Talk:Wolf

Featured articleWolf is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 31, 2005, and on June 7, 2020.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 22, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 29, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
September 19, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
November 10, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
April 1, 2012Good article nomineeListed
January 12, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
March 30, 2020Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Keystone species?

Just thought I'd post this quote from L. David Mech in response to the 27 July addition to the article:
In the recent past, wolves were labeled a flagship species or an umbrella, indicator, or keystone species, depending on what conservation market one was trying to penetrate... A flagship species is an attraction to nearly all society's strata, but wolves are not welcomed by all factions of society. With a few rare exceptions, the rural world opposes wolves, so the animal's flagship role is restricted primarily to urbanites or to local areas. Wolves are certainly a powerful flagship species for the conservation movement, particularly that of affluent societies with strong lobbies in large cities, but a true flagship species should be able to move an entire society toward a goal.
Neither are wolves a good umbrella species (i.e., a species, usually high in the ecological pyramid, whose conservation necessarily fosters that of the rest of the chain) in that they can live well on a variety of food resources and in areas with an impoverished prey base. Wolves are not a keystone species either, in that they are not essential for the presence of many other species (e.g., herbivores flourish in areas devoid of wolves). And wolves are not necessarily indicators of good habitat quality or integrity because they are too generalist to be good indicators of the presence of a pristine trophic chain.

Mech, L. D., and Boitani, L. (Editors). 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. University of Chicago Press. pp. 341-344. ISBN 0-226-51696-2
I guess this hinges on what definition of keystone species is being used in the sources provided in the addition.
Mariomassone (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Would someone add "Wolfram" to the Germanic names list?

I can't edit, someone who can, please add the old German name Wolfram = "Wolf-Raven" to the list. Thanks! 92.217.184.213 (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why didn't we use the paraphyletic group template for canis lupus and why didn't we put canis familiaris under "Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa"?

Canis lupus is a paraphyletic group, and canis familiaris is cladistically included in canis lupus as canis lupus familiaris but traditionally excluded from canis lupus Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Grey Wolves mentioned

At the start of the article it mentions canis lupis also known as the grey wolf, this could spread disinformation as they are many sub-species of wolves and despite the grey wolves being the dominant species it cannot be just assumed to be "also known as" ~2026-22795-28 (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Grey wolf = Canis lupus. There is no issue here. Mariomassone (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Also, the hatnote directing readers to wolf (disambiguation) handles what you are asking for. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Cladogram

The text below the cladogram needs to state that this cladogram was "based on 20 nuclear genes". That the wolf and coyote split 1.1 million years ago is laughable based on recent whole genome sequencing, but I note that the reference cited (Koepfli, 2015) is over a decade old. ~2026-42230-19 (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

further

Under Evolution, the article states that "The divergence time for wolves in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia is estimated to be fairly recent at around 1,600 years ago." The Fan 2016 reference said no such thing.

Fan said "The divergence of New and Old World wolves is the oldest of these events at 12,500 ya, followed by divergence of Eastern and Western Eurasian wolves at 11,700 ya. The divergence times between sequences from Europe, the Middle East, and Asia fall within a relatively short period of time of ∼1600 yr." The divergences occurred within a period of 1,600 years, and not 1,600 years ago. ~2026-42230-19 (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.