Taxonomic status of the Australian dingo

The case for Canis dingo Meyer, 1793

Bradley P. Smith, Kylie M. Cairns, Justin W. Adams, Thomas M. Newsome, Melanie Fillios, Eloïse C. Déaux, William C.H. Parr, Mike Letnic, Lily M. van Eeden, Robert G. Appleby, Corey J.A. Bradshaw, Peter Savolainen, Euan G. Ritchie, Dale G. Nimmo, Clare Archer-Lean, Aaron C. Greenville, Christopher R. Dickman, Lyn Watson, Katherine E. Moseby, Tim S. Doherty & 3 others Arian D. Wallach, Damian S. Morrant, Mathew S. Crowther

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)173-197
Number of pages25
JournalZootaxa
Volume4564
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 5 Mar 2019

Keywords

  • Canid
  • Canidae
  • Dingo
  • Dog
  • Domestication
  • Hybridisation
  • Nomenclature
  • Species concept
  • Taxonomy

Cite this

Smith, B. P., Cairns, K. M., Adams, J. W., Newsome, T. M., Fillios, M., Déaux, E. C., ... Crowther, M. S. (2019). Taxonomic status of the Australian dingo: The case for Canis dingo Meyer, 1793. Zootaxa, 4564(1), 173-197. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4564.1.6
Smith, Bradley P. ; Cairns, Kylie M. ; Adams, Justin W. ; Newsome, Thomas M. ; Fillios, Melanie ; Déaux, Eloïse C. ; Parr, William C.H. ; Letnic, Mike ; van Eeden, Lily M. ; Appleby, Robert G. ; Bradshaw, Corey J.A. ; Savolainen, Peter ; Ritchie, Euan G. ; Nimmo, Dale G. ; Archer-Lean, Clare ; Greenville, Aaron C. ; Dickman, Christopher R. ; Watson, Lyn ; Moseby, Katherine E. ; Doherty, Tim S. ; Wallach, Arian D. ; Morrant, Damian S. ; Crowther, Mathew S. / Taxonomic status of the Australian dingo : The case for Canis dingo Meyer, 1793. In: Zootaxa. 2019 ; Vol. 4564, No. 1. pp. 173-197.
@article{1c0215dca06a43f5b47170af0851d1ea,
title = "Taxonomic status of the Australian dingo: The case for Canis dingo Meyer, 1793",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Canid, Canidae, Dingo, Dog, Domestication, Hybridisation, Nomenclature, Species concept, Taxonomy",
author = "Smith, {Bradley P.} and Cairns, {Kylie M.} and Adams, {Justin W.} and Newsome, {Thomas M.} and Melanie Fillios and D{\'e}aux, {Elo{\"i}se C.} and Parr, {William C.H.} and Mike Letnic and {van Eeden}, {Lily M.} and Appleby, {Robert G.} and Bradshaw, {Corey J.A.} and Peter Savolainen and Ritchie, {Euan G.} and Nimmo, {Dale G.} and Clare Archer-Lean and Greenville, {Aaron C.} and Dickman, {Christopher R.} and Lyn Watson and Moseby, {Katherine E.} and Doherty, {Tim S.} and Wallach, {Arian D.} and Morrant, {Damian S.} and Crowther, {Mathew S.}",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "5",
doi = "10.11646/zootaxa.4564.1.6",
language = "English",
volume = "4564",
pages = "173--197",
journal = "Zootaxa",
issn = "1175-5326",
publisher = "Magnolia Press",
number = "1",

}

Smith, BP, Cairns, KM, Adams, JW, Newsome, TM, Fillios, M, Déaux, EC, Parr, WCH, Letnic, M, van Eeden, LM, Appleby, RG, Bradshaw, CJA, Savolainen, P, Ritchie, EG, Nimmo, DG, Archer-Lean, C, Greenville, AC, Dickman, CR, Watson, L, Moseby, KE, Doherty, TS, Wallach, AD, Morrant, DS & Crowther, MS 2019, 'Taxonomic status of the Australian dingo: The case for Canis dingo Meyer, 1793', Zootaxa, vol. 4564, no. 1, pp. 173-197. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4564.1.6

Taxonomic status of the Australian dingo : The case for Canis dingo Meyer, 1793. / Smith, Bradley P.; Cairns, Kylie M.; Adams, Justin W.; Newsome, Thomas M.; Fillios, Melanie; Déaux, Eloïse C.; Parr, William C.H.; Letnic, Mike; van Eeden, Lily M.; Appleby, Robert G.; Bradshaw, Corey J.A.; Savolainen, Peter; Ritchie, Euan G.; Nimmo, Dale G.; Archer-Lean, Clare; Greenville, Aaron C.; Dickman, Christopher R.; Watson, Lyn; Moseby, Katherine E.; Doherty, Tim S.; Wallach, Arian D.; Morrant, Damian S.; Crowther, Mathew S.

In: Zootaxa, Vol. 4564, No. 1, 05.03.2019, p. 173-197.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Taxonomic status of the Australian dingo

T2 - The case for Canis dingo Meyer, 1793

AU - Smith, Bradley P.

AU - Cairns, Kylie M.

AU - Adams, Justin W.

AU - Newsome, Thomas M.

AU - Fillios, Melanie

AU - Déaux, Eloïse C.

AU - Parr, William C.H.

AU - Letnic, Mike

AU - van Eeden, Lily M.

AU - Appleby, Robert G.

AU - Bradshaw, Corey J.A.

AU - Savolainen, Peter

AU - Ritchie, Euan G.

AU - Nimmo, Dale G.

AU - Archer-Lean, Clare

AU - Greenville, Aaron C.

AU - Dickman, Christopher R.

AU - Watson, Lyn

AU - Moseby, Katherine E.

AU - Doherty, Tim S.

AU - Wallach, Arian D.

AU - Morrant, Damian S.

AU - Crowther, Mathew S.

PY - 2019/3/5

Y1 - 2019/3/5

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Canid

KW - Canidae

KW - Dingo

KW - Dog

KW - Domestication

KW - Hybridisation

KW - Nomenclature

KW - Species concept

KW - Taxonomy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062445940&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.11646/zootaxa.4564.1.6

DO - 10.11646/zootaxa.4564.1.6

M3 - Article

VL - 4564

SP - 173

EP - 197

JO - Zootaxa

JF - Zootaxa

SN - 1175-5326

IS - 1

ER -

Smith BP, Cairns KM, Adams JW, Newsome TM, Fillios M, Déaux EC et al. Taxonomic status of the Australian dingo: The case for Canis dingo Meyer, 1793. Zootaxa. 2019 Mar 5;4564(1):173-197. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4564.1.6