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.

Habitat and introduced predators influence the occupancy of small threatened macropods in subtropical Australia

“…These forests also provide habitat for dingoes, wild dogs, and their hybrids and perhaps as a consequence the introduced red fox is relatively scarce (Catling & Burt, 1997). It must be noted that there is taxonomic instability and contention regarding the taxonomy of the dingo (see Smith et al, 2019;Jackson et al, 2019). It must be noted that there is taxonomic instability and contention regarding the taxonomy of the dingo (see Smith et al, 2019;Jackson et al, 2019).…”

“…Thus, predation by red foxes is thought to have a relatively minor impact on medium-sized mammals (Johnson & VanDerWal, 2009). It must be noted that there is taxonomic instability and contention regarding the taxonomy of the dingo (see Smith et al, 2019;Jackson et al, 2019). For the purpose of our study, we do not discriminate between dingoes/wild dogs and their hybrids.…”

Pets and pests: a review of the contrasting economics and fortunes of dingoes and domestic dogs in Australia, and a proposed new funding scheme for non-lethal dingo management

“…As the diversity in common and scientific names suggests, the taxonomic identity and status of the Australian dingo has been unsettled and controversial since its initial description in 1792 (Jackson et al 2017;Smith et al 2019), and the name(s) selected by authors can act as a reliable indicator of the subject matter (e.g. 'wild dogs' in reference to livestock management and 'dingoes' in reference to ecological roles and conservation) and even the employment and funding sources of authors (Kreplins et al 2018).…”

Opportunities to improve the future of South Australia’s terrestrial biodiversity

“…Many ecologists today promote the use of dingoes (Canis dingo) to alleviate predation on native fauna from introduced predators like cats and foxes. South Australia's official position on dingoes is that they are an agricultural pest; in fact, dingoes and dog-dingo hybrids are classified as 'wild dogs' inside (south of) the 5400-km Dog Fence (PIRSA 2018) under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (despite dingoes being recognised as a distinct species from other dogs; Smith et al 2019), but outside the Fence they are considered 'native' (but unprotected) under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (and therefore have some acknowledged ecological value there). Non-dingo dogs are considered 'declared pests' under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 and the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995.…”

“…Non-dingo dogs are considered 'declared pests' under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 and the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995. While controversial and currently at odds with the State's official stance, there is mounting evidence that allowing dingoes into the southern rangelands would benefit biodiversity (Glen et al 2007;Nimmo et al 2015;Ritchie et al 2012;Ritchie and Johnson 2009;Smith et al 2019), and in some cases possibly increase profit margins for cattle farmers (Prowse et al 2015). A more engaged discussion between Biosecurity South Australia, the pastoral sector, and environmental agencies regarding the pros and cons of dingoes for biodiversity enhancement, as well as the tractability of different management options for pastoralists, should therefore be encouraged.…”