-encyclopedic and very excessive use of the word extinct. I counted 15 uses of the word extinct before I felt I had to chime in. Tothmetres (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the word that should be used is extirpated, alternately locally extinct could be used. Dger (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I am wrong about extant, it means the exact opposite of what I thought. I think that Dger's suggestion of extirpate might be best. Tothmetres (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Refs in the lead

I've moved references in the lead to other parts of the article (the lead should not have refs). Anyways, I found this strange ref. It was positioned right after "African hunting dog" and I assume that this is a ref for the name "African hunting dog", but is that really necessary?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Less commonly used vernacular names ought to have a reference, but there's no need to mention "African hunting dog" in the lead when the article has a section for other names where it can be referenced. The link for that reference seems to be broken though. Plantdrew (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:African wild dog/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Hi! the article on the African Wild Dog does not include its weight or height. Could you please include them?

Substituted at 05:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in African wild dog

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of African wild dog's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "lindblad2005":

  • From Jackal: Lindblad-Toh, K.; Wade, C. M.; Mikkelsen, T. S.; Karlsson, E. K.; Jaffe, D. B.; Kamal, M.; Clamp, M.; Chang, J. L.; Kulbokas, E. J.; Zody, M. C.; Mauceli, E.; Xie, X.; Breen, M.; Wayne, R. K.; Ostrander, E. A.; Ponting, C. P.; Galibert, F.; Smith, D. R.; Dejong, P. J.; Kirkness, E.; Alvarez, P.; Biagi, T.; Brockman, W.; Butler, J.; Chin, C. W.; Cook, A.; Cuff, J.; Daly, M. J.; Decaprio, D.; et al. (2005). "Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog". Nature. 438 (7069): 803–819. Bibcode:2005Natur.438..803L. doi:10.1038/nature04338. PMID 16341006.
  • From Golden jackal: Lindblad-Toh, K.; Wade, C. M.; Mikkelsen, T. S.; Karlsson, E. K.; Jaffe, D. B.; Kamal, M.; Clamp, M.; Chang, J. L.; Kulbokas, E. J.; Zody, M. C.; Mauceli, E.; Xie, X.; Breen, M.; Wayne, R. K.; Ostrander, E. A.; Ponting, C. P.; Galibert, F.; Smith, D. R.; Dejong, P.J.; Kirkness, E.; Alvarez, P.; Biagi, T.; Brockman, W.; Butler, J.; Chin, C.W.; Cook, A.; Cuff, J.; Daly, M.J.; Decaprio, D.; et al. (2005). "Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog". Nature. 438 (7069): 803–819. Bibcode:2005Natur.438..803L. doi:10.1038/nature04338. PMID 16341006.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Attacks

The attacks including the Pittsburgh Zoo incident are supposed to be on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4701:C4A0:A169:406A:6FEB:6145 (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Huh? William Harris • (talk) • 12:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Edits to African Wild Dog page

Relocated from my Talk page, as this is a matter for all editors who have an interest in this dog. William Harris • (talk) • 08:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

++++++

Hi there, I have an interest in the species and just noted that you reverted entries relating to the name 'painted wolves'. I would like you to re-instate them. The name has been around for some time - see this book from the nineties for example: Painted Wolves: Wild Dogs of the Serengeti, and is not only based on one organisation although the Painted Wolf Foundation are especially engaged in promoting the name. Other organisations such as Wildlife ACT, for example, also prefer using the name 'painted wolves'. The BBC's recent Dynasties series featured an entire episode where they refer to them by that name. This would have introduced the species to millions of people across the globe as painted wolves. The program also led to hundreds, if not thousands of articles, again using the term and introducing even more people to the species who would not have known any of the other names. There are plenty of others who use the terms including for example Painted Wolf Wines, a company which has been going since long before either Dynasties or PWF came on the scene. It may not be as common as some but painted wolves is in common usage and as such should be listed. And unlike cape hunting dog for example, it is a name for the entire species rather than what was considered a sub species.

Given all of those facts (and wide-spread usage), I hope you will be making the relevant adjustments to the page.

Thank you :) PsychedelicBubble (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention:
  • I did not revert an edit, I deleted that name from the lede of the article as it is not a widely used name. It still exists in the Naming section, as I stated in the edit.
  • Even with a book written on the topic which may mean that name meets WP:NOTABILITY, and used by a couple of organisations, it is still not a common name. Additionally, I am not convinced that a media channel and a wine company have any expertise in the accurate naming of canids.
  • Under WP:OTHERNAMES, "If there are three or more alternative names – including alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historic names, and significant names in other languages – or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended." In my view, all of these other names should now be moved under the Naming section. There is only one WP:COMMONAME for this canid.
William Harris • (talk) • 09:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Now actioned. William Harris • (talk) • 09:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Size

Hello @Ddum5347:, regarding the AWD, I think referring to it as the "largest canine species in Africa" is more accurate than the "largest canine in Africa". The Boerboel breed of dog is twice its size and more assertive - that is what it has been bred for. We do not want readers to think that no canine comes bigger in Africa than the AWD. Happy to discuss here. William Harris (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

You could just make it "the largest wild canine in Africa". This technicality is so random haha Ddum5347 (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, happy with that - you are better at playing with words than I. William Harris (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_wild_dog/Archive_1&oldid=1164788459"