this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
975 points (97.5% liked)

Humor

7427 readers
46 users here now

"Laugh-a-Palooza: Unleash Your Inner Chuckle!"

Rules


Read Full Rules Here!


Rule 1: Keep it light-hearted. This community is dedicated to humor and laughter, so let’s keep the tone light and positive.


Rule 2: Respectful Engagement. Keep it civil!


Rule 3: No spamming!


Rule 4: No explicit or NSFW content.


Rule 5: Stay on topic. Keep your posts relevant to humor-related topics.


Rule 6: Moderators Discretion. The moderators retain the right to remove any content, ban users/bots if deemed necessary.


Please report any violation of rules!


Warning: Strict compliance with all the rules is imperative. Failure to read and adhere to them will not be tolerated. Violations may result in immediate removal of your content and a permanent ban from the community.


We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nath@aussie.zone 65 points 10 months ago (5 children)

This is actually something being debated in Australia. Until a few years ago, Dingoes were considered the same species as the regular dog Canis familiaris. Recent DNA studies have shown them to be distinct, however. So now there's Canis dingo. Only, Dingoes can interbreed with the regular dog, which normally is the test for them being the same species. Maybe that makes them a subspecies?

So, yeah - even we don't know what they are. If they were raised by humans, they are happy friendly doggos. If in the wild, then they're dingoes.

[–] luves2spooge@lemmy.world 29 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

It depends if their progeny can reproduce. A male donkey and a female horse can make a mule but mules are sterile.

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Not that simple. Brown bears and polar bears produce fertile offspring, as do bison and cattle, and the false killer whale with a bottlenose dolphin. (Far from an exhaustive list)

It's generally a useful definition but it isn't a "rule".

[–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Blue heelers are half dingo I believe.

[–] Sorcaeden@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

They are not, it's just some breed representation thing, and they certainly look more dingoey than a Jack Russel, but at least in the United States, it's likely to be trace amounts. Source, I own two, but admittedly neither have had any sort of genetic test so I guess my hearsay is as good as yours....I should find out, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they had up to a quarter dingo somehow.

[–] NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They actually are a dingo cross breed. The Blue Heeler and The Red Australian Cattle Dog are both mixed with dingo. English breeds were not able to handle Australia and were bred with captured dingos for toughness.

There seems to be some confusion with how a hybrid could breed in this chain.

Cell Division is what causes problems for Hybrid animals reproducing.

If the cell begins dividing and the chromosomes within can not find like pairs the cell stops dividing and will not become an animal.

Dogs and Dingos are close enough that even though not all chromosomes are paired correctly, they can still create a viable animal.

Dingos are wild dogs, they're descendants of Dogs brought to Australia about 4,000 years ago.

[–] Sorcaeden@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

No disagreement on viability of the offspring and their subsequent ability to mate further down, only a disagreement about percentage between single digit up to "half" in the current breed (as it exists in the USA). I believe it's notably diluted from the original cross for reasons I stated in my other reply, but I'm curious about my red since she's considerably more dingo-esque than my blue.

Anecdotal evidence is the best evidence, right?

[–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No I just mean in general, the Australian cattle dog was originally created by crossing herding breeds (mostly speckled collies) with the native dingo. The collies couldn't handle the heat so they introduced a breed that was capable of doing so.

If you do a genetics test it'll just show them as being "Australian cattle dog" cause that's what the genetic markers are identified as now.

[–] Sorcaeden@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Right, but they're no longer half dingo after the multitude of generations has passed in whichever pedigree, because for whichever innate temperament traits you might desire, along with the inability to selectively breed for physical ones with a wild dog, you wouldn't take a second generation heeler and cross a dingo back in just to keep the percentage up. I don't honestly know the whole history but it's conceivable that enough of the original breed starters contained sufficient "dingo" to keep the content up.

I thought I had read that one of the various tests...wisdom panel maybe...was providing results indicating wild crosses, including dingo. My thinking was that any significant percentage would show, but time will tell, since we have whichever brand that was, and just need to collect and run the sample.

[–] WhiteOakBayou@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Canis Lupus and Canis Latrans also can and do breed with Canis Familiaris. The ability to interbreed is one test for being the same species but not the only test. Libraries worth of books are out there on the subject and there are lively debate as to where animals fit in the taxonomy.

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Canis familiaris is a subspecies of C. lupus as of 2005. There is a push to distinguish it as a distinct species but that is not the current consensus.

"Testing" for speciation is pretty silly, tbh, because it's an arbitrary distinction no matter what. Our placement of rigid definitions onto the constant gradual process of evolution is always going to have edge cases and outliers. So we give things useful labels and move on until we have better tools (DNA analysis has been great) or have need of better definitions.

Does dogs being wolves do anything for the general public? No, but that's what common names are for. Does the distinction of Canis lupus familiaris help scientists right now? Probably. If not there'd be a stronger push to change it.

[–] WhiteOakBayou@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

This is the good stuff.

[–] Woht24@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I didn't know 1957 was only a few years ago

[–] chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 10 months ago

In the scale of human lives, no. In the scale of human history, yeah. In the scale of planetary or universal history... it was a few seconds ago.

[–] Razzazzika@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So Australia just had evil stray dogs that adapted to the extreme Australian environment like every other evil thing in Australia, meanwhile in Russia you got stray dogs riding public transportation and learning to scavenge and beg. It's all the environment.

[–] Woht24@lemmy.world -4 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Harsh, but true.

[–] Karlos_Cantana@sopuli.xyz 2 points 10 months ago

Wolves are also nice doggos when raised by humans.