Just came across this excellent article, it's a real good read.
http://theconversation.com/yes-easte...facebookbutton
Printable View
Just came across this excellent article, it's a real good read.
http://theconversation.com/yes-easte...facebookbutton
This does contradict all the other studies that have been done by other "experts " in this field over the last few years.Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty55
Who or which one of these studies are we to believe???
Finally some reality. This is what I have been trying to tell the southern guys for years, wolves eat coyotes. We have both in our are and the only time the packs are close together is when the wolves decide to make a meal out of a pack of yotes.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
Explain how wolf DNA shows up in Eastern coyote populations, as does dog DNA. All articles point to coyote/wolf hybridization at some point.Quote:
Originally Posted by oaknut
Are they a new species ? I don’t buy into that. Kinda like the crap we hear about the Algonquian wolf being a sub-species that needs protection !!! DNA studies have shown them to be just a coyote/wolf hybrid.....
The article explains that, to what I believe to be true at least, and I could be wrong. I base my thoughts off of what is see out there. At one point the wolves were so scarce they bred with whatever was around (ugly chick theory) be it a dog, coyote or whatever would hold still long enough, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
The DNA testing the government paid millions for on the Algonquin wolf showed strong counts of domesticated dog DNA.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
Nice read thanks for posting
I'm a bit puzzled by the headline "Coywolf - no such thing" and then the following text:
"Coyotes in the Northeast are mostly (60%-84%) coyote, with lesser amounts of wolf (8%-25%) and dog (8%-11%). Start moving south or east and this mixture slowly changes. Virginia animals average more dog than wolf (85%:2%:13% coyote:wolf:dog) while coyotes from the Deep South had just a dash of wolf and dog genes mixed in (91%:4%:5% coyote:wolf:dog). Tests show that there are no animals that are just coyote and wolf (that is, a coywolf), and some eastern coyotes that have almost no wolf at all. "
That would seem to indicate that there was something.
Previous research from Maine indicated coyotes there were 30% wolf.
If you go back to the 1920's, there were not coyotes in Ontario, and up until 1959, no wolves outside of Algonquin park.
So I'd guess the mixing took place post 1959. I don't see how you can have the mixed genetics but not call them Coy-wolves.
The article also states "[COLOR=#383838]All eastern coyotes show some evidence of past hybridization, but there is no sign that they are still actively mating with dogs or wolves.not
The coyote, wolf and dog are three separate species that would very much prefer[COLOR=#383838] to breed with each other.
However, biologically speaking, they are similar enough that interbreeding is possible. "
But there is no evidence that they are *not* either. Up here in Renfrew county the coyotes are big and the wolves are small - it's just shades of grey betweeen the two, and to think they wouldn't interbreed is a bit strange, given we have DNA evidence of it occuring in the past.
Given the mixed DNA providing evidence that interbreeding has occurred in the past, the author's assertion that this does not occur is just a bit far out there.
My take, just another researcher look for something else that needs more study and more grant money.
The one best way to figure that out is to follow the funding for the "studies". Finding out who paid for them and what the results of each particular "study" was can be very telling when compared to each set of "theories" each one advanced. Follow the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
BINGO !!!Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
The only thing I got from this article is that the title is confusing and the author goes on to contradict himself.
I think it's clear that most people/biologists agree that coyotes and wolves have become "hybrid" over X-amount of years with some introduction of domestic dog tossed in.
It appears that the only thing interesting about this article is that the author just doesn't like the name attached to the species.
Does it really matter?