Black wolves are not pure wolf!

[Special T]

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/biologists-solve-mystery-about-80301?fbclid=IwAR1NrCGw4lEF51bDruSOq0pP00YIVfKjRxBqdmDWHM-xcmYouHh0dCz3r-w

Why do nearly half of North American wolves have black coats while European wolves are overwhelmingly gray or white? The surprising answer, according to teams of biologists and molecular geneticists from Stanford University, UCLA, Sweden, Canada and Italy, is that the black coats are the result of historical matings between black dogs and wild gray wolves.
 
The research, federally funded by the National Science Foundation, appears Feb. 5 in the online edition of the journal Science and will be published later in the journal's print edition.
 
The scientists used molecular genetic techniques to analyze DNA sequences from 150 wolves, about half of them black, in Yellowstone National Park, which covers parts of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. They found that a novel mutated variant of a gene in dogs, known as the K locus, is responsible for black coat color and was transferred to wolves through mating.
 
The biologists are unsure of when the black coat color was transferred from dogs to wolves, but they believe it was not a recent occurrence; the black coat could not have spread as widely as it has throughout North America in just a few hundred years, they say. They suspect the transfer took place sometime before the arrival of Europeans to North America and involved dogs that were here with Native Americans.

[nwwanderer]

Genetics of color in most critters is very fickle, identical twin calves will not be the same.  The DNA folks should be able to give us a reliable date as more data accumulates. Following along

[Special T]

This is an older article, that more than likely was posted on here years ago. Enough time has passed that i wonder what other relatable issues can be tied to this study.   Perhaps with  different leadership from the Feds  Scientific studies like this one may Spur some management

[jackelope]

Like lots of wolf topics, there always seems to be mixed information.

Another article on the same topic says this happened 10's of thousands of years ago.

https://www.thoughtco.com/mystery-of-north-americas-black-wolves-129716

To better understand the genetic underpinnings of black wolves, a team of scientists from Stanford University, UCLA, Sweden, Canada and Italy recently assembled under the leadership of Stanford's Dr. Gregory Barsh; this group analyzed the DNA sequences of 150 wolves (about half of which were black) from Yellowstone National Park. They wound up piecing together a surprising genetic story, stretching back tens of thousands of years to a time when early humans were breeding domestic canines in favor of darker varieties.
 

 

It turns out that the presence of black individuals in Yellowstone's wolf packs is the result of deep historical mating between black domestic dogs and gray wolves. In the distant past, humans bred dogs in favor of darker, melanistic individuals, thus increasing the abundance of melanism in domestic dog populations. When domestic dogs interbred with wild wolves, they helped to bolster melanism in wolf populations as well.

[greenhead_killer]

So, does that mean we can shoot on sight since they are not 100% wolf?!? It’s scientifically proven they’ve been mating with domestic dogs, the fng doesn’t want interbreeding

[HighlandLofts]

It isnt going to make much difference in our short lifetime. One black wolf is 10,000 to many.

[Boss .300 winmag]

So, does that mean we can shoot on sight since they are not 100% wolf?!? It’s scientifically proven they’ve been mating with domestic dogs, the fng doesn’t want interbreeding

Hopefully they all go black. When if ever we get to hunt them, they’ll be easier to see.😉

[Special T]

That may be the case. I found this article interesting because it is a UCLA study written about and posted on the university web site. I know lots of folks get concerned about motivations. I believe this study occurred not to try and hunt wolves but to try and figure out when man, started selectively breeding wolves. Genetics seem to be a huge part of what the ESA relies on for protection... So if it isn't genetically a wolf and that is what it relies on where does that leave us?

I chased down this article because i thought the guy shot a black wolf, and it was in 2014... don't think he used the genetics as a defense just copped a plea deal. It would seem to me he missed an opportunity to set up precedence challenging the fact that it is a wolf... Wolf hybrids can be owned even if they are 99% wolf.

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2015/sep/15/palouse-farmer-who-killed-wolf-offered-100-deal-whitman-county-prosecutor/

makes me realize that some of this old information is still useful because it could be used to set precedent.

[jackelope]

That may be the case. I found this article interesting because it is a UCLA study written about and posted on the university web site. I know lots of folks get concerned about motivations. I believe this study occurred not to try and hunt wolves but to try and figure out when man, started selectively breeding wolves. Genetics seem to be a huge part of what the ESA relies on for protection... So if it isn't genetically a wolf and that is what it relies on where does that leave us?

I chased down this article because i thought the guy shot a black wolf, and it was in 2014... don't think he used the genetics as a defense just copped a plea deal. It would seem to me he missed an opportunity to set up precedence challenging the fact that it is a wolf... Wolf hybrids can be owned even if they are 99% wolf.

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2015/sep/15/palouse-farmer-who-killed-wolf-offered-100-deal-whitman-county-prosecutor/

makes me realize that some of this old information is still useful because it could be used to set precedent.

How far back do we have to go to say something isn't genetically something to create precedence? Scientists believe this happened 10k years ago ish. Not 200 years ago.


This too....

Unraveling the deep genetic past of any animal is a tricky business. Molecular analysis provides scientists with a way to estimate when genetic shifts could have occurred in the past, but it's usually impossible to attach a firm date to such events. Based on genetic analysis, Dr Barsh's team estimated that the melanism mutation in canids arose sometime between 13,000 and 120,00 years ago (with the most likely date being about 47,000 years ago). Since dogs were domesticated around 40,000 years ago, this evidence fails to confirm whether the melanism mutation arose first in wolves or in domestic dogs.

[/b]

[Widgeondeke]

well....in the rabbit world you only need to go back 4 to 5 generations to have a "full" pedigree 

[jackelope]

I'm far from any kind of scientist, but we tinker with genetics and colors a little with my kids animal projects so this kind of stuff is interesting to me. They say a rabbit could potentially throw colors from their background for at least 16 generations. (My kid raises rabbits)
 

[jackelope]

well....in the rabbit world you only need to go back 4 to 5 generations to have a "full" pedigree 

But we both know that doesn't mean squat. It's 4 generations.

[Special T]

I'm not sure how far back... but we've had this discussion before. I didn't choose the legal definitions  but I would love to see a legal challenge on the subject.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Alchase]

well....in the rabbit world you only need to go back 4 to 5 generations to have a "full" pedigree 

With how often rabbits breed, wouldn’t that be like last week?

LOL

[Mudman]

IF there is a domestic dog breed we could release in wild to breed/socialize dominate in a wolf pack then problem solved.  We could shoot em right??  What breed would that be?  Anotolin shepards maybe?