Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Assunto principal
Intervalo de ano de publicação
Zootaxa ; 4564(1): zootaxa.4564.1.6, 2019 Mar 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31716519


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.

Canidae , Lobos , Animais , Austrália , Cães , Filogenia
Ecol Evol ; 7(21): 8927-8935, 2017 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29152188


In Australia, dingoes (Canis lupus dingo) have been implicated in the decline and extinction of a number of vertebrate species. The lowland Wet Tropics of Queensland, Australia is a biologically rich area with many species of rainforest-restricted vertebrates that could be threatened by dingoes; however, the ecological impacts of dingoes in this region are poorly understood. We determined the potential threat posed by dingoes to native vertebrates in the lowland Wet Tropics using dingo scat/stomach content and stable isotope analyses of hair from dingoes and potential prey species. Common mammals dominated dingo diets. We found no evidence of predation on threatened taxa or rainforest specialists within our study areas. The most significant prey species were northern brown bandicoots (Isoodon macrourus), canefield rats (Rattus sordidus), and agile wallabies (Macropus agilis). All are common species associated with relatively open grass/woodland habitats. Stable isotope analysis suggested that prey species sourced their nutrients primarily from open habitats and that prey choice, as identified by scat/stomach analysis alone, was a poor indicator of primary foraging habitats. In general, we find that prey use by dingoes in the lowland Wet Tropics does not pose a major threat to native and/or threatened fauna, including rainforest specialists. In fact, our results suggest that dingo predation on "pest" species may represent an important ecological service that outweighs potential biodiversity threats. A more targeted approach to managing wild canids is needed if the ecosystem services they provide in these contested landscapes are to be maintained, while simultaneously avoiding negative conservation or economic impacts.