Taxonomic status and conservation strategy of the endangered red wolf: a response to Kyle et al. (2006)

Abstract

Kyle et al. (2006) evaluated hypotheses related to the origin and taxonomic status of eastern wolves (Canis lycaon) and suggested that C. lycaon is conspecific with C. rufus. They maintain that the C. lycaon/C. rufus taxon likely was endemic to North America even prior to colonization by C. lupus. We consider that the putative origin of C. lycaon proposed by Kyle et al. (2006) is plausible, as is their suggestion that C. lycaon and C. rufus are closely related and possibly conspecific. However, their conclusions regarding ongoing C. rufus restoration efforts in the U.S. are problematic from the perspective of conservation and management for this endangered species. Kyle et al. (2006) imply that management efforts reducing hybridization between C. rufus and C. latrans for the experimental endangered C. rufus population in eastern North Carolina (see Stoskopf et al. 2005) are ‘‘likely not practical, or desirable’’. Their argument centers on the premise that C. rufus does not deserve special conservation attention because C. lycaon subsumes C. rufus and populations of the former taxon are not imperilled over much of their range in eastern Canada. However, uncertainty over taxonomic status of C. lycaon and C. rufus is substantive and ongoing, with other researchers suggesting that: i) C. rufus is a hybrid between C. lupus and C. latrans (Wayne and Jenks 1991; Roy et al. 1996), ii) C. lycaon is a C. rufus–C. lupus hybrid (Nowak 2002), iii) C. lycaon is subspecific to C. lupus whereas C. rufus is a distinct species (Nowak 2003), iv) C. rufus is a distinct species but not taking a position on the status of C. lycaon (Sillero-Zubiri et al. 2004), and v) C. lycaon and C. rufus are subspecies of C. lupus (Wilson and Reeder 2005). Kyle et al. (2006) propose to merge C. lycaon and C. rufus based on phylogenetic analysis derived from an mtDNA control region fragment and nDNA microsatellites from samples of C. latrans, C. lycaon, and C. rufus (see Wilson et al. 2000). However, there are small differences in published mtDNA control region sequences of these two taxa. More importantly, a different conclusion on taxonomy might be reached if other species concepts are used that include adaptive differences in morphology, behavior, or ecological function (e.g., cohesion species concept, see Templeton 1989). Given the importance of maintaining genetic and ecological integrity in any recovering population, it is premature to assume that the C. rufus gene pool need not be preserved as distinct, at least until genetic comparisons with C. lycaon go beyond neutral markers and include loci important for fitness and under selection. Even if C. lycaon and C. rufus ultimately are classified as conspecific, Canadian populations of C. lycaon should not have direct conservation bearing on legal protection of the U.S. population of C. rufus. By comparison, gray wolves, Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), and grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) receive protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) despite occurrence of viable populations throughout Canada and Alaska (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). Because the red wolf recovery area in North Carolina is > 1000 km from Canadian populations D. L. Murray (&) Department of Biology, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada K9J 7B8 e-mail: dennismurray@trentu.ca