The Dogma of Dingoes-Taxonomic status of the dingo: A reply to Smith et al.

Adopting the name Canis dingo for the Dingo to explicitly denote a species-level taxon separate from other canids was suggested by Crowther et al.  (2014) as a means to eliminate taxonomic instability and contention. However, Jackson et al.  (2017), using standard taxonomic and nomenclatural approaches and principles, called instead for continued use of the nomen C. familiaris for all domestic dogs and their derivatives, including the Dingo. (This name, C. familiaris, is applied to all dogs that derive from the domesticated version of the Gray Wolf, Canis lupus, based on nomenclatural convention.) The primary reasons for this call by Jackson et al.  (2017) were: (1) a lack of evidence to show that recognizing multiple species amongst the dog, including the Dingo and New Guinea Singing Dog, was necessary taxonomically, and (2) the principle of nomenclatural priority (the name familiaris Linnaeus, 1758, antedates dingo Meyer, 1793). Overwhelming current evidence from archaeology and genomics indicates that the Dingo is of recent origin in Australia and shares immediate ancestry with other domestic dogs as evidenced by patterns of genetic and morphological variation. Accordingly, for Smith et al.  (2019) to recognise Canis dingo as a distinct species, the onus was on them to overturn current interpretations of available archaeological, genomic, and morphological datasets and instead show that Dingoes have a deeply divergent evolutionary history that distinguishes them from other named forms of Canis (including C. lupus and its domesticated version, C. familiaris). A recent paper by Koepfli et al.  (2015) demonstrates exactly how this can be done in a compelling way within the genus Canis-by demonstrating deep evolutionary divergence between taxa, on the order of hundreds of thousands of years, using data from multiple genetic systems. Smith et al.  (2019) have not done this; instead they have misrepresented the content and conclusions of Jackson et al.  (2017), and contributed extraneous arguments that are not relevant to taxonomic decisions. Here we dissect Smith et al.  (2019), identifying misrepresentations, to show that ecological, behavioural and morphological evidence is insufficient to recognise Dingoes as a separate species from other domestic dogs. We reiterate: the correct binomial name for the taxon derived from Gray Wolves (C. lupus) by passive and active domestication, including Dingoes and other domestic dogs, is Canis familiaris. We are strongly sympathetic to arguments about the historical, ecological, cultural, or other significance of the Dingo, but these are issues that will have to be considered outside of the more narrow scope of taxonomy and nomenclature.

Lighting the Ivory Track: Are Near-Infrared and Chemometrics Up to the Job? A Proof of Concept.

A rapid tool to discriminate rhino horn and ivory samples from different mammalian species based on the combination of near-infrared reflection (NIR) spectroscopy and chemometrics was evaluated. In this study, samples from the Australian Museum mammalogy collection were scanned between 950 nm and 1650 nm using a handheld spectrophotometer and analyzed using principal component analysis (PCA) and partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA). An overall correct classification rate of 73.5% was obtained for the classification of all samples. This study demonstrates the potential of NIR spectroscopy coupled with chemometrics as a means of a rapid, nondestructive classification technique of horn and ivory samples sourced from a museum. Near-infrared spectroscopy can be used as an alternative or complementary method in the detection of horn and ivory assisting in the combat of illegal trade and aiding the preservation of at-risk species.

Taxonomic status of Podabrus albocaudatus Krefft, 1872 and declaration of Sminthopsis granulipes Troughton, 1932 (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae) as a protected name for the White-tailed Dunnart from Western Australia.

The name Sminthopsis granulipes Troughton, 1932 has universally and uncontroversially been used for the White-tailed Dunnart since its description in 1932. We regard the forgotten name Podabrus albocaudatus Krefft, 1872 to be an available name and demonstrate that it is a disused, neglected senior synonym of S. granulipes. The holotype of granulipes Troughton is also likely to be the holotype of Krefft's albocaudatus and therefore an objective synonym. Consequently, Sminthopsis granulipes Troughton, 1932 is declared a nomen protectum and Podabrus albocaudatus Krefft, 1872 a nomen oblitum, as required by Article 23.9.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. This action in no way alters current use of Sminthopsis granulipes for the White-tailed Dunnart but is required to ensure continued nomenclatural stability.