The Wayward Dog: Is the Australian native dog or Dingo a distinct species?

Abstract

The taxonomic identity and status of the Australian Dingo has been unsettled and controversial since its initial description in 1792. Since that time it has been referred to by various names including Canis dingo, Canis lupus dingo, Canis familiaris and Canis familiaris dingo. Of these names C. l. dingo and C. f. dingo have been most often used, but it has recently been proposed that the Australian Dingo should be once again recognized as a full species-Canis dingo. There is an urgent need to address the instability of the names referring to the Dingo because of the consequences for management and policy. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the morphological, genetic, ecological and biological data to determine the taxonomic relationships of the Dingo with the aim of confirming the correct scientific name. The recent proposal for Canis dingo as the most appropriate name is not sustainable under zoological nomenclature protocols nor based on the genetic and morphological evidence. Instead we proffer the name C. familiaris for all free-ranging dogs, regardless of breed and location throughout the world, including the Australian Dingo. The suggested nomenclature also provides a framework for managing free-ranging dogs including Dingoes, under Australian legislation and policy. The broad principles of nomenclature we discuss here apply to all free-roaming dogs that coexist with their hybrids, including the New Guinea Singing Dog.

Evolution of morphological integration in the skull of Carnivora (Mammalia): Changes in Canidae lead to increased evolutionary potential of facial traits

“…; Jackson et al. ). The fact that dingoes can be seen as possessing an extreme version of the morphological integration structure shared by other Canidae suggests that the domestication process of dogs was carried out taking advantage of these patterns of variation (Drake and Klingenberg ; Drake ; Geiger et al.…”

“…2). Dingoes are considered to be closely related to dogs, being a living representative of the ancient populations of C. familiaris (Crowther et al 2014;Freedman et al 2014;Dinets 2015;Wang et al 2016;Jackson et al 2017). The fact that dingoes can be seen as possessing an extreme version of the morphological integration structure shared by other Canidae suggests that the domestication process of dogs was carried out taking advantage of these patterns of variation (Drake and Klingenberg 2010;Drake 2011;Geiger et al 2017).…”

Functional responses of an apex predator and a mesopredator to an invading ungulate: Dingoes, red foxes and sambar deer in south‐east Australia

“…There is particular interest in understanding how invading non‐native deer interact with Australia's apex predator, the dingo ( Canis familiaris (Jackson et al . ), present for >4000 years; Savolainen et al . ), and also with a non‐native mesopredator, the red fox ( Vulpes vulpes , present for ~150 years; Saunders et al .…”

Peak hour in the bush: linear anthropogenic clearings funnel predator and prey species

“…The dingo ( Canis familiaris , a naturalized predator (Jackson et al . )) and red fox ( Vulpes vulpes , an introduced predator) often use linear features such as roads and tracks for movement, with both species following tracks for over 500 m (Mahon et al . ; Read & Eldridge ).…”