Overcast wrote:Despite your lack of sources on that last point (its fine), I understand what you mean now by Himalayan wolves not being a member of the gray wolf speices, which is not endangered.
Yet with that in mind, is the Himalayan Wolf even a wolf then? What makes species like the Eithopian wolf and the Himalayan wolf wolf species at all, since they are not within canis lupus? I can't seem to make the connection. What makes the Himalayan wolf more 'wolf' then the red wolf or even the Ethiopian wolf? They are all the same genus, and all not in the species canis lupus.
Short on time, just look up wild population numbers and I guarantee you wolves will be alot more numerous then you thought.
And I am glad you asked. The reason is actually a very s't'u'p'i'd' one. We as humans tend to name ANY and ALL canines that are large 'Wolf'. A prime example is the quintessential 'Dire Wolf' (Canis dirus). Despite being of closer relation to the coyote (both evolved in the New World, Gray Wolves came from the Old World), we still call it the Dire WOLF.
So the reason is based more on species size rather then genetics. Taxonomic phenotypes tend to over-ride genotypes in picking a common name. Another prime example is elephants.
The African Elephant (Loxodonta africana) and the Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus) don't even belong to the same genus, and the Asian Elephant is actually more closely related to mammoths. Yet we still today still call them both elephants