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.
Highlights
The dingo (Order Carnivora: Family Canidae: Genus Canis) occurs over much of mainland Australia but is absent from the island of Tasmania
Others have called for the dingo to be considered alongside dogs as C. familiaris, and not warranting designation as a subspecies (Jackson & Groves 2015; Allen et al 2017; Jackson et al 2017; see general reviews of the genus Canis such as van Gelder 1978 and Dinets 2015)
Scientific agreement can be difficult, a concerted effort is needed to apply an approach for the dingo that is consistent at least with the taxonomic and nomenclatural approach applied to other canids
Summary
The dingo (Order Carnivora: Family Canidae: Genus Canis) occurs over much of mainland Australia but is absent from the island of Tasmania. Genetic studies show that the Australian dingo fits within the phylogeny of Canis and is most closely related to dogs in the southern part of East Asia (Savolainen et al 2004; vonHoldt et al 2010; Oskarsson et al 2011; Ardalan et al 2012; Sacks et al 2013; Wang et al 2016; Cairns & Wilton 2016) This is in agreement with morphological analyses based on measurements taken of dingo, wolf, and dog skulls (Gollan 1982). For this reason, Crowther et al (2014, p.10) argued that “... because the ancestry of the dogs and dingoes is unknown, and because the dingo was first described as a distinctive wild form and differs from wolves, New Guinea singing dogs and domestic dogs in many behavioural, morphological and molecular characteristics, and they are effectively reproductively isolated in undisturbed natural environments and like C. hallstromi can be considered a distinct taxon.” We agree, and reiterate the point that in regard to domesticates not being considered subspecies, this only matters in cases concerning domesticates, which we demonstrate does not apply to dingoes
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
